HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-05-11 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

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

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 6 May 2021.)

Clause 24.

The CHAIR: I closed last week by reading a statement in relation to clause 24, which we are on now. I am actually going to read that again so that everybody is refreshed. My statement is that, to enable the minister and the member for Reynell to have their amendments considered by the committee, I intend to ask the minister to move her amendment No. 2 on schedule (2) in two parts. Firstly, I will ask the minister to move that all words in clause 24, up to and including the number 112A, be deleted. If this is agreed to, I will invite the minister to move the balance of her amendment No. 2; that is, to delete the remaining words in clause 24. If negatived, however, I will invite the member for Reynell to move her amendment No. 16 on schedule 3.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I move:

That all words up to and including '112A' be deleted.

Ms HILDYARD: What was the rationale for excluding decisions by the chief executive in relation to financial assistance from internal review?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: One of the unintended consequences of the introduction of the external reviews is there have been a number of instances of short-term carers bringing external reviews in relation to long-term placement decisions. The reviews have in some cases been quite lengthy, lasting over 12 months. During this time, the children have been prevented from transitioning to the long-term placements, which are generally with family members. This type of situation is not in the best interests of children.

The amendments to both the internal and external review seek to balance the rights of the carers, who are an important part of the child protection system, with timely decision-making in relation to placements, which is in the child's best interest. I have continued to work with Connecting Foster and Kinship Carers as the peak body for carers in relation to the potential impacts on carers as a result of the amendment. As a result, this amendment is being withdrawn. This means that carers can seek a review in relation to all decisions where they are currently entitled to an internal review, including decisions in relation to financial assistance to carers provided pursuant to section 112A.

The CHAIR: Before I call the member for Reynell—apologies for this—I am going to make a slight correction to my initial statement. The member for Reynell will have the opportunity, if this motion is negatived, to move her amendment No. 15. I said it was No. 16; it is actually No. 15. My apologies; I needed to make that correction.

Ms HILDYARD: How will decisions of that kind now be reviewed, should a person be aggrieved by such decision?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I assume you are talking about a financial decision, and that will be by internal review.

Ms HILDYARD: To clarify so that I am understanding correctly, decisions by the chief executive in relation to financial assistance are now precluded from internal review.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: No, external.

Ms HILDYARD: From external review. Just to clarify what you have just said, if there is no external review now an internal review will review an internal review; is that correct?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: No, an internal review will review an internal decision. For example, this prevents the application for review in relation to exceptional resource funding where SACAT is not best placed to review decisions that have significant budgetary and financial implications for the department.

Ms HILDYARD: Why is the process in relation to these types of decisions different from others and were there any concerns raised about procedural fairness, given the inability to have such decisions externally reviewed?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: There is a built-in mechanism for an internal review in the legislation and that will be applied.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I move:

That all remaining words in clause 24 be deleted.

This is the same as the member for Reynell's amendment also.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 25.

The CHAIR: To enable the minister and member for Reynell to have their amendments considered by the committee, I intend to ask the minister to move her amendment No. 3 on schedule (2) in two parts: firstly, I will ask the minister to move that all words in clause 25(1) up to and including 112A be deleted. If this is agreed to, I will invite the minister to move the balance of her amendment No. 3 and that is to delete the remaining words in subclause (1) and insert new words. If negatived, I will invite the member for Reynell to move her amendment No. 16 on schedule 3.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I move:

That all words in clause 25(1) up to and including '112A' be deleted.

Ms HILDYARD: Again, I am not sure if I will get a fulsome answer, but what is the rationale for excluding decisions by the chief executive from review by SACAT?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It is in the interests of timely decision-making and in the best interests of the child.

Ms HILDYARD: This is a question of clarification: in not allowing a party to have rights in relation to a decision made by the chief executive rather than by SACAT, how, in all circumstances, could you possibly guarantee that it would be in the best interests of the child for there not to be any review process or external review process whatsoever?

It seems that this is about decisions being able to be made by the chief executive and then the department itself reviewing the chief executive's decision. I just cannot see how that would be in the best interests of the child in all circumstances, so if you could just clarify, in relation to your answer to my first question: how on earth could you guarantee that not being able to have an external review but, rather, enabling the department itself to review a chief executive's decision, could possibly be in the best interests of the child?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The internal review that is part of the legislation has members who are independent from the original decision, but also independent from the department, to do that review.

