HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-11-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 October 2009. Page 3641.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (19:54): I rise to speak to the Children's Protection (Implementation of Report Recommendations) Amendment Bill. I open my remarks by quoting sections of Commissioner Mullighan's introduction to the report of Children in State Care Commission of Inquiry, as follows:

Nothing prepared me for the foul undercurrent of society revealed in the evidence to the Inquiry; not my life in the community or my work in the law as a practitioner and a judge. I had no understanding of the widespread prevalence of the sexual abuse of children in South Australia and its frequent devastating and often lifelong consequences for many of them.

Before the Inquiry I had no understanding that people who had been abused felt fear, guilt, shame and responsibility, which contributed to their silence…I was not prepared for the horror of the sexual cruelty and exploitation of little children and vulnerable young people in State care by people in positions of trust and responsibility, or the use of them at paedophile parties for sexual gratification, facilitated by the supply of drugs and alcohol.

I had no understanding that, for many people, a consequence of having been sexually abused as a child was the loss of a childhood and an education…I had no knowledge of the fear, isolation and loneliness of the children living on the streets and the means by which they survived.

As the Inquiry progressed I soon felt a deep sense of privilege and responsibility at having been entrusted with the disclosures of people's most painful memories. I observed their selflessness and courage in sharing their stories as part of their process of healing, but also their desire to assist in some way to prevent future sexual abuse of children in State care.

It is in this context that this bill is introduced. Through it, we hope that we can, as a parliament, take another step to do what we can to expose current abuse and prevent future sexual abuse of children in state care. It is timely that we are considering this bill the day after the federal parliament made an apology to the forgotten Australians. This parliament made an apology 18 months ago, but apologies are only stages in a journey. Part of our state's journey with victims of past abuses is that we do what we can to reduce current and future abuse. Just as the opposition actively advocated for the establishment of the commission of inquiry, we will be supporting this bill.

The Children in State Care Commission of Inquiry commenced its work in November 2004. A total of 792 people told the inquiry that they were victims of child sex abuse while living in South Australia. These people have made 1,592 allegations dating from the 1930s to the present time, involving 1,733 alleged perpetrators. Of the 792 people, 242 were children in state care at the time of the alleged abuse, and they made a total of 826 allegations against 922 alleged perpetrators.

Commissioner Ted Mullighan issued interim reports on 12 May 2005 and 28 October 2005, with his final report being released in April 2008. The government's initial response to the inquiry report was tabled in this parliament on 17 June 2008 and an implementation statement was tabled in the parliament on 25 September 2008. The government accepted all but one of these legislative recommendations.

This bill has been described to the opposition as purely Mullighan; that is, we understand that it is focused on a package of legislative reforms in direct response to Commissioner Mullighan's recommendations. The bill amends the Children's Protection Act 1993 and the Health and Community Services Complaints Commission Act 2004.

First, I would like to consider the enhanced provisions to promote child safe environments. On 31 December 2006, amendments to the Children's Protection Act 1993 entitled, 'Child Safe Environments' came into operation. Section 8B of the act requires certain organisations to obtain a criminal history from the Commissioner of Police or Crim Trac for people who hold, or who are to be appointed to, positions that involve regular contact with children or being in close proximity to children or having access to records relating to children.

The section applies to all non-government organisations, but only to those non-government organisations named in the regulations. Regulations only extend the operation of the provision to non-government schools within the meaning of the Education Act 1972. In her second reading speech, the minister noted the following:

At that time, a number of non-government organisations that were not legally obliged to conduct criminal history checks of staff and volunteers working with children did so as part of their commitment to making children safe and because they saw this as good organisational practice. I recognise in particular a number of churches, sporting bodies and service organisations that undertook this positive step of their own initiative.

Section 8C currently requires certain organisations to establish appropriate policies and procedures for ensuring that mandated reports of abuse or neglect are made under the act and that child safe environments are established and maintained within the organisation. There is a penalty of up to $10,000 for non-compliance. Section 8C has much wider application than section 8B. Section 8C applies to an organisation that provides health, welfare, education, sporting or recreational, religious or spiritual child care or residential services wholly or partly for children. The section applies to a government department, agency or instrumentality or a local government or non-government organisation.

