HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-05-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

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

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 1 April 2021.)

Clause 12.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, will the new description of persons who are parties to an application for an order, or the variation, extension or revocation of such an order under section 53 contemplate siblings over 18 years who live with the child or children?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: No, it does not actually include siblings. The changes to parties relate only to long-term specified person guardianship orders. An adult sibling would only be a party if they have the long-term guardianship of their sibling.

Ms HILDYARD: In that case, how will the inclusion, or actually exclusion, of a sibling in an order interact with the definition at section 51(1)(a), that is, ‘each person under whose guardianship the child or young person is to be placed'?

The CHAIR: You might repeat the question, please, member for Reynell.

Ms HILDYARD: I was going to ask: how will the inclusion of a sibling in an order interact with the definition at section 51(1)(a), that is, ‘each person under whose guardianship the child or young person is to be placed'? However, given your previous answer, my question is: how will the exclusion of a sibling in an order interact with that definition? Does that make sense?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: There is no change to what is included. Currently, if a child is subject to an order they are included, and if they were not subject to the order then they are not included. It is the same as it currently is.

Ms HILDYARD: To whom do you envisage the provision at section 51(2) will apply, that is, the provision that relates to an order made under section 53 potentially binding a person who is not party to the proceedings? What other person, other than a parent or guardian, could possibly be bound?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: An example of where section 51(2) is commonly used is where the court is contemplating making an order for an assessment of a partner's partner who is not a party to the proceedings. In these circumstances, the court will often allow that person to make representations.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Could the minister please explain the impact on section 53(1)(h) of the insertion of section 51(1)(b)?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: There is no impact on the court's ability to make long-term specified persons orders under section 53(1)(h). This amendment is to better support long-term specified person carers where an application is made to vary or revoke the order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Minister, are all parents or guardians of a child or young person automatically parties to the application for an order under section 53?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The amendments do not alter the role of parents in applications for orders under section 53.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Can I ask a supplementary on that?

The CHAIR: We do not really have supplementaries here.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: May I ask for clarification? I did not ask whether or not the role had changed. The question I asked was are they automatically parties to an application under section 53?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Yes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Parents or guardians?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Yes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you. Minister, can you explain any changes in the extent of powers conferred on the chief executive through this amendment?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: All it does is now allow the CE to be a party to the applications.

Clause passed.

Clause 13.

The Hon. R. Sanderson interjecting:

The CHAIR: No, minister, the opposition has the opportunity to ask questions should they wish.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, can you please explain the rationale behind the nomination of an eight-week period specifically as opposed to a seven, nine or ten, etc.? What was the rationale behind the eight-week period?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Under the previous legislation, the initial investigation and assessment order was for a period of six weeks and there was the ability to seek an extension. It was called a 42-day order under the Children's Protection Act. That was removed from this act.

The rationale for bringing that back in and introducing that as an eight-week order in the bill is that there were frequent applications for extensions of the investigation period under the Children's Protection Act, so that is pre 2018. By extending the initial order length by two weeks, it is envisaged that there will be far fewer applications to extend the order.

Ms HILDYARD: Were there any submissions that raised issues or questions about the need for a different period of time?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The majority supported it. However, there was one stakeholder that did not really understand the implications or implications of it, and that was the Child Development Council, but there was a majority of support for this clause. It is more efficient for the courts and it is more efficient running.

Ms HILDYARD: Specifically, what is the procedure should the investigation take longer than the eight-week period?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: They ask for an extension. This was to fix the issue. There was originally a 42-day order, which is six weeks, and that was often extended and extended. That was removed in the 2018 act, thinking that that might speed it up because they could apply for the exact amount of time they wanted, and that did not work. We are bringing it back in with eight weeks so that there is less likelihood of the need for an extension. At the end of that period, if they are satisfied that it is appropriate to do so, the CE may make an application for a different type of order under section 53.

Ms HILDYARD: I have a clarifying question. Clearly, the new clause states that it is a period not exceeding eight weeks, and if I understand your answer correctly you have said that they can apply for an extension. Under what circumstances would you envisage that that extension would be allowed, given the clause quite clearly says the clause is about limiting the period to eight weeks? Under what circumstances would you envisage that an extension may be granted and how many extensions could somebody possibly apply for?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: In the instance of the assessment not being completed, that would be a reason. You need to put forward obviously a compelling case to the court, so you need to be able to complete your assessment. It is envisaged that there would only be one extension of four weeks to take that to 12 weeks.

Ms HILDYARD: Sorry, Mr Chair, this is a clarifying question.

The CHAIR: I understand that and I will allow this one, but we should bear in mind we do have standing orders that we need to abide by. I will allow this one.

Ms HILDYARD: Should the process not be completed within the period of the first extension, what happens then?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: If that were to occur, at the end of the 12-week period the CE may, if they are satisfied that it is appropriate to do so, make an application for a different type of order under section 53, but the court would still have to be satisfied.

Clause passed.

Clause 14.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, can you explain the rationale for only one order being able to be made under section 53(1)(ba) in a six-month period and whether there are any circumstances in which you envisage that more than one order could be made in a six-month period?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: This ensures that investigations are carried out in a timely manner, and that the CE does not bring multiple applications of the same nature. It promotes timely decision-making, which is in the best interests of the child. We would not envisage that there would be any other further orders within that six-month time period.

Ms HILDYARD: Can the minister explain exactly what additional powers are conferred on the chief executive under new section 53A(4) and what the feedback was from stakeholders on the conferral of this additional power?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It is just the four-week extension; that is all.