Ms HILDYARD: What rights, if any, to any external arbiter, adjudicator, etc., are parties left with, given this amendment and the amendment we have just discussed at clause 24?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: You are asking what decisions can go to an external review?

Ms HILDYARD: No, I am asking what rights to external review are parties left with in relation to what has just changed at clauses 24 and 25? This is not in relation to other matters that may be able to be reviewed by SACAT. What rights to external arbitration or adjudication or review are parties left with, given the amendments you have made to clauses 24 and 25? Obviously, I am talking about clause 25 in this case but with some reflection on clause 24.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: In chapter 12 of the act, there are reviews of the decision under the act and an internal review is included. There is also the Ombudsman and there is SACAT for certain decisions. Just to note, the opportunity even to go to SACAT has only occurred under this government. That was not even an option prior to 22 October 2018, so this is an expansion already of the ability.

We have also introduced the contact arrangements and review panel, which is a panel, to look at contact arrangements, and we have worked with Connecting Foster and Kinship Carers, which is the peak body, in order to get the balance right on decisions because we do need timely decision-making. SACAT can delay things for up to a year. We know that children attach in that time and we need to make swift decisions that are in the best interests of children, and we think we have struck the right balance.

Ms HILDYARD: Why is the power to compel parties to attend a SACAT conference being taken away from SACAT?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It will still happen by consent, but it is regarding timely decision-making.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: Now, minister, I am going to ask you to move the balance of your amendment No. 3, and that is to delete the remaining words in subclause (1) and insert new words. The new subclauses are (1), (1a), (1b), (1c), (1d), (1e) and (1f).

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 3 [ChildPro–1]—

Page 20, lines 11 and 12 [clause 25(1)]—Delete subclause (1) and substitute:

(1) Section 158(1)—delete subsection (1) and substitute:

(1) Subject to this section, a person who is aggrieved by a determination by the Chief Executive under section 157 may apply for a review of the determination by the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

(1a) Section 158(2)—delete subsection (2) and substitute:

(2) However, a determination of the Chief Executive under section 157 relating to the following decisions will be taken not to be reviewable under this section:

(a) a decision under Chapter 7 Part 4;

(b) a decision under section 77;

(c) a decision under section 112A;

(d) a decision referred to in subsection (1) that comprises a prescribed child protection complaint (within the meaning of section 28A of the Health and Community Services Complaints Act 2004);

(e) any other decision of a kind prescribed by the regulations.

(1b) Section 158(3)—delete 'reviewable decision' and substitute:

determination of the Chief Executive under section 157

(1c) Section 158(3)(a)—after 'case of a' insert:

determination relating to a

(1d) Section 158(3)(b)—after 'case of a' insert:

determination relating to a

(1e) Section 158(3)(c)—after 'case of' insert:

a determination relating to

(1f) Section 158—after subsection (3) insert:

(3a) Despite subsection (3), a person is not entitled to apply for a review of a determination of the Chief Executive under section 157 relating to a decision made under section 84(1)(a) to (d) (inclusive) in respect of a particular child or young person unless—

(a) the child or young person was placed with the person under that section for a specified period of more than 6 months (regardless of the period that the person has, in fact, been caring for the child or young person); or

(b) the person has been caring for the child or young person for a period of more than 6 months.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 4 [ChildPro–1]—

Page 20, after line 21—Insert:

(3) Section 158—after subsection (6) insert:

(7) The Minister must consult with the prescribed body representing carers in relation to any regulation proposed to be made under subsection (2)(e) that, in the Minister's opinion, is likely to substantially affect the rights of carers.

Should there be further unintended consequences as a result of this new jurisdiction, which are not in the best interests of children, it is important that the government has the ability to make regulations to address these issues in a timely manner. If, at some point in the future, it becomes necessary to consider a regulation which is in the best interests of children, I have brought a further amendment which ensures that carers, through a body representing them, will be consulted in relation to the proposed regulation.