The effect of sections 8B and 8C is that the obtaining of a criminal history report is discretionary for non-government organisations other than non-government schools as defined in the Education Act 1972. In recommendation 3 and the first element Commissioner Mullighan recommended that the duty to get criminal history checks under section 8B ought to apply to organisations as defined in section 8C. In recommendation 2 in its second element he recommended that consideration be given to reducing or waiving the fee for an organisation applying for a criminal history check in order to comply with section 8B. The government's response is that it will allow a general waiver; it will continue its present policy of waiving fees for criminal history reports for volunteers working with vulnerable groups, but it will not apply a full waiver.

The government's approach is that it will provide exemptions from the requirements to organisations, persons and positions where there is an assessed low risk to children and the requirement would necessarily be onerous for the organisation. The government proposes to achieve this exemption in two ways: first, the minister says that the definition of prescribed functions under section 8B(8) will be amended by regulation to exclude certain functions, in particular where a person is under direct supervision and observation at all times by appropriate personnel.

I ask the minister at the summing up of the second reading to clarify this situation for the opposition. My reading of clause 8B(8) is that prescribed functions can be added to by regulation, but that clause 8B(8) does not allow new motive functions to be limited by regulation in terms of persons engaged in those functions. I seek clarification from the government as to whether it has the power it intends to use. Secondly, the minister advises that an exemption scheme will also be established by regulations under the Children's Protection Act 1993. It is intended that these regulations will exempt organisations, positions and functions from the requirement to undertake criminal history checks in certain circumstances.

I indicate that I am concerned that the regulations be carefully worded and scrutinised. There is no point broadening the scope of section 8B if the increase in scope is undermined by exemptions. Obviously each exemption reduces the cost to non-government organisations and volunteers, but every exemption also reduces the protection available to children and young people. The shadow attorney-general in the other place warned the parliament that criminal history checks are not magical. They are not some kind of panacea for the protection of children. People who have a criminal record are the ones who have been caught. The Mullighan report lays testament to the fact that many perpetrators are still at large.

In December 2007 the Guardian for Children and Young People, Ms Simmons, reinforced this point in evidence to Commissioner Mullighan's inquiry when she said that a child safe environment:

...involves a lot more than police check, background checking, of any volunteers or paid staff working with children or having access to the records of children, and that such checks are only one part of creating a child safe environment.

She went on to say:

It is very easy for all of us to slip straight into the regulation structure—regulation, rules, policies, procedures. The greater protection always will come from the less tangible things about the environment, and that is the perspective people take, the notice they take of children, the involvement of children in regular activities, not just child activities. Those are the things that make the bigger difference for a child safe environment rather than regulation. I am not saying do away with the regulations about safety and screening, but I am saying that the bigger challenge is actually an attitude and environmental social environment, change in organisations, and we still have a long way to go.

The acts recognise the importance of culture in creating a child safe environment. Under section 8A(i) of the act the chief executive of the Department for Families and Communities is currently required to monitor progress towards child safe environments in the government and non-government sectors and to report regularly to the minister. Commissioner Mullighan noted that for the chief executive to be able to effectively discharge his or her duties and monitor progress it is essential that the organisations covered by section 8C provide the chief executive with a copy of their policies and procedures or for the chief executive to maintain a register of them. The bill imposes this obligation by clause 8.

I now move to the issue of notification of abuse and neglect. In recommendation 30 Commissioner Mullighan highlighted that the law is to protect people who make reports under the act, not only to protect their confidentiality but also to protect them from intimidation or unfavourable treatment when reporting. Clause 10 amends section 11 of the act to make it an offence for a person to threaten or intimidate, or cause damage, loss or disadvantage to a person, because the person has discharged, or proposes to discharge, his or her duty to notify. The maximum penalty is a fine of $10,000.

I move now to the role of the Guardian for Children and Young People. The guardian plays an important role in representing and advocating for the rights and interests of children and young people in care, and as a monitor of that care. This bill strengthens the powers and functions of the guardian. The minister advised that in some cases the amendments formalise what is already occurring, and that the amendments have been brought forward to ensure that there is no doubt regarding the guardian's role. In particular, the guardian's functions and powers are amended to make it clear that the guardian is able to act as an advocate for a child or young person in state care who has made a disclosure of sexual abuse.

