HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-07-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Controlled Substances (Youth Treatment Orders) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 20 June 2019.)

Clause 7.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: When we last met, we started consideration of amendment No. 2 [Darley-1]. The government will be opposing this amendment. It is our view that it is a matter for the courts to determine the duration of an assessment, treatment and detention order and it is not considered appropriate for a health worker to revoke an order made by a judicial officer. While there is no barrier in strictly legal terms to the Hon. Mr Darley's amendment, as a matter of public policy the government does not consider it appropriate to vest power to revoke an order made by a court in a non-judicial officer.

In terms of the court decision, the court considers all available information to determine an order, which can be much broader than the circumstances of one particular episode of treatment. I have already drawn the council's attention to the likelihood that young people who will be subject to orders will have high and complex needs. Some may have issues relating to child protection. A child or young person may require varying combinations of medical treatment, psychosocial interventions and case management as part of a treatment plan for drug dependency. Such plans require coordination and the involvement of more than one agency and practitioner.

The government takes the view that it is better to vest the power to make, vary and revoke youth treatment orders with a single authority charged with taking into account the totality of conditions surrounding them and that that authority should be the Youth Court. In addition, regulations can be developed to enable the court to issue an assessment, treatment or detention order that allows specific clinicians to modify the order if the court deems this to be appropriate. This would allow the court to consider such an option on the merits of each case. It could be achieved within the existing provisions of the bill and could be supported by the development of regulations.

The government has no desire or interest to make the process of revoking or finalising orders cumbersome or burdensome but we will certainly be working to make sure that the process is streamlined and effective.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I rise to say that we will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will not be supporting the amendment. We do understand the intention of the amendment is one that is quite worthy, but the practical workings do not actually fulfil that goal. I thank the minister for both putting on the record today the government's position and also for a briefing on this particular amendment.

The CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, I am not sure whether you have spoken on this, but do you wish to speak on amendment No. 2 [Darley-1]?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thought I did, but I do not fully recall. I place on the record that the opposition intends to support this amendment. We think it is a common-sense amendment that will allow for the completion of an order where the relevant treatment or assessment has been completed.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I put it to the council that amendments Nos 49, 50, 51 and 52 [HealthWell-1] are all consequential on amendment No. 3 [HealthWell-1], which was supported.

The CHAIR: I am going to ask the minister to move amendments Nos 49, 50, 51 and 52, and then I intend to put them in the one question, unless an honourable member objects. No honourable member has indicated they object to that course of action, minister.

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

Amendment No 49 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 7, lines 28 and 29 [clause 7, inserted section 54F(1)]—Delete 'respondent personally and is not binding on the respondent' and substitute 'child personally and is not binding on the child'

Amendment No 50 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 7, line 31 [clause 7, inserted section 54F(2)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'child'

Amendment No 51 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 7, line 33 [clause 7, inserted section 54F(2)(a)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'child'

Amendment No 52 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 7, line 35 [clause 7, inserted section 54F(2)(b)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'child'

Amendments carried.

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

Amendment No 53 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 7, after line 35 [clause 7, inserted section 54F]—After inserted subsection (2) insert:

(2a) A copy of an order served on a child under this section must be accompanied by a statement, in a form approved by the Minister, outlining the relevant legal and other rights of the child in relation to the order.

This amendment enhances the protections for a child or young person who is served with an assessment order. Following feedback from stakeholders, the government has determined that when an order is served it should be accompanied by an explanation about the implications of being served with an order and a clear explanation of the child or young person's rights to legal and other support. This information will be required to be presented in a form approved by the minister to ensure it contains language that can be readily understood by a child or young person. This position reflects similar requirements under the Mental Health Act 2009.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 54 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 7, after line 39 [clause 7, inserted section 54F]—After inserted subsection (4) insert:

(5) The applicant for an order must provide a copy of the order, on request, to a medical practitioner treating the child subject to the order or to a family member of, or advocate for, the child who has a proper interest in the health, safety and welfare of the child.

I put it to the council that this amendment should be supported on grounds similar to those of the immediately preceding amendment.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 55 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 8, line 2 [clause 7, inserted section 54G(1)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'child'

Amendment No 56 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 8, line 5 [clause 7, inserted section 54G(1)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'child'

I put it to the council that amendments Nos 55 and 56 [HealthWell-1] are consequential to amendment No. 3 [HealthWell–1], which was supported by the council.

Amendments carried.