Importantly, Connecting Foster and Kinship Carers were consulted in relation to the inclusion of the regulation-making power. They understand that there have been unintended consequences at SACAT since the introduction of this new jurisdiction and, therefore, understand why the government considers it is important to include this regulation-making power. They support the amendment to consult with a peak body representing carers. Parties may still attend conferences by agreement to help resolve issues before SACAT. In many cases, it is likely that conferences will occur. It is also important to note that there are a range of mechanisms that exist to review decisions made in relation to children in care including the Contact Arrangements Review Panel and the department's Central Complaints Unit.

The CHAIR: The minister has moved amendment No. 4 on schedule (2), which is in fact consequential to amendment No. 2 on schedule (3).

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 26.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 5 [ChildPro–1]—

Page 21, lines 3 to 7 [clause 26, inserted section 161A(2)]—Delete subsection (2) and substitute:

(2) However, this section ceases to apply in relation to a child or young person on the death of the child or young person.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 6 [ChildPro–1]—

Page 22, after line 11 [clause 26, inserted section 161A]—Insert:

(6) In this section—

child or young person means a person who is under 25 years of age.

Amendment carried.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, can you please explain exactly how the penalty regime was arrived at?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It was consistent with other provisions similar to this.

Ms HILDYARD: Can you explain, minister, exactly what restrictions on publication are different from the current regime when compared with the restrictions in this clause?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: New section 161A is inserted to better protect the privacy of children in care to protect the right to have their status as a child under guardianship, current or historical, remain confidential. The amendment restricts publication of information that will identify that they are children in care, or who have previously been in care, but does not preclude publication of a child or young person's photograph per se. It precludes the identification of the child or young person as a child in care.

Ms HILDYARD: What is different from the current regime?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: It just strengthens the current provision and makes it a lot clearer. New section 161A also extends the protection beyond reports of family group conferencing or court proceedings and ensures that the child and young person's privacy is protected by such, that they cannot be identified as a child under guardianship, the subject of external SACAT reviews under the Children and Young People (Safety) Act, or the subject of family group conferencing.

The CHAIR: Are you happy with that?

Ms HILDYARD: I would not say I was happy.

The CHAIR: I should rephrase that: any further questions?

Ms HILDYARD: No.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 27.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, could you please explain the purpose of this clause and what it actually attempts to resolve or fix and why?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: This amendment is to give effect to the information sharing guidelines and Ombudsman's recommendations to this effect. It allows disclosure of information to lessen or prevent a serious threat to the life, health or safety of a person, and this allows for information to be disclosed about an adult.

Clause passed.

Clause 28 passed.

Clause 29.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, what responsibility will the child bear should they not adequately be made aware of a document that has been served?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: This provision is only about the serving of a document. All children have access to legal representation.

Ms HILDYARD: Just to clarify, I will repeat my question. What responsibility would a child bear should they not adequately be made aware of a document that has been served?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: If the child is not aware of the document, there would be no substantive liability to the child.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, what is the rationale in changing the age to 18 instead of 16, and with whom did you consult about that change and what was their view?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: The age was increased to make it easier for children, and it was consulted on as discussed earlier in questioning, including with CREATE, who support children leaving care.

Ms Hildyard interjecting:

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: CREATE. The whole bill was given out for consultation to a group of concerned NGOs and stakeholders groups.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, what sorts of issues do you expect children would be served about?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: This section applies to the whole act, so one example might be a written directive.

Clause passed.

New clause 29A.

Ms HILDYARD: I move:

Amendment No 18 [Hildyard–1]—

Page 22, after line 28—Insert:

29A—Amendment of section 169—Review of Act

Section 169—after subsection (2) insert:

(2a) Without limiting the matters that may be considered in the review, the review must consider and report on—

(a) the extent to which this Act (including the administration and enforcement of this Act) is successful in protecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people in this State from harm; and

(b) the extent to which the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle has been properly applied in the performance of functions under this Act (including disaggregated data in respect of each element of the principle); and

(c) the extent to which this Act (including the administration and enforcement of this Act) is successful in protecting children and young people from diverse cultural, linguistic, racial and religious backgrounds in this State from harm; and

(d) the extent to which this Act (including the administration and operation of this Act) satisfactorily recognises and addresses the special needs and complexities relating to, or arising out of, the care of children and young people referred to in a preceding paragraph in this State; and

(e) ways in which this Act can be improved to achieve better outcomes in relation to the care of children and young people referred to in a preceding paragraph.