Ms HILDYARD: Is the ability to appeal an order consistent with current legislation; if not, why not?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: These assessment and investigation orders are really short term to make an assessment as to whether a child is safe with their family or what needs to be done. It is just a short-term order. There is no appeal process because it is a short-term process in order to investigate and assess.

Ms HILDYARD: Sorry, I actually said something wrong there.

The CHAIR: Clarification?

Ms HILDYARD: I am sorry, Chair. I meant to ask whether the inability to appeal an order is consistent with current legislation.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It was consistent with this when it was in the child protection act previously. It was removed, and we are putting it back in. It is consistent with how it used to be when it was in the child protection act.

Clause passed.

Clause 15.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, could you outline exactly what participation means in this context? For instance, does it mean they have to physically be there, or they have to be there via teleconference, or they may have written, made a submission, to the particular hearing? What does participation actually mean?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: This legislates current practice to accept consent orders from parties participating in the proceedings; that is, sometimes a parent who is automatically a party cannot be located or chooses not to participate.

Ms HILDYARD: I do not think that answers the question.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It was inserted at the request of the Youth Court. This was something they asked to have inserted.

Ms HILDYARD: I do not think that answers the question. I understand what the minister is saying, but my question was: what does participation mean? What constitutes participation? There are all sorts of reasons that a party cannot attend in person, and I really want to understand what would constitute participation and therefore mean that a person becomes the subject of an order.

It is a really important question because, as I said, there are many, many reasons that people cannot attend in person. I want to understand what participation means. It is a particularly relevant issue for people in rural and remote areas.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: There are multiple ways they could be considered to participate. They could send in written information, they could send a representative on their behalf, they could attend in person. There are quite a few different ways they could participate.

Ms HILDYARD: I am not sure that quite answers it, but I will move on. Minister, are there any reasons that would enable a person who is a party to the proceeding but who could not participate in a proceeding to be subject to an order?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The court would have to be satisfied that every effort had been made to locate and give that person the ability to be present or to send a representative or to put something in writing. So the court would have to be satisfied that we did the right thing and followed up.

Ms HILDYARD: Just to clarify—and I have one more question on this clause—what would 'every effort' look like? Again, there are particular difficulties for people in particular geographic areas. There are particular issues for people who find themselves in certain circumstances. There are particular issues for some people with communication. So I am trying to understand what 'every effort' in relation to every conceivable person or group of people would look like.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It is determined by the court. They have to be assured that every effort has been made. If they are not sure, they would adjourn the court case to allow more time and more effort, but it is up to the court to determine whether they are satisfied.

Ms HILDYARD: I am not quite sure that that answers the question about what effort looks like, but maybe I can get an answer another way sometime.

The CHAIR: Just on that, member for Reynell, you would be familiar with the general thrust of questions to ministers and the ministers' prerogative to answer the question in whatever way they see fit.

Ms HILDYARD: Or not.

The CHAIR: You are not always necessarily going to get exactly what you want, but I am sure the ministers always do their best.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, can a person who is a party to the proceedings but who could not participate in the proceedings appeal an order? That is whether it is in relation to them or not.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Yes.

Clause passed.

Clause 16.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, can you please confirm that there is no legislated limit in terms of how long a matter can be adjourned for?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: This is covered in section 56 of the act. There are no specified time limits in there currently.

Ms HILDYARD: Are there any circumstances, minister, in which you envision that an adjournment could exceed 10 weeks?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The court will be required to commence a hearing to determine a contested application of any type within that 10-week period, but it can be extended by mutual consent of both parties, the court and the applicant.

Ms HILDYARD: To be clear, and this really goes to my final question anyway, minister, if parties were for instance negotiating and close to a resolution, they would not be estopped, by virtue of the insertion of this clause, from having the 10-week period extended?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It has to be commenced, but it can be adjourned with consent so then they can negotiate. The child may not be removed at that point and they may withdraw. The 10-week rule applies to contested matters. If the parents are contesting the order because they think they are doing a good job as a parent, if we have mutually agreed that it can be adjourned and further assessment and negotiation is needed, it can be stopped at that point.

Ms HILDYARD: For instance, if parents had decided to contest an order and they made an initial application, but the hearing, discussion, etc., had not actually commenced, is there still an opportunity for the extension beyond 10 weeks? I again ask this question because obviously these issues are very complex and it can take people some time to either decide their course of action or to access the resources they need to support them in that course of action to contest a particular matter.

For many people, going through these processes is really difficult. I am just trying to understand, if there has been an intention made clear to the court that there is a desire to contest, even if it has not progressed to a more formal stage, if that would be included in reasons that might enable an extension of the 10 weeks?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: This is all about timely decision-making which is in the best interest of the child, so it has to be introduced within 10 weeks. However, with mutual consent it can be adjourned to give more time. If the family shows they need more time and they have not been able to access information, legal advice or whatever, then it would be mutual consent and it would be adjourned so that they could go off and get that information. But there has to be a limit because it is important for the child to know where they are going and for decisions to be made. The department would definitely agree to it if we thought it was in the best interest of the child.

Clause passed.

Clause 17.

Ms HILDYARD: Could you please explain the impetus for this clause?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: This clause actually just clarifies the court's powers in relation to making orders for contact and placement, so it is not even really necessary. It is just really reiterating and making it very clear. These powers already exist. It confirms that the court does not have the power to make orders relating to a placement or contact. The courts did not have this power previously. This new section confirms this to avoid any doubt.

Ms HILDYARD: Are there any circumstances in which the court would be empowered to vary or revoke an order in relation to a child or young person under the guardianship of the chief executive?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Revoking is possible, but someone would have to bring that before the court.

Ms HILDYARD: Just to clarify, who would you envisage that someone to be?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The department or parents.