Commissioner Mullighan reported that he consistently found that adults who were sexually abused as children in state care said they would have liked to have a person in authority to whom they could take their concerns, and who would represent their interests and intervene on their behalf with the minister and the department. The commissioner said that he considers that a child in state care should have such an advocate from the time he or she makes an allegation of sexual abuse until the completion of the criminal justice process. The role of an advocate would be to monitor the response of the state to that allegation, including the child's placement, the organisation of therapy for the child, the response of the police in investigating, the response of the DPP (including the provision of witness assistance), and the response of the courts in progressing the matter.

Currently, under section 52C(1)(b) the guardian's functions include 'to act as an advocate for the interests of children under the guardianship, or in the custody, of the minister'. The bill proposes to add the words 'and, in particular, for any such child who has suffered, or is alleged to have suffered, sexual abuse'. On a literal reading, advocating for a child who has suffered sexual abuse, as is required under the current clause, is already covered. However, the guardian, Ms Simmons, has publicly indicated that the emphasis and intention of the legislation is on systemic advocacy and change.

In her 2006-07 annual report Ms Simmons advised that, as guardian, she had, in specific circumstances, advocated on behalf of individual children or young people. In that year the guardian responded to 103 requests for assistance with individual children or young people and intervened on behalf of 34. Only six of these cases were self referrals. Of the 34 cases, two involved allegations of abuse in care, and these were not necessarily self referrals. Ms Simmons told the Mullighan inquiry that, while individual advocacy was not part of the role of the guardian, it had started to provide individual advocacy in limited circumstances because there was no other service to provide it.

There is some lack of clarity as to the roles between bodies in the areas of advocacy, investigation and complaints. In broad terms, as I understand it, the guardian advocates, the investigation unit investigates, and the Health and Community Services Complaints Commission is responsible for formal complaints.

Clearly, Commissioner Mullighan felt that it was important, moving forward, that the role of the guardian as an advocate should be strengthened and to make clear that it involves individual advocacy. In recommendation 23 the commissioner recommended that the Children's Protection Act be amended to add a function to the Guardian for Children and Young People; namely, 'To act as an advocate for a child or young person in state care who has made a disclosure of sexual abuse.'

An essential ingredient in advocacy is independence. The inquiry stated that it was important that the guardian's independence be formalised in the Children's Protection Act 1993. One aspect of independence is the security of tenure of the office holder. Commissioner Mullighan noted that the guardian may be removed under the current act by the Governor for reasons set out in section 52A(5) of the Children's Protection Act, and that those reasons were so broad and unqualified that it does not sit well with the idea of an independent Guardian for Children and Young People.

In recommendation 27 the commissioner recommends that the powers of removal be replaced with provisions similar to the powers of removal relating to the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner and the Employee Ombudsman. The Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner may be removed by the Governor for limited and defined reasons including becoming, in the opinion of the Governor, mentally or physically incapable of carrying out satisfactorily the duties of office. The Governor may also remove the commissioner from office on the presentation of an address from both houses of parliament seeking the removal. This bill amends section 52A to legislate similar provisions in relation to the guardian.

Another aspect of independence is the ability to act contrary to ministerial direction. Currently, section 52A of the Children's Protection Act provides that the guardian is subject to the minister's direction. However, section 52A(7) indicates that the guardian is not subject to ministerial direction in a number of specified areas. The act also requires that any directions given to the guardian by the minister must be in writing.

Nevertheless, it was the view of the commissioner that these direction provisions are not sufficiently consistent with the independence of the guardian and, in recommendation 28, he recommended that the Children's Protection Act 1993 be amended to expressly refer to the independence of the Guardian of Children and Young People and that the GCYP must represent the best interests of children and young people under the guardianship or in the custody of the minister, and that the minister cannot control how the GCYP is to exercise his or her statutory functions and powers.

Clause 14 of this bill proposes to insert a new section 52AB on independence. In summary on this point, instead of starting with a general power of the minister to direct the guardian this bill starts with the fact that the guardian must 'act independently, impartially and in the public interest'. Proposed section 15(2) provides that the minister cannot control how the guardian is to exercise the guardian's statutory functions and powers and cannot give any direction with respect to the content of any report prepared by the guardian.