I will just speak briefly about the impetus for this amendment. In doing so, I will touch on a couple of themes I have touched on previously during this debate. The reason for moving this amendment is that there are many individuals and groups who have spoken with me and with my office about their concerns in relation to this bill.

When I say 'their concerns', those concerns were always absolutely focused on what the passing of this bill would mean for particular groups of children and particularly for vulnerable children. There has been significant concern raised about various aspects of this bill and the impact, or the potential impact, on those particular groups of vulnerable children and the need for more work to be done to ensure that particular groups of vulnerable children are contemplated in any legislation going forward.

As the minister said, there is to be a further review of this act that will commence towards the end of this year. I think it is incredibly important that as a parliament we listen to those groups about the concerns they have raised about particular groups of children. This amendment is in response to those concerns that have been raised. This amendment speaks to Labor's desire to listen to those groups, and it sets out a process for a review of this act and for that review to ensure that it includes particular groups of people in our community. I recommend the amendment to the committee. With those few words, we will await any questions or feedback from the minister.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: At great length, we went through the updates, improvements and the strengthening to the Aboriginal child placement principle as part of the legislation we have been debating. The hope is that it will pass both houses and that it will be implemented. We need time for that to be implemented to see the full consequences and what needs to be further done. I have already committed to the house a full and extensive review in 2022 with regard to all the other amendments that were put by the member for Reynell.

We also believe that this would cause a duplication, as there is the Closing the Gap target that has a review process we are already a part of. But, mostly, we have already made improvements that we are hoping will go through both chambers and become law, and then we will have time before the full review to see if they are adequate and how they are flowing through.

New clause negatived.

Clause 30 passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Sanderson-3]—

Page 23, lines 9 to 11 [Part 2, clause 2(1)(d)]—Delete paragraph (d)

It is a consequential change.

Ms HILDYARD: Could the minister please explain exactly the purpose of this so-called consequential amendment?

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: This consequential amendment is as a result of the amendments made to sections 157 and 158. Importantly, any person who has already brought an application for external review will not be affected by this amendment.

Amendment carried; schedule as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R. SANDERSON (Adelaide—Minister for Child Protection) (11:56): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Ms LUETHEN (King) (11:56): I rise to support the Children and Young People (Safety) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2020, and thank the Minister for Child Protection for this important bill, her efforts and comprehensive work towards better outcomes for children in South Australia. This bill honours the Marshall Liberal government's pre-election commitment to undertake within 12 months a review into the operation of the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017.

Our children in this state are our future and their protection is our priority. Unfortunately, it is a tragic fact that many children do not have a safe childhood, and not every child is able to grow up in a safe and secure home no matter how much government support a family is offered. In fact, I have read that one child is killed by a parent every fortnight in Australia, one in five children will be sexually abused by their 15th birthday and one in four children are growing up witnessing domestic violence.

The Advertiser reported recently that up to 23 children a week are being housed in emergency accommodation as families are fleeing violent households. In these situations, it is up to the government and service providers to step in and put the safety and best interests of the child first. Solutions must be continually found and reviewed and implemented to ensure our state's most vulnerable are safe and protected so that every child has every chance of becoming the best version of themselves.

The Marshall Liberal government is always working to put the rights, safety and best interests of children at the centre of our policy development to protect those who cannot protect themselves. The Children and Young People (Safety) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill ensures that the legislative framework for children in care in South Australia is efficient, responsive and inclusive.

As background to this amendment bill, the minister sought feedback from key government and non-government stakeholders on the efficiency and effectiveness of the Children and Young People (Safety) Act following its first year of operation. Written submissions on the operation of the act were received from a great number of stakeholders. The bill incorporates feedback from key stakeholders but is limited to critical changes to strengthen the current act, noting that there is a requirement under the act for a full review in 2022.