Ms HILDYARD: Just so that I understand this, you say the department could raise those issues; however, we are talking about a child who is under the guardianship of the chief executive. This question has been going around and around. I am trying to understand how the chief executive can be both the guardian and the initiator of an application to vary or revoke an order. I hope that makes sense.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: An example of when this would be used is when we are looking at reunification, so we would go back and revoke our own order so that we could reunify the child with their family. It often happens when children are teenagers and they are older and they are then reunified as adolescents.

The CHAIR: Final question, member for Reynell.

Ms HILDYARD: Again, I think I am going to the same issue that I was trying to explore in the last question. How does this clause confer additional power onto the DCP chief executive and how is that managed in situations that we have just described?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It does not give any extra powers to the CE. In fact, all it does is clarify exactly the circumstance and the situation that exists already. All these powers exist. The new legislation also created the contact arrangement review panel, which is where any party can go if they are unhappy with the contact arrangements.

Clause passed.

Clause 18.

Ms HILDYARD: Again, I am probably just working my way through issues I raised earlier. Can you please explain the impetus for the change to 59(1)?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Currently, where the court has placed a child or young person in the custody of guardianship of the CE or another person for any period of time and a subsequent application is made, the onus is on the person objecting, which is usually the parent, to prove that the order should not be made, as in reverse onus. This amendment legislates that reverse onus only applies to applications for long-term guardianship specified orders. This responds to the views of stakeholders who express concern about the impacts of the reverse onus provision in terms of justice principles, particularly given the gravity of the orders being made.

Clause passed.

Clause 19.

Ms HILDYARD: This clause worried me, so I have a few questions about it. Can you explain, minister, how placing a child with a non-approved carer ensures their safety?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: This amendment brings the current regulation 18A into the act but does not change the current legal position. So this can be done. It is being done by regulation. We are being open and transparent in putting it into legislation.

Regulation 18A permits children to be placed with temporary carers where that is preferable to placing them with an approved carer. For example, despite an approved carer being available, it may be preferable to place a child with a person they already have an established relationship with, such as a close family member, a neighbour, their teacher—somebody they already know and feel very comfortable living with—while we are doing the assessments. It prioritises family or established relationships over foster carers.

Ms HILDYARD: A few questions have come out of that. I know you said it prioritises family over approved foster carers, but you also mentioned neighbours. I have had somebody in my community who did step in as a non-approved carer and subsequently undertook training and became an approved carer. Because of the nature of the way that placement started, at a particular point in time the children in their care went to an approved carer, even though during the course of the period of three or so months when those children were with that family they had to become approved carers.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It is really about enabling family members to be assessed. While we are scoping for families—aunties, uncles, grandparents or whatever—the neighbour might already have an established relationship with the child. The child might be friends with their children and stay there, so that is a safe place for the child to be while a full assessment is done for family scoping. We know that kin is the preferred placement for children. At the end of that, we do have to choose the best placement for the child. If in the end the best placement was the neighbour, they would have to still go through the assessment process and become an approved carer.

Ms HILDYARD: Just to clarify, are there any circumstances in the scenario you have outlined where, if a neighbour takes care as a non-approved carer of children and they then become an approved carer, if there are no other family connections or kinship connections established, instead of remaining with the neighbour or other person who knows the child the child may go into residential care rather than staying with that particular carer?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: There are placement principles that have to be followed, as you mentioned. Looking for family members would have priority over a neighbour or a teacher—if there was an aunty or uncle. There is also the Aboriginal placement principle that takes priority. However, if there was no family found they should be working with the department and getting assessed so that they could stay with them. It sounds like this is a specific case that perhaps my office could follow up for you.

The CHAIR: Final question, member for Reynell.

Ms HILDYARD: What communication and support can you guarantee is provided to those non-approved carers who take on the care of a child?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: There are two different types of arrangements. One is a private arrangement, where the department is not involved. If it is the department that has placed the child there then there should be a caseworker and there is involvement then with the family and support.

Ms HILDYARD: To clarify what I said in my question, is it guaranteed that that always occurs?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: In the first instance, the support would come from the caseworker whilst things are being sorted out and then in the future it might be an NGO that would look after the placement.

Clause passed.

Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. R. Sanderson.

Clause 20.

Ms HILDYARD: This probably goes to a similar vein of questions I was asking previously. Given the chief executive replaces the minister in this clause, who is the arbiter of disputes?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: This amendment is really a drafting error. This was left over from the original drafting of the bill, where it should have always said 'the CE', so it is just correcting an error.

The CHAIR: The minister is indicating that they are making a correction and it was never the intention.

Ms HILDYARD: So I understand, does that mean that 'minister' stays in the bill as is and clause 20 of the bill should not exist or is there something different in terms of the error, if that makes sense? I am just trying to understand. Are we getting rid of clause 20 in the amendment bill altogether or is there some other change if there has been a drafting error?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Section 85 provides:

85—Review of circumstances of child or young person under long-term guardianship of Chief Executive

(1) Subject to this section, the Chief Executive must cause a review of the circumstances of each prescribed child or young person to be carried out—

(a) if the child or young person, or another person who, in the opinion of—

which should be 'the Chief Executive'—

…has a legitimate interest in the affairs of the child or young person, has requested the review—as soon as is reasonably practicable after the request;

So it was simply a drafting error. That word should always have been 'the Chief Executive' because that is who the guardian is.