The shadow attorney-general in another place highlighted the novelty of these provisions. In relation to these provisions I ask the minister: how do the provisions of this bill for the independence of the guardian compare with independence provisions in other legislation for statutory officers and, to the extent that they differ, why does the government prefer the provisions in this bill? Further, have there been any ministerial directions given to the guardian under this act?

One of the guardian's functions is to advise the minister on the quality of care being provided to children under the guardianship or custody of the minister and whether their needs are being met. Under the Children's Protection Act 1993 the guardian must report to the minister as requested by the minister and also produce an annual report. Commissioner Mullighan, however, foresaw that the guardian may consider some matters require a special report to the minister which should also be laid before both houses of parliament. There is currently no provision for such reports in the Children's Protection Act.

In recommendation 29 the commissioner recommended that the Children's Protection Act 1993 be amended to allow for the guardian to prepare a special report to the minister on any matter arising from the exercise of the GCYP's functions under the act and that the amendment shall require the minister to table the special report in parliament within six sitting days of receipt. Clause 17 inserts a new section 52DA, which provides:

The guardian may, at any time, prepare a report to the minister on any matter arising out of the exercise of the guardian's functions under this act.

I now turn to the issue of consultation with young people and children. Commissioner Mullighan said that one of the most important aspects to the prevention of sexual abuse is the empowerment of children and young people in all parts of their life. He reports that the New South Wales Commissioner for Children and Young People undertook a comprehensive literature review of 1998 to 2002 on the benefits of participation of children and young people in their own life and found that participation empowers children and young people and that it can help protect them. The Guardian for Children and Young People said:

Arguably, the most fundamental and significant change we can make is to listen to and act on what children and young people have to say about their lives in care.

Part of this involves meaningful participation by children in decision-making and changing community attitudes. The commissioner recommended that a youth advisory committee be established to advise the guardian, and clause 18 inserts a new section 52EA to this end.

The commissioner also recognises the empowerment of children in state care with disabilities is more complex and for this reason recommends that a specialist position be created in the guardian's office to address individual and systemic advocacy for such children. The government has accepted this recommendation and has funded the position, and I welcome that, but it does highlight the hypocrisy of this government. This is the government that, less than a year before the commission report, took $750,000 out of disability information and advocacy services.

The bill also serves to strengthen the role of the guardian in terms of the relationship of the guardian with third parties and dealing with attempts to interfere with that relationship. In recommendation 30, Commissioner Mullighan recommended, as follows:

The Children's Protection Act 1993 is amended to provide the Guardian for Children and Young People with powers to obtain information from any person in connection with the GCYP's functions under the act. This power should be coupled with a penalty for failure to comply. It should also be an offence for a person to persuade or attempt to persuade another by threat or intimidation not to provide information, and there should be a general provision making it an offence to obstruct the GCYP.

Clause 16 of the bill proposes to insert new section 52CA, which creates a series of offences—offences relating to intimidation, reprisals and obstruction and the provision of information that is false or misleading.

The bill also provides for a charter of rights for children and young people in care. The work on the charter was concurrent to, rather than a result of, the work of the commission. The Guardian for Children and Young People has for some time had a group of voluntary youth advisers who are either in care or have been in care. The youth advisers created and developed the charter for children and young people in care in consultation with other children and young people, carers, social workers and people from government and non-government organisations. The then minister launched the charter in April 2006, and by the end of 2007 it had been endorsed by 42 organisations.

The young people wanted the charter of rights to be in legislation. To this end, the charter was passed through the youth parliament in 2006. The guardian has indicated that the then minister had supported it being passed in parliament, and she understood that it had gone to parliamentary counsel. Commissioner Mullighan indicated that he supported legislative endorsement of the charter of rights in the same way that the parliament passed schedule 1 of the South Australian Carers Charter and the Carers Recognition Act 2005.

In recommendation 7, Commissioner Mullighan recommended that the Charter of Rights for Children and Young People in Care be the subject of legislation in South Australia. In her second reading speech, the minister claimed, as follows:

In accordance with the inquiry's recommendation, this bill establishes a legislative requirement that the Charter of Rights for Children and Young People in Care exists.

