HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-03-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CHILDREN'S PROTECTION (HARBOURING) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 19 September 2012.)

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (17:38): I rise to give the government's response to the bill. The Hon. Ms Ann Bressington has introduced the Children's Protection (Harbouring) Amendment Bill 2012, which seeks to remove the authority of the chief executive of the Department of Education and Child Development to issue or prosecute an offence relating to a written directive pursuant to sections 52AAB and 52AAC of the Children's Protection Act 1993.

As honourable members of the Legislative Council are aware, the Statutes Amendment (Child Protection) Act 2009 came into effect on 1 August 2010 as a mechanism to legally protect vulnerable children and young people in the state. The Statutes Amendment (Children's Protection) Act was discussed and debated by the Hon. Ms Bressington in May and June this year. I believe these discussions have detailed the merit and due process required of the Department for Education and Child Development to appropriately utilise written directives to support the safety and wellbeing of children and young people in state care.

However, the honourable member has continued these discussions through introducing her Children's Protection (Harbouring) Amendment Bill to the Legislative Council in September last year. The power under sections 52AAB and 52AAC of the Children's Protection Act is exercised according to procedures developed with input from the Attorney-General's Department and the South Australia Police. It is not exercised without due consideration and consultation regarding the individual case, and all the options that may be available to ensure the safety and wellbeing of a child or young person.

First, the Families SA supervisor, who has oversight of the social worker for an individual child, must come to the reasonable conclusion that a written directive is necessary to avert a risk that the child specified in the notice will be abused or neglected, or to otherwise prevent harm to the child. Having come to this reasonable conclusion, the supervisor must then consult with one of the regional principal social workers, whose role is to provide clinical oversight and advice in important matters of the child protection practice. Only then can the supervisor engage in discussions with the senior solicitor from the Crown Solicitor's Office.

A critical role of the Crown Solicitor's Office, at this stage, is to ensure that the legal basis for issuing written directives, as set out under sections 52AAB and 52AAC of the Children's Protection Act, had been met. As I hope honourable members can see, the delegates of the chief executive of the Department for Education and Child Development are required to follow due process, as well as procedures developed in partnership with the Attorney-General's Department and South Australia Police. It is proposed by the Hon. Ms Bressington's amendment bill that the power of the chief executive officer to exercise his responsibility under those sections of the act should be transferred to the South Australian police. The government does not support this measure or amendment bill.

The current provisions in the Children's Protection Act are as recommended by the Children in State Care Commission of Inquiry, at pages 498 and 499, of the late commissioner, the Hon. Ted Mullighan. He specifically identified that the power to issue written directives and to initiate prosecutions for breaches of written directives should rest with the chief executive of the department.

The government believes that the chief executive of the Department for Education and Child Development and his delegates remain best placed to be informed when a child or young person is being targeted and encouraged by an adult or adults to abscond from their placement and to engage in behaviours that are harmful to their physical, sexual, emotional and/or psychological wellbeing. Currently, both the South Australian police and the Department for Education and Child Development are able to progress the prosecution of an adult who contravenes the written directive. Again, this is recommended by commissioner Mullighan.

It is the view of the government that it remains appropriate for the chief executive of the Department for Education and Child Development, as head of the agency with responsibility for the Children's Protection Act, to exercise responsibility under sections 52AAB and 52AAC of the act; therefore, the exclusion of the said department, as proposed by the Hon. Ms Bressington, is not supported. Given the limited rationale provided by the honourable member regarding the necessity for the proposed amendments in the Children's Protection (Harbouring) Amendment Bill 2012, I cannot find a compelling reason to support this motion. If the honourable member has any future concerns regarding specific cases where a written directive has been issued or prosecuted, I encourage her to have direct communication with the Minister for Education and Child Development about such matters.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. G.A. Kandelaars.

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