Ms HILDYARD: I am still trying to understand. I go to the question I asked earlier: how can the chief executive of the department be both the person who determines where a child is placed or whether they are placed under a long-term guardianship order, etc., and potentially also be the long-term guardian of a child? I am still trying to understand how that actually works.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: This is really just about the review of the circumstances. The member may recall that under the Children's Protection Act 1993 the minister was the guardian and they were referred to as under the guardianship of the minister. It was the former Labor government that changed that to being the CE. There is a drafting error in that bill, which was drafted by the former government. There is one word that was not changed in adherence to the rest of the bill that was changed to give the CE now the powers of being the guardian. This is a drafting error that I believe occurred under the former government and is simply being corrected now.

Ms HILDYARD: It still does not make sense. If it is a drafting error, then what is the effect of not having that change?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I can give further—

The CHAIR: Perhaps elaborate, minister. Thank you.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: There are built in review abilities. If you are unhappy with the contact arrangements, you can go to the CARP (Contact Arrangements Review Panel). There is SACAT, which is to do with a removal or a placement, and there is also an internal review process that is available as a safeguard.

Ms HILDYARD: There is a complete separation between the extent of the powers of the chief executive and the review panel?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Yes.

Ms HILDYARD: Absolutely? There is no—

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Yes.

Clause passed.

Clause 21.

The CHAIR: In relation to clause 21, I am advised that the member for Reynell's amendments Nos 1 and 2 have already been agreed to by this house in the Statutes Amendment (Recommendations of Independent Inquiry into Child Protection) Bill, which passed this house earlier this week and is now before the other house. That being the case, I seek the concurrence of the member not to proceed with these amendments; in other words, they have already been picked up in another bill. That is the advice I have.

Ms HILDYARD: Is this the Rice review bill?

The CHAIR: Yes. There are nods from parliamentary counsel; that is good. Are you happy with that? We will deal with clause 21 as printed.

Ms HILDYARD: Just to be really clear, there is absolutely nothing in the clause that the minister has inserted into this bill that takes away or changes in any way what has already been agreed by this house in the bill I keep calling the Rice review bill.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It strengthens it. This amendment adds an additional ground for issuing a direction so that a person can now be directed not to be in the company of or otherwise associated with a guardianship child. Historically, there have been difficulties proving that communication occurred, even where the child is in the company of the person, because previously it was about preventing a child communicating or harbouring or concealing a child, so this just strengthens it. This was already an amendment that we had signalled and then the Rice review went further and made the penalties tougher, and he supported this.

Ms HILDYARD: Just to be clear, I do not have any issues with the strengthening of the direction of a specified person away from communicating, etc. When I asked the question, 'Is there anything different about this clause?' you advised that it strengthens what has been put forward through the Rice review. I just want to be absolutely clear about how those two clauses—i.e. the clause in the Rice review bill and this one—work together, that no conflict arises, etc., and that it is clear they will operate smoothly.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: They work together. The Rice review is about the penalties as a way of deterring somebody from breaching a written directive, and this is about expanding for whom the directives can be made or how they are made, so 'in the company of' is the main wording. New section 86(4a) ensures that a child who communicates or attempts to communicate with the person to whom the written directive is issued against does not commit an offence. New section 86(6) legislates that a child who we are seeking to protect cannot be compelled to give evidence in relation to charges of an offence of breach of written directive. So they work together.

Ms HILDYARD: I have a really important question to make sure we have got this right. The current 86(4) sets out penalty provisions. I do not have the Rice review bill in front of me, but there are penalty provisions, from memory, of three years and four years. I just want to understand, given we are leaving the penalty provisions in the substantial act here, if there is anything we need to be aware of in terms of the new penalties that have been agreed to in the Rice review bill.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: They are identical.

Clause passed.

Clause 22.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 1 [ChildPro–2]—

Page 16, line 19 to page 17, line 9 [clause 22, inserted section 113I]—Delete inserted section 113I and substitute:

113I—Consent of child or young person

(1) An adoption order contemplated by this Chapter will not be made in relation to a child or young person over the age of 12 years unless—

(a) the child or young person has consented to the adoption; and

(b) 25 days have elapsed since the giving of consent; and

(c) the Court is satisfied, after interviewing the child or young person in private, that the child or young person's consent is genuine and the child or young person does not wish to revoke it.

(2) The consent of a child or young person—

(a) must be in writing; and

(b) must be witnessed in accordance with the regulations; and

(c) must be endorsed by a person authorised by the Chief Executive to make such an endorsement with a statement to the effect that the child or young person has been counselled by that person.

(3) The Court may, on application by the Chief Executive or a party to the adoption (including the child), dispense with the consent of a child or young person where it appears to the Court that the child or young person is intellectually incapable of giving consent.

The CHAIR: The minister has moved amendment No. 1 standing in her name. Does anyone want to speak to that amendment?

Ms HILDYARD: I will just get clear about the process. There are a number of things I wish to say about this amendment as well as my amendment but, given that the minister's amendment is proceeding first and given that what I want to say goes to both the opposition—which is the substance of my amendment—and also to the amendment the minister is proposing to her own bill, is it appropriate for me to speak now? That is my question.

The CHAIR: My advice is that you have the opportunity to have three questions or three contributions on the minister's amendment. Should that amendment pass, you have another three questions on the amended clause, so you should have ample opportunity. My understanding is that the way parliamentary counsel works now, your opposition to this amendment has been included as your amendment. You are simply going to oppose it.

Ms HILDYARD: I know that we get 15 minutes to speak in relation to amendments; I presume that is either to my own or I can have 15 minutes in relation to the minister's amendment—or potentially both.

The CHAIR: You are able to make a contribution. It is not simply just asking a question.

Ms HILDYARD: So I can speak to this amendment?

The CHAIR: You can, and you can detail why you are in opposition to this amendment during that contribution.

Ms HILDYARD: Then I will cross into a little bit about my amendment, but it is the same content anyway.

