HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-03-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CHILDREN'S PROTECTION (REPORTING OF SUSPECTED CRIMINAL OFFENCE) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government does not propose to delay the business of the house tonight with any detailed opposition to this bill. Suffice to say, we will all oppose it and will be correcting or opposing it outright in the other place, if it makes it that far.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: To assist the progress of the committee, I advise that I do not intend to move the amendments in schedule Wade 1, but I do intend to proceed with the amendments in schedule Wade 2 standing in my name.

Clause passed.

New clause 1A.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 2, after line 4—After clause 1 insert:

1A—Commencement.

This act will come into operation 4 months after the day on which it is assented to by the Governor.

This new clause, as I understand it, is merely to allow for the regulations anticipated by my future amendments to be incorporated. As this is reverse consequential and an administrative matter to deal with the substance, I could deal with the substance here or at the later clauses.

The CHAIR: Deal with just new clause 1A.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I will address the amendments as a whole and members can therefore consider them in that context. The opposition indicated at the second reading stage that we had concerns about this bill, particularly in relation to the scope of criminal offences and, secondly, in the prospect that the processes could become overly cumbersome, particularly the impact that might have on costs of a department that is already stretched. So, we greatly appreciate the Hon. Ann Bressington engaging with us on our concerns, and the opposition proposes these amendments having had those discussions with the Hon. Ann Bressington.

Our responses regarding our two concerns are, firstly, to give the opportunity to the government to limit the range of criminal offences that would need to be reported. It would not be hard for one to conceive of incidents which might well constitute a potential criminal offence and therefore would be reportable under this bill and which it would not be reasonable to report. It gives the opportunity for the government to work with the police to develop regulations that could, if you like, focus this bill. That focus would then be reflected in the regulations and this parliament would be able to satisfy itself that those regulations were appropriate. That is, if you like, the focus on criminal offences.

The second aspect is in relation to the cost. On the one hand, the opposition considered that the honourable member's bill wisely does not provide that any report to any officer in the Department for Families and Communities need be reported, but only those that go to the chief executive. One then had to be careful that the chief executive was not going to receive a lot of reports that were referrable. In that context it was very interesting to hear the Hon. Carmel Zollo's second reading contribution and also to receive advice subsequent to that debate which was provided to the parliament by a public servant.

I might actually provide the detail of that at the appropriate clause so that I do not labour the patience of the house on amendment No. 1. Just to foreshadow the substance of the second arm of our set of amendments, they are to basically give the chief executive of Families SA a comfort that if they comply with regulated processes, or processes declared by regulation, then they would be taken to have discharged their duty under this bill.

Briefly, the regulation that I anticipate would be made would reflect the code of practice which the Hon. Carmel Zollo referred to in her second reading contribution and which is also the subject of public service advice which I will read into the record at the relevant amendment. So, I ask members for their support for this amendment and the subsequent amendments which, if you like, implement those two legs of our concerns.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Just to reiterate what the Hon. Stephen Wade said, I have worked with him on these amendments and I agree to all of them. I would also at this time like to extend my thanks to him and to other members of his party for being willing to work on this bill with me and improve it.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Family First supports it, Mr Chairman.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I indicate that the Greens also support the Wade amendments and we urge the government to reconsider its opposition to this bill.

New clause inserted.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 2, line 15 [clause 3, inserted section 26AA]—Delete 'in relation to' and substitute:

against

This is a small clarification. It was always the intent, as I understand it, of the Hon. Ann Bressington that we are dealing with reports of crimes against children. One could have read the words as they currently stand in the bill to mean a crime committed by a child. The Hon. Ann Bressington, as I understand it, has indicated she is accepting all the amendments. This is just again to provide focus to the legislation on what the Hon. Ann Bressington is trying to address, which is to enhance our protection of children.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 2, line 17 [clause 3, inserted section 26AA]—After 'Police' insert:

in the manner prescribed by regulation

This might be an appropriate place to put on the record some advice that was provided by an officer in the families and communities portfolio to a member in relation to this bill. The statement relates to the inter-portfolio agreement between the police and Families SA about how matters would be handled between the two. The section of the document I will quote is called 'Current Policy and Strategy', and it reads:

The Code of Practice provides the overarching interagency policy and strategy in this area. Both the Department and SA Police are signatory to the Code of Practice.

The Code of Practice provides a framework for timely, efficient and effective interagency processes to provide each involved agency with accurate information on which to base sound assessments regarding a child and their family's circumstances. The Code of Practice does not focus on or exclusively address reporting criminal matters by Families SA to SAPOL. However, it does set a general context for management of information regarding criminal abuse or neglect, for reporting criminal abuse or neglect, and for interagency collaboration in the investigation of suspected child abuse or neglect, with the emphasis on the best interests of the child and the most timely, efficient and effective intervention.

It is the responsibility of Families SA to make appropriate notification of suspected criminal offences to the police and it is the responsibility of police to assess these against relevant legislation to determine whether an offence may have occurred, whether and what further criminal investigation may be required, and whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. A report to police by Families SA officers of a suspected criminal offence in relation to a child does not in itself guarantee any further action by police unless police determine that further action is warranted.