I regard that statement as misleading. The recommendation, in context, was clearly referring to a charter enshrined in legislation. Under the Carers Recognition Act, the charter is entrenched in legislation. In this legislation, the charter is not entrenched: it is merely required to be produced and endorsed by the minister. It is not what the young people asked for, it is not what the commissioner recommended, and it is sophistry for the government to suggest otherwise.

The bill inserts a new section 52EF, which requires persons involved with children in care to 'have regard to, and seek to implement to the fullest extent possible, the terms of the charter.' The section makes it clear that the charter cannot create legally enforceable rights or entitlements. Of the 40-plus agencies which have endorsed the Charter of Rights for Children and Young People in Care and pledged to apply it in their practice and policy, only 12 are government agencies. Three of those are government departments or units: the Office for Youth, the Department for Families and Communities and the Department of Education and Children's Services. The other nine are government health services. Of course, the bill will apply the charter to all government agencies, whether they ascribe to it or not, but I find it disappointing to see that the government is not showing the same eagerness to associate with the charter as the non-government sector.

Earlier, I highlighted that just as the guardian has a role of advocacy, both individual and systemic, the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner has a role in terms of offering a formal complaints system. The Layton report recommended that a special unit be created to investigate complaints and grievances in relation to services concerning children and young people.

Commissioner Mullighan recognised the need for an independent body to investigate any complaints from a child about the response to his or her allegation of sexual abuse. Commissioner Mullighan concluded that the HCSC Commissioner holds an important statutory office that provides an independent complaints investigation and reparations process.

The position of the commissioner was established in 2005, with a child protection jurisdiction coming into effect in July 2006, when the commissioner had secured a dedicated resource. The Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner has jurisdiction to receive, independently assess and resolve complaints about child protection services which fall under the act's definition of 'community service'.

However, Commissioner Mullighan expressed concern that the current legislation does not permit a child under the age of 16 to complain directly to the commissioner. Accordingly, Commissioner Mullighan recommended in recommendation 31 as follows:

That the Health and Community Services Complaints Act 2004 be amended to allow all children and young people to make a complaint directly to the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner.

This proposal was supported in recommendation 27 of the review of the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner at the end of 2008. This bill seeks to amend the act to allow a direct complaint. The commissioner also expressed concern as to time limits. He recommended that the commissioner's act should contain a specific provision stating that a relevant consideration for extending the two year time frame limit be extended in the child protection jurisdiction where the complaint arises from circumstances dating back to May 2004 when 'Keeping them safe' was launched. Recommendation 5 of the commissioner's act review supported the Mullighan proposal and the changes are in the schedule to this bill.

At this point, I indicate that the opposition is very disappointed that the government is yet to finalise its response to Commissioner Mullighan's recommendation 43. In that recommendation Commissioner Mullighan called for a therapeutic facility for the secure care of children who have behavioural or drug problems. Children in this state, from time to time and for short periods, end up in a youth detention facility (in particular, the Magill Training Centre) because there is no secure facility to put them in. That is in spite of the fact that they have not committed a criminal offence or are not even suspected of having committed a criminal offence.

In summing up the second reading in another place, the minister said that the government had sought and received advice from the Guardian for Children and Young People on the issue as follows:

As best my memory serves me, we have not yet reported on a clear decision in relation to that.

So, I ask the minister, in this place, whether the government can advise what decision has been made in relation to recommendation 43.

The second aspect about which I want to indicate the disappointment of the opposition is that in having the second part of the reform recommended by Commissioner Mullighan we still do not have a redress fund for victims who have come forward. A very clear recommendation of Commissioner Mullighan was that there should be an investigation into the establishment of a redress fund. The Attorney-General insists that victims need to use an inappropriate victims of crime compensation scheme or resort to submissions for ex gratia payments. The opposition is of the view that a statutory redress scheme would be more appropriate.

I would like to highlight another issue raised by Commissioner Mulligan, that is, record-keeping. The commissioner considers that the methods of record-keeping need to be improved in regard to children in state care who have alleged sexual abuse. He said that during the course of the inquiry it was not possible to make an inquiry on the department's computer system to locate all the children who had allegedly been abused while in state care.