The CHAIR: Yes, but as I said earlier all you are doing, in fact, is opposing the amendment.

Ms HILDYARD: Yes. I presume the minister will speak to her amendment—

The CHAIR: Well, she has moved it, so the floor is yours, member for Reynell.

Ms HILDYARD: She does not want to talk about why—

The CHAIR: No, she has simply moved it. I invite questions.

Ms HILDYARD: There is no discussion about why you have amended your bill?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Not at this point.

Ms HILDYARD: I will take the opportunity to speak about my opposition to this amendment. As I said, I will speak a little about why we oppose the minister's amendment to her amendment bill, but I will also traverse to some degree—because it goes to the same subject matter—why I have proposed my amendment, which is to oppose the whole clause. However, that does go to the same subject matter.

As I think everybody in this house knows, indeed as everybody in our community is aware, adoption is an incredibly complex, difficult issue, and I believe that our deliberations regarding any changes to existing laws, existing regulations, existing processes and procedures, must be absolutely carefully, thoughtfully and compassionately considered. We must be rigorous in our examination of any potential consequences any changes will have on the lives of vulnerable young people who are currently in state care.

I believe that any changes to adoption laws should never be progressed because of one person's view or a few people's views. We must really carefully listen to the voices of those South Australians who have been adopted, who may have had a child adopted, and to the views of our broader community in a very robust way to fully understand both the impact these changes will have and also community sentiment in relation to any changes.

Unfortunately, it seems that detailed, deep discussion may not have occurred, given we established earlier in this debate that two of the main adoptee advocacy bodies in South Australia were not consulted by the minister. That in itself is not acceptable because, as I said, this issue has to be treated with deep care, given the long-term impacts it will have on children and families now and in the future.

Many individuals, advocacy groups and other stakeholders have raised a number of concerns both with me and, I understand, the minister regarding this section of the amendment bill, which relates to the adoption of children from care. Foremost amongst these concerns is that the Marshall Liberal government appears to be intent on establishing a two-tier system of adoption in South Australia, one for children in state care and one for the remainder of the population. I think that whenever a government anywhere seeks to treat people differently before the law they must be very clear about why they intend to do so.

They must consult at length and they must be very clear about what impact this will have on various individuals and groups of people, people who may currently have that particular change apply to them. The impact must also be considered in terms of potential impact on future generations of South Australians. It is of deep concern to me that the minister seems not to have done deep, meaningful consultation on these adoption measures and has spoken, in the course of the debate on this bill, about the fact that she did not speak to Adoptee Rights Australia, the peak body for adoptees.

I also understand that Post Adoption Support Services, which operates under the auspices of Relationships Australia, may also have not been consulted. I think it is very worrying and indicative of the lack of depth with which this minister has approached these most crucial issues that deeply impact people's lives that the minister did not speak with these groups before embarking upon such significant changes to adoption provisions in South Australia.

Despite this, I understand that the government recently told The Advertiser that the changes were widely supported during consultation. Worse still, the submissions the government did receive from its rather selective consultation process have not been made publicly available, nor has any detailed summary of key findings from that consultation. I think that the concern that has been raised about this government's failure to adequately consult with key stakeholders about these issues is of the utmost concern, especially as the previous review in 2016 of adoption from state care in South Australia recommended against prioritising adoption over long-term orders.

Due to the concerns that have been raised—the apparent lack of consultation—we are now left with many questions, questions that I think have to be heard and substantially answered before we proceed. Some of those questions are: are we creating a two-tier system of adoption in South Australia whereby children in state care have fewer rights, including to object to the adoption? Will this bill make the laws and processes surrounding adoption excessively complex, depending on the child's care status? What are the actual benefits to children in state care, given the minister herself recently stated, as I understand it, that adoption is not the only means by which a child in care can live parentally with a foster family? Will the courts be able to make alternative orders even when other orders would be in the best interests of the child?

I am deeply concerned that crucial decision-making power is being moved from the courts to the chief executive. This will no doubt impact children, service providers and individuals responsible for administering these changes. We do have a troubling, terrible history in this country of taking children from their birth parents and placing them away from their families and communities. We have to be very clear so that we do not make mistakes. We cannot contemplate making mistakes that could wreak hurt, humiliation and pain on thousands of Australians and their families.

Whilst adoption can be a positive experience—and it is something that many in our community support—we have to approach changes to the Adoption Act or changes to adoption through other acts as this change represents with the most robust of consultation and the utmost care. South Australians and future generations rely on us as parliamentarians to do that.

This Children and Young People (Safety) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill seeks to deny the right of a child to be heard on their view in relation to the adoption. I understand the minister has now moved to amend her bill in relation to how the voices of children are heard. But again, given it is very clear that these changes were made after the bill was introduced into this parliament only a relatively short time ago, it makes it very clear to me that these changes have been made on the run and have not been made with the necessary robust consultation.

Under these laws, I understand that birth parents may no longer be required to give permission for adoption. These are huge departures from existing adoption laws, and the question beckons: if these changes are necessary for children in care, is there more we must contemplate for the remainder of children in this state in relation to potential adoption? In a recent joint statement, advocacy groups wrote that the bill 'removes key rights and protections currently available to children and adults subject to adoption in South Australia and alters the role of the courts in the adoption process'.

These groups also stated that they firmly believe that the bill may not comply with international human rights standards and may be in breach of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Under the reforms, a court must consider placing a child for adoption even when other care orders, such as long-term guardianship, may be deemed to be in the best interests of the child.