The key amendments include the insertion of a best interests principle as a key consideration in the administration of the act (consideration of best interests existed under the Children's Protection Act 1993); the reintroduction of the short-term investigation and assessment orders, which also existed under the Children's Protection Act; clear articulation and expansion of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle; and the introduction of provisions to enable the government's adoption from care policy.

Let me expand on some of these important changes. In regard to the insertion of new section 8(4) to incorporate the best interests principle, the reference to best interests was removed from the previous child protection legislation as part of system reform intended to support an unequivocal focus on safety as a paramount consideration for the department and the courts in child protection decision-making. The inclusion of best interests as a consideration in decision-making while maintaining safety as a paramount or equal consideration was supported in the recent consultation. I am certainly a strong advocate of including best interests as a key consideration in decision-making while maintaining safety as the paramount concern.

For some stakeholders, legislating the government's commitment to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was seen as an important step, while others have suggested the importance of ensuring that the government's broader obligations to children and young people are enshrined.

Regarding the reintroduction of short-term investigation and assessment orders, following consultation with and feedback from the Attorney-General, the bill will reintroduce the rule requiring hearings for court orders to be commenced within 10 weeks of application. This provides the court with the ability to make short-term custody orders of up to six weeks to allow an investigation of the circumstances of a child or young person to be carried out. The Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017 has been amended to remove potential conflict between the jurisdictions of the Youth Court, the chief executive and SACAT in relation to inconsistencies arising over the placement of children under guardianship.

The section on the articulation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle seeks to articulate that principle as a paramount consideration. It does not displace the primacy of safety but allows the ATSI Child Placement Principle to be of paramount consideration in the administration, operation and enforcement of the act as it relates to Aboriginal children.

The objects of this part include maintaining the connection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people with their family and culture, enabling Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to participate in the care and protection of their children and young people and expanding the participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and bodies in significant decision-making and policy development affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people. The five principles outlined within the bill include the elements of prevention, partnership, placement, participation and connection.

Parliamentary counsel has advised that the inclusion of the provisions of our adoption from care policy in this bill will be a more efficient way of achieving the intent of the policy, rather than trying to amend the Adoption Act 1988. These provisions will enable the timely implementation of the recently approved policy to increase adoption rates for children and young people from care. The statistics that we hear tell us that there are too many children not growing up safely. I ask everyone in our community to help us identify children at risk, to reach out for them to get help, to be a voice for those children and to help us break the cycle of abuse we have in South Australia today. It certainly does take a village to raise safe children.

Valuable state government supports include the Domestic Violence Crisis Line (1800 800 098), which can refer people to a wide range of resources to support families. I urge community members to report a reasonable suspicion that a child has been or is being abused or neglected by phoning the Child Abuse Report Line on 13 14 78. The report line is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Please call 000 in an emergency. There is certainly a lot more work to be done to make children and women safe in South Australia, and I commend our Minister for Child Protection for her work to improve child protection in this state. I look forward to further changes and funding.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (12:05): I rise to make a few comments about this bill, some I have made during the course of the debate and others I wish to make during this contribution. First, I would like to thank the member for King for her comments, particularly for bringing the house's attention to the very startling and deeply unacceptable statistics about children in South Australia. I have said in this house on numerous occasions that I, too, have a deep passion for ensuring that every South Australian child is safe, is well and is able to be supported to thrive emotionally, physically, socially and mentally, and it is up to every one of us in this place—indeed, to everyone in our community—to ensure that is the case.

In our parliament, we all have to prosecute arguments and make decisions, and we have to live with those decisions. We also have to live with the consequences of those decisions. In relation to this particular bill, the minister will have to live with the consequences of her decisions and, sadly, children in care, vulnerable children in care, will also have to live with the consequences of her decisions.

I want to make a number of points about the consultation process in the lead-up to this bill being brought to our parliament. The minister said in the media—and I think also in this house, but I will check—she has said publicly, that all her amendments were widely consulted on. Despite those assertions, as I have said at different points in this debate, we have had numerous individuals and organisations contact us repeatedly raising grave concerns about various elements of this bill, grave concerns that absolutely have to be heard and grave concerns that have been reflected in the amendments that Labor has put forward to the bill.