Given the recommended role for the Guardian for Children and Young People as an individual advocate for such children, the commissioner is of the view that the department must ensure that appropriate records are maintained and are easily accessible. He noted that Families SA is currently developing a new case management system. In recommendation 25 the commissioner recommended the following:

That Families SA's new C3MS (connection client and case management system) include a separate menu for allegations of sexual abuse of a child in state care which would collate the names of all such children. That the system include a separate field in relation to each child in state care, which is dedicated to recording any information about allegations of sexual abuse, including when that information had been forwarded to the Guardian for Children and Young People.

It is timely that we should be considering the Mullighan report at a time when the department is in conflict with its own workers over the implementation of C3MS. The Public Service Association has placed work bans in the Crisis Response Unit and district offices. While the Crisis Response Unit bans are, as I understand it, currently suspended, the PSA made it clear in a statement, dated last Friday, that the bans will be reimposed if there is an unacceptable increase in workloads or adverse effects on the health and welfare of members.

In relation to the unacceptable increase in workloads, I remind the council that even before the implementation of C3MS the team at Families SA has been working with a huge increase in notifications over recent years. In the most recent year I have available to me the number of child protection notifications in 2007-08 totalled 17,142. Of those, 1,019 were tier 1 notifications, the most serious level of notification. The total of 17,142 is a 30 per cent increase in five years up to 2007-08.

Here we have a team which is dealing with one of the most sensitive areas, one of the most important areas, of child protection and care. They are already dealing with a huge workload, and what they are being asked to do is to cope with the implementation of a case management system, which the workers are not even confident of being able to do the job. They are certainly finding a dramatic increase in their workloads in what is already a very stressful and delicate area of government child protection.

The union has concerns that the pressures of the new system are so severe that it is having adverse effects on the health and welfare of members. Considering the problems that we have in retaining staff in Families SA, it is a very stressful and challenging role. We need to respect and value these workers. We need to make sure that they get the support they need to make their role manageable. They need our support; the first thing they need is tools to do their job.

In conclusion, I reiterate that the Liberal opposition supports this bill as a part of the efforts of this state to do what we can to secure the safety and health of South Australian children, especially children entrusted to the care of the state.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (20:30): I rise to contribute some brief remarks on the Children's Protection (Implementation of Report Recommendations) Amendment Bill. The bill represents another element of the government's response to recommendations made in the reports of the Commission of Inquiry into Children in State Care and the Commission of Inquiry into Children on APY Lands, the Mullighan commission.

As I indicated in my remarks on the Statutes Amendment (Children's Protection) Bill, now is not the time to revisit the heartbreaking stories recounted to those commissions of inquiry. Now is the time to take decisive legislative action and make sure that some of those terrible stories will no longer need to be told in the future.

The Children's Protection (Implementation of Report Recommendations) Amendment Bill represents substantial reforms that are intended to strengthen South Australia's child protection system and protect children as they take part in various activities in the community. It amends the Children's Protection Act 1993 and the Health and Community Services Complaints Commission Act 2004.

In summary, specified organisations will be required under the act to conduct criminal history assessments on certain employees, contractors and volunteers and lodge a statement outlining their child safe environment policies and procedures with the Department for Families and Communities.

The amendments will apply to all organisations, businesses, service providers and groups, whether incorporated or unincorporated, that provide the following services wholly or in part for children: health, welfare, education, sporting or recreational, religious or spiritual, child care and residential services.

The requirement for criminal history assessments will cover all employees, volunteers, agents and subcontractors who are (1) working in a prescribed position in (2) a relevant organisation. A criminal history assessment is a process leading to a decision about whether a particular person is suitable to work with children.

The determination is arrived at on the basis of a person's criminal history, if any, and the assessed risk to children served by the organisation. The term 'prescribed functions' in section 8B(8) of the Children's Protection Act indicates that not all functions are captured and, indeed, certain low risk functions are excluded. Further, certain organisations and positions will be exempt under the regulations.

Of course, exemptions will not be made for activities such as commercial child care, child protection or service provisions for those with disabilities, and the prohibition preventing registrable offenders from involving themselves in child-related work as per the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act 2006 will remain firmly in place.