If a child refuses to be adopted, it seems that their views could be dismissed if it is deemed in the best interests of the child or young person that the adoption order be made. I am also concerned—and I would like to hear more about it—that the minister has apparently flagged a reimbursement payment for adoption and may have gone as far as consulting the Australian Taxation Office so that any state-based payment could not be considered income.

The minister, I am sure, can explain her reasons for having that consultation. However, the minister so far—and we are now here at close to 6.30pm when we are debating this bill at its third stage—has not explained those comments and, as with so many other aspects of this bill, the minister has not explained to our community and to stakeholders how this will work, what people will be eligible for or if in fact it has been budgeted for by the government.

In light of these concerns, we strongly urge the government to delay the progress of this particular aspect of the bill until further consultation has occurred and to revisit its design to improve its compliance with human rights standards and to make sure that everybody who has a say on this bill has had the opportunity to be thoroughly heard and to be thoroughly considered in any provisions that are drafted. This aspect of the bill, should it pass, makes the laws and processes surrounding adoption complex, inconsistent and contradictory depending on the child's care status.

In summary, due largely to the lack of consultation and the grave uncertainty that these provisions have already caused among individuals, providers and support groups, we cannot support these changes to the adoption regime in South Australia. We would absolutely welcome, however, thoughtful, thorough discussion about improvements to adoption, but it seems that these suggested changes, outside of the Adoption Act for some reason, need much, much deeper consideration.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, adoption is an incredibly complex issue, and I believe that it is really important that we work in a much deeper way with stakeholders and with our entire community to develop consensus and to actually contemplate any changes through the Adoption Act itself.

In the earlier stages of the debate on this bill, the minister referred numerous times to the fact that this review, which is around a year late, is not comprehensive and that deeper, further reform will be considered at the time of the next scheduled review. In her comments she also stated that work towards that next scheduled review of this Children and Young People (Safety) Act will begin at the end of this year, just six or seven months away.

Given this, I say again that we would welcome a thorough discussion about any necessary changes to improve adoption laws to make it work for all South Australians. We would welcome a discussion about any improvements to the Adoption Act itself. We would welcome being part of those consultations and being part of reaching out to community members to work out how we can improve adoption processes.

However, given the next review of this bill is just six or seven months away, given the angst that these proposed changes have brought about for a number of individuals and groups and given that for some reason we are not dealing with changes in the Adoption Act itself, I really urge the minister to back away from what are really drastic changes and to take the necessary time to include and talk with more people.

I am sure the minister will talk about who she has spoken with, but on such an important issue, if we are hearing such concern, I think we should take the time to include and talk with more people, with more groups, with compassion and openness about the best way forward. Again, I say I would absolutely welcome that debate about adoption and improving adoption laws here in South Australia.

This issue is far too important and it will have far too much impact on vulnerable young people's lives to move ahead with a bill that the minister has had to amend herself just in the last couple of weeks with a clause which, if I understand the committee process correctly, is a clause—in relation to adoption of children from care—that takes up about a third of the bill, goes for about eight to 10 pages and has multiple new subclauses. If I understand the committee process properly, despite the length of that clause, I will have simply three questions to ask.

To me, this does not seem to give our parliament—certainly not me as the shadow minister but our parliament—the robust opportunity it should have to thoroughly explore such an important issue. As I said—and I am just closing; I can see you have your hand on the timer, Mr Chair—this issue is incredibly important. It will have such a deep impact on vulnerable young people's lives.

If it is not properly evaluated—and that includes a proper consultation process with the appropriate groups and individuals with lived experience of adoption—I worry greatly about its passage, particularly given, as I said, that there will not be the opportunity for a robust examination. Three questions on a clause that is eight to 10 pages is not going to afford us that opportunity. Again, I say that the minister has amended her own bill. I think we need to take a step back and think much more deeply about this issue.

Again, I just want to say I am very happy to do that. I am very happy to look at improvements that we can make around adoption. It is a really important process in our community that impacts current children and families and future generations. We should always look at improving such important processes, but I do not think that we have thoroughly examined these changes, nor will we have the opportunity to do so.

Also, very importantly, it is really clear from the feedback to me and indeed the feedback that I know has gone to the minister's office, that there is still much more to contemplate about these proposed provisions before we move forward.

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for Reynell. Before I call the minister to respond to that, I will just remind everybody that we are dealing, at this point in time, at this stage of the committee, with the first amendment standing in the minister's name.

I understand that from time to time members do not feel that they have adequate opportunity to forensically examine a clause or a bill in the way they might see fit. I am going to read to you from standing order 364, and the member for Reynell is aware of this:

1. a Member other than the Member in charge of the Bill, motion or amendment may not speak more than three times on any one question, nor for more than fifteen minutes on any one occasion;

According to our standing orders, that really does restrict it to three opportunities. Also:

2. debate [will be and] is confined to the motion, clause or amendment before the Committee.

I will call on the minister. Once again, before I get her to respond to that, I need to reiterate that your amendment, member for Reynell, which you are referring to as your amendment, really is just an indication of your opposition to it; it is just the way it appears and the way parliamentary counsel deals with that at the moment. Anyway, enough from me.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Thank you, Mr Chair, and I would like the opportunity to respond to the member for Reynell. Adoption is an emotive issue. I think it is something that many people would avoid and not bring to parliament, but I believe that being a member of parliament and being a minister requires difficult decisions and difficult discussions. That is part of being a leader: bringing difficult discussions to the house.

This is something that I have considered for seven years now. This is not a new issue. This is something that has been raised many, many times. I was the shadow minister for four years. I have been the minister for more than three years. For seven years, I have contemplated this. I have researched this. I have looked at what is done in other countries, in other states and in other jurisdictions. I have met with people who have been adopted. I have met with people who would like to be adopted. I have met with foster carers who would like to adopt.