I find it difficult to accept that the minister has widely and deeply consulted on the amendments she put forward through this bill, given that during the course of debate she has had to make numerous amendments to her amendment bill, as well as the fact that during the debate it has been revealed that there are multiple organisations with whom the minister chose not to consult. It has also been revealed during the course of debate, and indeed before the debate, that there is a refusal on behalf of the minister to release any findings of the consultation she says has been wide and thorough.

Again, I can say that many individuals and organisations have raised their grave concerns about various aspects of this bill. The minister will have to contemplate the consequences of the decisions she has made in relation to the bill but, sadly, vulnerable children will also have to deal with the consequences of those decisions, as will various community organisations, as will various families, as will carers and also carer representative groups.

I will turn for a short time to a point I have made before. I find it alarming that during the course of this debate the minister outlined what she sees as very significant changes to particular aspects of children's and young people's lives in this state. She talked about the huge changes that she is making, particularly in relation to adoption in this state. However, also during the course of this debate she has tried at length to assure the house that this is just a small review, a review that is a year late, that is encompassed in a bill that she first introduced at the end of last year but only just came up for debate a few short weeks ago.

I am somewhat confused about whether this is a fulsome review in the minister's mind or whether it is not the big review, as she also spoke about in the course of this debate. Nonetheless, the changes that she has put forward are significant. The amendments that she has chosen to blatantly ignore and refused to accept are significant, and we will be back reviewing this bill again, as I understand it, at the end of the year. I will now go to some specific issues that have been raised by advocacy groups, individuals and other stakeholders in relation to the bill.

Firstly, as I said in the course of the debate about the adoption provisions in the act, we would welcome a thorough and fulsome discussion about changes to adoption. We understand the benefits that that brings to many individuals, to many families and to our communities. However, we remain deeply concerned that through the changes in this bill the minister seeks to establish a two-tiered system of adoption in South Australia: one for children in state care and one for the remainder of the population, and I do think that that is problematic.

The potential problems with the stance that the minister has been determined to take on this particular issue have certainly elicited a great degree of debate from organisations and individuals who are deeply opposed to the path that the minister has set through this bill. As I said in our debate about the adoption clause, I think it would be welcomed for us to have a fulsome debate about adoption. I would see that that debate should happen around changes to the Adoption Act, not trying to insert almost another bill inside a bill relating to child protection. I would have thought that it would be more appropriate to deal with these particular matters in a debate about the Adoption Act.

It is a matter of public record now that the minister has chosen to ignore every single amendment offered up by the opposition, including those seeking to achieve a degree of much-needed procedural fairness, called for by foster and kinship carers. I spoke at length in the debate about the various issues that foster and kinship carers have raised with me, with my office and with other members of the community. All those groups sought was simply a clause to guarantee that there would be procedural fairness afforded to them in their dealings with the department.

I understand that that those groups also spoke directly with the minister, with her staff and with the department about those issues. Those issues have been well documented in survey after survey of foster and kinship carers but, sadly, the minister has decided to ignore their voices, not to listen to their voices, and refused to accept what I see as a very simple and very commonsense amendment that would actually make a great deal of difference to those incredibly generous and kind South Australians who open up their hearts and homes as foster and kinship carers. I find it extraordinary that that amendment was not accepted.

I can tell you that many foster and kinship carers are not only very angry but also very disappointed about the refusal of the minister to accept an amendment that I actually had thought would be one she would clearly support. I am sure we will be hearing much more about that particular refusal by the minister to listen to that incredibly generous group of South Australians, just to ensure a degree of procedural fairness in their dealings with the department.

The other set of amendments, or one of the other many sets of amendments, we moved related to provisions to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and their families and communities were heard and involved and leading decision-making in regard to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, in relation to both placement and all the issues that concern Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.

All the amendments that we put forward, again, were spoken about with us by Aboriginal community members, by organisations that represented them. They were amendments that were absolutely about ensuring that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were heard and able to lead in relation to their children. I find it heartbreaking that again there was absolutely no desire to listen to those communities or even really to consider those amendments.

You would recall, Mr Acting Speaker, that we spent some time on those amendments, and I tried with clause after clause to put those provisions forward, provisions that I think could make a difference, certainly on the advice that I had, in the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, young people, their families and communities. I find it incredibly disappointing that those voices again were not heard.