A person who volunteers in his or her children's sporting activities, for example, will be exempt from the requirement of a criminal history assessment. I coach my son's basketball team, so I would be exempt from a criminal history assessment, even though I would have no problem with doing one because there is a blank page.

A work position where all child-related work is performed while the child's parents or guardians are present, and there is no physical contact with the child, will be exempt. A person who works or a position that involves work not provided on an individual basis or for the exclusive benefit of a child or children will be exempt.

Police officers and registered teachers will be exempt, and there are other exemptions to meet specific scenarios and circumstances. In this way, the right balance can be struck between a risk or risks under reasonable management of the government's new and extended requirements. These amendments will contribute to the safety of children and protect them when assessing services.

Extending the requirement on organisations from the obtaining of criminal history checks to the carrying out an assessment of a person's criminal history in accordance with the regulations will also help organisations to manage the risks associated with engaging people in various child-related work arrangements. By the same token, it will ensure that standards are maintained.

The bill also provides stronger protection for mandatory notifiers—those who have a legal obligation to report any suspected child abuse and/or neglect, such as teachers and healthcare workers. It will create a new offence of preventing a person from discharging the obligation of mandatory reporting through threat, intimidation or unfavourable treatment.

The bill will establish avenues to ensure that suitable response protocols and mechanisms are available when a child discloses sexual abuse. It will clarify and augment the powers, including powers relating to obtaining and using information, exercised by the Guardian for Children and Young People. The guardian's funding has been augmented to support two specialist advocacy positions for children with disabilities in care, Aboriginal children in care and young people in care.

The Guardian will advocate for a child or young person disclosing sexual abuse while in care. The Guardian's independence will be affirmed by these amendments and, importantly, the Guardian will have the capacity to report to the minister on any matter, with the report to be impervious to ministerial direction and to be brought speedily to the attention of the parliament. A youth advisory committee is to be established to assist the Guardian with first-hand experience and advice.

On a related matter, the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner will be expressly empowered by way of amendment to the Health and Community Services Complaints Act 2004 to receive complaints from children and young people on an individual—that is, case-by-case—basis and, in certain circumstances, to extend the limitation period in which a complaint must be lodged.

Finally, the bill will establish a legislative requirement for the existence, availability and regular review of the Charter of Rights for Children and Young People in Care. These changes will bring South Australia further in line with 'working with children' schemes established in other Australian states and territories. Most Australian jurisdictions outside South Australia have introduced 'working with children' checks in recent years, or are moving to introduce such checks. For example, Queensland, Victoria, New South Wales, Western Australia, and now the Northern Territory, have well-established schemes for checking persons working in child-related employment.

As I said when I addressed the Statutes Amendment (Children's Protection) Bill, the measures I have discussed cannot by themselves make better the harm that has already been done—and is possibly being done even as we speak—but it is incumbent upon us to make sure that things change from now, with the passing of this bill, for the protection of our children. I commend the bill to members.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Energy) (20:36): By way of concluding remarks, I thank those honourable members who contributed to the second reading debate. I thank them for their support. The Children's Protection (Implementation of Report Recommendations) Amendment Bill 2009 was passed by the House of Assembly on 14 October 2009, and it is heartening to see that the opposition has recognised the importance of the reforms contained in this bill and supports its passage through the council.

The bill is a key component of the government's legislative response to the Mullighan inquiry recommendations and introduces important reforms aimed at strengthening South Australia's child protection system and protecting children as they interact in the community.

The bill will enhance provisions to promote child safe environments, including requiring a broader range of organisations to have a criminal history check for personnel working with children; introducing additional protection for mandatory notifiers; establishing that appropriate mechanisms are available to respond when a young person makes a disclosure of sexual abuse; clarifying and strengthening the role and powers of the Guardian for Children and Young People and the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner; and introducing additional mechanisms to promote the participation of children and young people in government decision-making.

The Hon. Stephen Wade asked a number of questions during the second reading debate, and I would beg the indulgence of the chamber to allow me to deal with those answers in clause 1 of the committee stage. I commend the bill and look forward to the committee stage being dealt with expeditiously.

Bill read a second time.

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