I would make the comment that that is a very commonsense statement and is in direct contrast to the scaremongering comments we had from the Hon. Carmel Zollo last time—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If I can underscore why they were scaremongering, it was suggesting that this legislation—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I'm sorry; I was challenged on my statement that I was scaremongering. The fact that—

The CHAIR: Order! The member should not respond to interjections.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If one was to suggest that the Hon. Carmel Zollo's statement on the last occasion accorded with this advice provided to a member of this house by this government one would be mistaken. The fact of the matter is that that is a commonsense statement of the way in which the government would be expected to be handling it. It also demonstrates that, if there is such a protocol in existence, and I fully accept that there is, why should it not be mandated? After all, we have mandatory reporting by community officers of child abuse and neglect. Why should we not have mandatory reporting by public sector officers? That is all that the Hon. Ann Bressington is saying should happen. This advice, contrary to the—

The CHAIR: You're getting confused now.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: No, I am actually insisting that I use the word 'scaremongering'. I actually insist that the Hon. Carmel Zollo's contribution induced scaremongering in relation to the prospects of this legislation, which was quite well founded.

I suggest that honourable members might like to read speeches they are given by minister's officers before they embarrass themselves by putting it on the record, because those same departmental officers provide advice to other members, which is meant to try to reassure the house that things will be dealt with. However, what they actually do is show that the previous contributions they had delivered to this house were shamefully misleading.

This advice that was given to members of this house shows that it is quite reasonable and quite practical for a process to be put in place for correct reporting. In that regard (and this relates to amendment Wade 2, No. 3), my amendment inserts at the end of the reporting clause the prospect that the government might put in place a specified process to regulation. I expect that a sensible government would codify or put into regulation a form of its current interagency code of practice investigation of suspected criminal abuse or neglect, an initiative of the government of South Australia, April 2009, called the code of practice.

If that code of practice can be established as interagency policy, it can be established as a regulation to this act. It can be established as a process. Why? So that Families SA officers will have a duty to report suspected criminal activity, and that is no different from any other reporter in the regime.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (13)
Bressington, A. Brokenshire, R.L. Darley, J.A.
Franks, T.A. Hood, D.G.E. Lee, J.S.
Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I. Parnell, M.
Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J. Vincent, K.L.
Wade, S.G. (teller)
NOES (6)
Finnigan, B.V. (teller) Gago, G.E. Gazzola, J.M.
Hunter, I.K. Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C.

Majority of 7 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I ask the committee to take note of that vote. It is now on the record that the Labor Party, for some time at least—

The CHAIR: Order! Why don't you move your amendment and get on with it instead of grandstanding?

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The CHAIR: He can do what he is directed by the Chair. The Hon. Mr Wade.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 2, after line 17 [clause 3, inserted section 26AA]—After its present contents (now to be designated as subsection (1)) insert:

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to criminal offences of a kind prescribed by regulation.

In doing so, I would remind the committee to take note of the previous vote. We have a Labor Party that once believed—

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Point of order!

The CHAIR: Order! Point of order.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Mr Chairman, it is quite clearly out of order for a member to refer to previous votes in relation to the place.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Point of order! What standing order is it?

The CHAIR: Order! Sit down! The Hon. Mr Wade will move his amendment, address his amendment and allow the committee to vote on his amendment. The Hon. Mr Wade.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I remind honourable members that this committee is considering a set of amendments, and this is merely the fourth leg of three.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: The fourth leg of three?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Fourth leg of four—thank you, the honourable Leader of the Government. The government might well be able to count to four, but they cannot be aware of their own heritage. This is a party that once prided itself—

The CHAIR: This is not a second reading speech, Hon. Mr Wade. This is the committee stage.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would remind the council—

The CHAIR: I remind the Hon. Mr Wade.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: —that this government was a party—

The CHAIR: I'll sit you down in a minute.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: —that once said it believed in child protection. Excuse me, Mr Chairman, I have the right to speak to my amendment. I have moved it.

The CHAIR: Well, speak to your amendment, otherwise I will sit you down.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Excuse me—my amendment is part of a package that ensures that—

The CHAIR: Well, stick to it.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Sorry, Mr Chairman, in the first four words, in what part of my comments—

The CHAIR: You're making a second reading speech.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Let us put it this way. In addressing Wade 2, amendment 4, I would urge members to take the opportunity to put their voice on the record. This is an opportunity for members of the council to support my amendment which would give the government an opportunity to focus criminal offences in a way that would facilitate the reporting arrangement.

Like Wade 2, amendment 3, it is one of two amendments put forward by the opposition that would ensure that this arrangement is workable and reasonable both in terms of cost and in terms of processes. In that regard, it completely removed our objections to this bill. As an alternative government in this state, we moved these amendments to facilitate the viability of this bill.

We are demonstrating our commitment to child protection. Unfortunately, the members of the government have opposed all three amendments so far, one on a division. They are not just willing to be grumpy and not support this amendment and the three preceding it: they actually insisted that they be on the record as opposing child protection. I understand that there are members of the caucus who are extremely uncomfortable about this government position. The fact that their Legislative Council team should divide to get on the record that the Labor Party opposes child protection is—

An honourable member: You called the division.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: First of all, that was an interjection and it would be disorderly for me to respond, but I will say that I did not call the division. I have moved Wade 2, amendment 4 standing in my name, and I would urge members, unlike Labor members of the government, to support this, perhaps even on the voices, unless the government wants to divide again.

The CHAIR: It's their prerogative.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (18:00): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Read a third time and passed.

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