Similarly, just this morning we debated a clause in relation to ensuring a robust review of the efficacy of this bill, with particular consideration of how the bill impacts and works for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and also for children from diverse multicultural communities, communities who have also made representations to me and who were specifically asking for some sort of process to ensure that their voices were heard in this process. Again, I refer back to the minister's comments about her deep and wide consultation. I am not aware of any consultation with community organisations, individuals or families representing the breadth of diverse multicultural communities in South Australia in relation to this bill.

Another issue I would draw to the house's attention in closing is that I am very concerned, as are most of the groups who contacted me—many of whom advised that they had also contacted the minister—about some of the particular powers that were moved from the courts to the chief executive. In a joint statement from advocacy groups, certainly a number of those organisations raised particular issues about the protections in relation to adoption that were being abandoned by the minister through this bill.

Of course, this bill will now go to the upper house. I do not imagine there will be a different decision at the end of the third reading. I know that my Labor colleagues will, but I urge all the upper house members to very carefully consider the children and their families who will be deeply impacted by the changes that the minister has put forward in this bill. I go back to what I said at the beginning of these remarks and say that in this place we all have to live with our decisions. We all have to live with the consequences of our decisions. In this case, the most vulnerable children in South Australia will also have to live through the consequences of the decisions we make in relation to this bill.

I urge the minister to continue—or perhaps to start—to reflect on the various amendments that we put forward. They were all amendments that absolutely, deeply responded to concerns raised from community members, from families and from community groups. I urge her and I urge other colleagues in the upper house to think about those amendments and to think very carefully about the children who are at the heart of those amendments and indeed at the heart of the consequences of this bill. As I said, obviously the bill will pass. I do again strongly encourage consideration of the amendments that I have just briefly outlined again now.

Finally, in closing, I did want to say thank you to parliamentary counsel for their work on the bill and also for responding in a very timely way to the many amendments that I put forward and the amendments to the amendment bill that the minister put forward. I thank parliamentary counsel for working with both of us to put all those amendments together. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for taking us right through this debate, as have other parliamentary staff, and thank you also to the departmental staff who have also been present and engaged in these discussions.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (12:21): I just wish to make a few brief remarks in applauding the development and progress of this bill. Importantly, in the near 20 years I have been in this place, there have been quite significant reviews and reforms in relation to child protection and children's safety in this state, some of which have been useful and some of which have failed.

We are today considering in the concluding period the Children and Young People (Safety) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, which amends a body of work that passed this parliament back in 2017. Some of it was effective, some of it was quite novel. Some aspects—for example, the issue in relation to confessions in a religious context—became controversial but, ultimately, were indeed supported by the national royal commission into institutional sexual abuse of children.

With that, there were errors in relation to some aspects that needed to be remedied. The first one I want to mention is one on which I applaud the minister for incorporating in this bill because it is a matter that ultimately was causing havoc in the timely progress of child protection cases in our Youth Court. I met with Judge Penny Eldridge, a District Court judge and also head of the Youth Court in South Australia, soon after coming into government.

She explained to me what appeared to be a genuine attempt to deal with the progression in a timely manner of child protection cases, which used to work on the old 10-week rule, to ensure that whether there are prosecutions but in particular in relation to child protection matters in those courts, they be dealt with as promptly as possible.

A new mechanism was introduced and it clearly failed. This was identified as something that was a weakness in relation to that attempt, well intentioned as it may have been, and it needed to be fixed, so I appreciate the minister bringing this to the attention of the parliament to remedy it. It will enable us to fix the problem.

The problem at present in the trials—that is, the contested hearings in relation to these matters, leaving aside the interim arrangements—is if they are listed. If it takes more than a day for oral evidence to be given in these trials, it then becomes a part-heard matter and, except in exceptional circumstances, cannot proceed to be concluded the next day or the day after that until it has finished. It can be put off for some weeks or months ahead. This is a massive disruption to the orderly management of these cases and of course the prompt attention to these matters, so I thank the minister for bringing this into her bill.