I have met with people who believe this is related to the abortion law and that if we had adoption there would be fewer abortions. There are many different aspects and angles to look at. I can assure this committee that I have taken this matter very seriously. This is not an ill-considered policy: it is a well-considered policy. As a government, we announced this in September 2019—a long time ago. Since then, we have held workshops and we have discussed it with people. I have met with young people in care, with foster carers, with workers, with staff, with many people. We have held a formal gathering and we have also had written submissions.

I have done my very best to bring to this house the best adoption policy possible. I have met with people who have adopted children and I have said to them, 'If you could design an adoption policy from the ground up—which I can—what would it look like so that we are supporting you and the child so that they can have permanency and stability and the life that I believe our children deserve?'

In reference to the dual adoption policies, rightly so, there is an Adoption Act and this is being put in the Children and Young People (Safety) Act because it relates only to children who have already gone through the court process—some of them many times—which has determined that the children are not safe to be with their biological family. There have been court orders based on the evidence through the Youth Court.

This government is spending a lot of money and putting a lot of effort into early intervention and prevention, into family group conferencing and into strengthening families because wherever possible I would much prefer the children to be with their biological family where it is safe to do so. Where it is not safe to do so and a court has determined on the facts, on the evidence of the case, that a child is not safe with their biological family, they are brought into care under the guardianship of the chief executive as it stands.

In that instance, these children form relationships with their foster carers. Many of the carers I have met have had their children for many, many years—five, 10, 15 years—some from babies, some from young children, and they see those children as their children, as their family. They want the opportunity to make that child part of their forever family and to show the child they are chosen, they are safe, they are in a family who loves them forever, not just until they are 18 but forever. They want to make them part of their will and part of their family and let them know that they have been chosen, and it makes a big difference to the child.

I can tell you, Chair, nearly all the foster carers I have told that this was available burst into tears at the thought that finally the child they have cared for and loved for many years can now be part of their family. This is not about removing children from birth and getting them adopted out. This is not a stolen generation. We have already decided and determined that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are not part of this. We have made every safeguard to ensure that the ills and the wrongs of the past will not be repeated. We have put every protection possible in this bill.

This is for people who already have an established relationship. They have already been a carer for the child for at least two years. They have gone through the assessment, they have a working with children check, they have gone through all the child safety checks and all the requirements. They have been with a child for two years, they have had caseworkers, they have had annual reviews, and we have had ample opportunity to look at how that relationship is going, how the child is faring.

This is not about the adult determining they want the child. The voice of the child is incredibly important. Whoever would force a child to be adopted? It is ridiculous. That is not our intention. This is simply another option that would be available. It might be suitable for five children a year, 10 children a year. I am not expecting or anticipating that the 4,500 children we have in care are all going to suddenly be adopted. This is an option for those who want it.

Emmah Money, who came out and spoke and did all the radio interviews when we announced this in September 2019, was a former model of mine. She was adopted from foster care and has a wonderful story to tell about how her life turned out, about that opportunity and how it felt to be chosen. Another of my former models was open in connecting with foster carers. I did not know that she was a foster child, and when I told her at that time the then Labor government had made adoption available for over 18s she was delighted. She always wanted to be adopted. She is in her 30s.

This is something that is still so precious to people, even as adults—to be part of a family legitimately. This is an open adoption. We have integrated birth certificates, where the biological family and the new family are both acknowledged. This is not about denying the child access to their former family or knowledge of the former family or pretending they did not exist. This is an open adoption with an integrated birth certificate. This is all about giving a child and their foster family the ability to make that commitment together. In recommendation 157, the Nyland royal commission actually said that adoption should be considered when it is in the best interests of the child, and the former Labor government accepted that recommendation. I am just going forward from that recommendation and putting the legislation in place to make that possible.

The people I have met with said that, if you were financially well off, the most important thing to them was access to therapies, access to health care and access to the extra education supports that guardianship children have currently. I have negotiated with both the education minister and the health minister to ensure that those services will continue because we do not know if the child might need more help as they go through different stages in life, and we want that to be available.

I then looked at the fact that in South Australia around 80 per cent of foster carers are on benefits. I did not want to exclude these wonderful people who have done an amazing job, some of whom have been foster caring for many, many decades. I did not want to exclude them from the ability to adopt a child simply because they could not afford it. I want this to be the best possible piece of legislation and policy that is in the best interests of children and their carers.

That is why we have considered, and we have a letter from the tax office, that the money—just as it is for a foster carer or a kinship carer, the same payment—would be considered in the same way as a reimbursement and not as income, where it is considered to be a reimbursement. That would need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Those families who are eligible for Family Tax Benefits A and B would be eligible for that payment to continue.

The idea is that this is all about what is in the best interests of the child. Research shows us that permanency, stability and forever families are incredibly important. We know that mental health is a huge issue in our state and in our country; it is quite prevalent. We know that that stability, a family that will be there to support you through that forever, is so incredibly important. That is what this legislation is about, and that is what I am trying to establish here.

Where there has been consultation, the voice of the child is incredibly important. The payments are consistent with the foster carer payments; that is, if they are eligible for Family Tax Benefit A, families can elect to not be part of that. If they financially do not need it, there would be money—I think it is $1,500—for their education expenses and to settle the child in.

It is important to clarify that applications for adoption orders will still be made pursuant to the Adoption Act and that, unless otherwise stated, the operation of the Adoption Act has not been modified. Consistent with article 21 of the CRC, the best interests of the child are still the paramount consideration of the court when determining an application for adoption pursuant to section 10 of the Adoption Act. I think this is very important, and I do hope that I have the support of the crossbench to pass this legislation tonight.