I know that the judge of the Youth Court, Judge Eldridge, will be pleased. She is already trialling some amazing things in that court and I commend her and her team for that. During COVID, we probably had a little bit of a relaxation of criminal cases going through our criminal courts, including in the Youth Court, but child protection continues to be there and we need to be able to have a court that understands the sensitivities and protective requirements for these children. That is one aspect that has been well received and I know will be greatly appreciated.

I want to place on the record my appreciation to Her Honour for establishing a pioneering new program, and that is her Reunification Court, as she calls it, where she identifies cases where there may be some opportunity for family reunification. She takes a direct and personal role in the conciliation with department and family members, who are often parents, to try to bring families together. That is about to be reviewed and I am awaiting a report on that. I am very pleased about the work that is going on there.

Secondly, I make a point in relation to adoption. This is novel, it is reformist and it is an aspect that, frankly, in the royal commissions that I have read from, particularly those involving retired Judge Mullighan and retired Judge Nyland, repeatedly confirm to us what most of us already know, and that is that children who have a parent or parents who are unable or unwilling to look after them or provide protection for them, for which the state undertakes a role to provide protection to them, and who have access to residential care or foster care or some other kinship arrangement, are children who beg repeatedly at these inquiries that they have a chance to be part of a family, that they have some permanency in their residential arrangements and that they have a family they can say yes to, who welcomes them into their family and legally adopts them.

Of course, we also know of the sensitivities around decades of public policy, some of which was appalling in relation to the removal of children in Indigenous families. We understand that. That is a sensitivity that is acknowledged in the progress of this legislation as to not apply to Indigenous children, but let us not hear the eternal plight of children who are lost in that sea of being unloved and uncared for and unprotected by a family and give them that chance.

I commend the courage of the minister for taking up this issue in public, amongst the welfare agencies and amongst the families that are willing to offer that to these children. I commend her for that. It does take some courage because, unlike the member for Reynell's plight about not listening to her ideas or her amendments—and I will come to that in a moment—what concerns me about the member for Reynell is that she is suggesting that some people will never accept adoption law in this category. That is fine. That is their view. I do not agree with it. I think that it is wrong, but that is their view and I respect that.

But do not expect that all those naysayers in relation to much-needed reform, who do not get their little piece in a piece of statute to be recognised, are in some way being dismissed or ignored. They have been listened to. Some aspects are not agreed to. Some of those people will never accept what is being promoted in this legislation, but so be it. If it is the will of the parliament to put this in place, then that must be respected. This is the ultimate body that makes that decision.

In relation to amendments, some very worthy amendments are frequently put up by members in this house to improve bills. Some that are worthy do not get support, but that is an aspect of the determination of this house. The member repeatedly claims that she feels somehow or other aggrieved that she has put up worthy amendments and they have been ignored and that somehow or other she is sending a message to the other house that that is a chance for them to fix that. That may be so, but most of those amendments—and I have listened to this debate very carefully—were not even put to a vote in this house. She did not have the support of even the crossbenchers in relation to these matters.

So this house has made a decision, and every single member in it has had an opportunity to put the amendments they wished to put and to put them to a vote, if they wished to, not come back and whinge about reflecting on a vote or failing to put them to a vote at all. This is the will of this house. I utterly reject the assertion that on this side of the house there has been some refusal to consult, some ignorance of the dissenting view, some complete dismissal of ideas that have been presented just because the member's amendments, worthy as she might think they are, have not been—

Ms Hildyard interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Reynell!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —embraced by this house. I just place on the record my concern about that because any one of us can put up ideas and recommendations to improve legislation, and that should be welcomed.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Attorney, can you take your seat for a moment, please. The member for Reynell and others on the opposition benches should not be interjecting. You know that it is out of order. You may disagree with what the Attorney is saying, but you have had an opportunity to speak a number of times and the Attorney is able to speak without interjection.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will conclude by thanking the minister for her work and of course members of her department. I would expect there are members in the general community who have very fixed views for and against the adoption recommendations here. I think they are worthy, and I can say that I have consistently read these reports over and over again, to deal with these children who have been left out in the cold. This minister, through her advocacy, through her presentation of this to the parliament, is going to give them a chance to be loved and protected in a family environment, and they are entitled to have the chance for that to occur, and I commend her for that. I commend the passage of the bill.

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