Ms HILDYARD: To reiterate some of the issues that I raised in my earlier comments, I note that the minister talked about her desire to progress legislation of this type during her time as shadow minister and as minister. I will take it on face value, absolutely, that the minister has thought about that and considered very thoroughly what she would like to do and her views around this policy. I respect that she has done that and explored what she thinks is the right thing to do.

It is really important to remember when we debate issues of this nature, issues that go to very deeply held views and desires of our South Australian community, that we are here to represent the views and desires of the South Australian community. As I said before, I am very open to a detailed discussion about adoption, to potentially progressing improvements to adoption in this state. That is not the issue here at all. I would be very supportive of that discussion.

What I am really concerned about is the groups and individuals who have come to me and spoken about their deep, deep concern about the provisions in the bill, the way that they have or have not been spoken with and included in the deep sort of discussion that is required when we consider issues that are so incredibly important to people's lives now and also long into the future.

As I said, and I will keep saying it, I am very open to a discussion about adoption, but when I have been provided with the thoughts and the emotions that people are feeling about this bill, when I see that the minister herself has proposed an amendment to her own bill, when I see that despite the minister's assurance that nothing changes about processes in the Adoption Act and yet we are inserting a lengthy clause about adoption for one particular group of people into another act altogether, I think that it would be best for us to sit down and consider reforms with a much more robust consultation and conversation—not just consultation and conversation but much more of a deep listening to all of the different groups and individuals—with a focus on coming to some sort of consensus.

To pick up the minister's point about leadership, I think that is what we as leaders need to do on these really difficult issues. I think we need to deeply listen to people, think about how we bring people together, think about how we come up with legislation and provisions in which people feel that they have been heard and where people have confidence and feel that that is the best that we could possibly do after all those conversations, after all that listening, after all of us coming together to find a way forward.

At the moment, particular groups are feeling disenfranchised from this process. As with any bill, it is not always possible to get consensus, particularly on these difficult issues. That is often a very difficult thing to do, but what we should always be able to do as leaders is to make sure that people feel as though they have been listened to, that they have been heard, that time has been taken to speak deeply with them and to have their views taken into account in some way in what is going to go forward. That is what I am concerned about.

Again, I would welcome lengthy discussion with the minister, with as many people as possible in our community to think about what improvements we could make that get closer to a position of understanding and unity, even if, as I said, that does not necessarily mean every single person is happy with every single aspect of a particular law, a particular change. However, I do think that we need to do the work to make sure that everybody feels as though they have been heard, listened to and contemplated in the act.

As I said, the things that do not give me confidence that has happened in this case are that an amendment has been made on the run, people are feeling very unhappy and very disenfranchised and that we can do better. I think we can have, in just six short months, a real and deep discussion about changes to adoption to make sure that we get closer to that feeling of inclusion and compassion that people are looking for around this.

I agree with the minister that there are many lovely stories that we hear about adoption. There are lovely outcomes and lovely changes that happen in people's lives as a result of adoption. Again, we would welcome a discussion to suggest improvements to laws that help us to get closer to a place where more people are feeling positive about the way forward, even if they do not utterly agree with every aspect, and feel as though they have been heard, listened to and, importantly, treated with dignity and respect in this process.

Again, I would urge the minister to hear that, to hear our desire to engage in this issue. As she has said in this debate herself, we will be reviewing this bill. I do not have the Hansard in front of me, but I think I can recall the words the minister has used on several occasions in the course of this bill when I have raised issues about other clauses, I have been told by the minister not to worry: 'This is just a small review. We have a much bigger review coming up at the end of the year. The next one is the substantial one. This is just a minor one.'

Well, inserting these provisions into another act, other than the Adoption Act, making amendments at the last moment, to me fits with something that is done in a short, hasty way. It does not feel like it is in keeping with the longer review that the minister herself has described we will contemplate together in this house towards the end of the year. Again, I do not have the dates in front of me, but I know the minister has spoken about the time frame and assured me in relation to other clauses that we will have the opportunity not only to consider more deeply the issues that are in front of us but also to deeply consider other changes we might wish to take forward as a parliament and, indeed, as a community.

I will finish by again saying that I would absolutely welcome a discussion about adoption, about potential changes to the law, but we need to do it properly, with compassion, with thought, with inclusion and with leadership that make people know that their voice is heard and respected.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The proposed changes are within the Children and Young People (Safety) Act, as this is a unique and limited pathway to adoption as a permanency pathway for children already under long-term orders made pursuant to this act. Where the court has decided that a child cannot be cared for safely with their birth family, as such it is more appropriate for the pathway to be contained in the legislation relating to children within the care system.

It is important to understand that the group of children this pathway applies to are children in care. These are not children in the general public or from overseas. To ensure the voices of children who will be impacted by this policy were heard, CREATE, as the peak body, was consulted, as were children who had been in care through Relationships Australia.

My department and I have consulted with those who have lived experience. Individuals who have been adopted themselves have spoken to me directly about their positive stories and life experiences about being adopted and growing up in a loving home. Those individuals have relayed their support for these amendments, regarding expanding permanency options and adoption from care as one of a suite of options for permanency.

These provisions relate exclusively to children in care where the courts have already made decisions regarding the children's long-term care. I am aware that Adoptee Rights Australia is a national organisation based in New South Wales. To the best of my knowledge, other than Sharyn White, no other members of Adoptee Rights Australia have been in direct contact with me. As the member noted, we will never get consensus. This has been considered for a long time. It was announced in September 2019. An immense amount of time and consideration have gone into this bill and I do wish to progress with this.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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