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

Amendment No 57 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 8, lines 6 to 9 [clause 7, inserted section 54G(2)]—Delete subsection (2) and substitute:

(2) A child to whom a treatment order applies—

(a) may be given treatment for the child's dependency on controlled drugs; and

(b) may, in accordance with the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act 1995, be given treatment for any other condition or illness of a kind authorised by a medical practitioner who has examined the child.

This amendment provides that a child may be given treatment for dependency on controlled drugs or any other condition or illness of a kind authorised by an examining medical practitioner but ensures that this occurs in accordance with the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act 1995.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: Before I give the minister the call, we have amendment No. 1 [Bonaros–5] followed by amendment No. 3 [HealthWell–2]. The provisions are identical, bar a heading. I will give the call to the minister before I give the call to the Hon. Mr Pangallo.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The government is happy to defer to the Hon. Connie Bonaros.

The CHAIR: So the minister will not be moving amendment No. 3 [HealthWell-2], so I give the call to the Hon. Mr Pangallo to move amendment No. 1 [Bonaros-5].

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–5]—

Page 8, after line 11 [clause 7, inserted Part 7A]—After inserted section 54G insert:

54GA—Detention

(1) Subject to subsection (2), a detention order made in relation to a child does not authorise the detention of a child in a place other than an assessment service or a treatment service.

(2) If the child is, during the period of the detention order, otherwise subject to a period of detention in a training centre (the other detention), the child may be detained in a training centre for the purposes of the detention order (but only during the period of the other detention).

This provision ensures that the child subject to mandatory drug treatment orders is not sent to criminal detention. Also, if in criminal detention and on a drug treatment order, they can only be kept there for the period of criminal detention and it ensures that both orders can work together. If not criminally detained, the child is not in a detention centre for treatment.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The government supports the amendment.

The CHAIR: Before I put the question, the Hon. Mr Pangallo, by way of clarity from my casual observation of this amendment No. 1 [Bonaros-5] that you have moved, you will not be moving amendment No. 1 [Bonaros-3].

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Sorry, Chair, I was going to point that out. I will not be moving amendment No. 1 [Bonaros-3].

The CHAIR: Thank you. That is for the clarity of members before I put the question.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 58 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 8, lines 12 to 20 [clause 7, inserted section 54H]—Delete inserted section 54H and substitute:

54H—Treatment may continue after 18th birthday

(1) A person may be assessed, treated or detained in accordance with an order under this Part, and reports may be provided as required by an order under this Part, despite the fact that the person has reached 18 years of age and is no longer a child if—

(a) the order was made before the person reached 18 years of age; and

(b) the Court, in making the order, did not specify that the order was to expire on the person reaching 18 years of age.

(2) A reference in this Part to a child (being a child in relation to whom an order was made or to whom an order applies) extends to a person who remains subject to an order in accordance with this section (subject to any express provision to the contrary).

I put it to the council that amendment No. 58 [HealthWell-1] is consequential on amendment No. 3 [HealthWell-1], which was supported.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 59 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 8, line 26 [clause 7, inserted section 54I(2)(a)]—Delete 'respondent' and substitute 'relevant child'

I put it to the council that this amendment is consequential on amendment No. 3 [HealthWell-1], which was supported by the council.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 60 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 8, after line 32 [clause 7, inserted Part 7A]—After inserted section 54I insert:

54IA—Duties of Chief Executive

(1) The relevant Chief Executive must ensure that—

(a) a child who is unable to communicate with reasonable fluency in the English language is provided with appropriate assistance by an interpreter in the course of any assessment or treatment pursuant to an order under this Part; and

(b) a child is given the opportunity to be supported and assisted by a family member in the course of any assessment or treatment pursuant to an order under this Part; and

(c) all children who are subject to a treatment order under this Part are, while residing at any place for the purpose of the treatment order (whether pursuant to a detention order or otherwise), able to—

(i) communicate with persons outside that place; and

(ii) receive visitors at that place; and

(iii) be afforded reasonable privacy in their communications with others; and

(iv) have access to a visitor scheme in accordance with the regulations; and

(d) a child who is subject to a detention order receives appropriate care while so detained (in accordance with any requirements prescribed by the regulations); and

(e) a child who is subject to a detention order is not detained in premises, or a part of premises, in which adults are detained or that adults attend for assessment or treatment.

(2) Subsection (1)(c)(i), (ii) and (iii) and subsection (1)(e) do not apply to a child detained in a training centre.

(3) Subsection (1)(e) does not apply to a person who is no longer a child but remains subject to an order in accordance with section 54H.

(4) The regulations may—

(a) establish a visitor scheme for the purposes of this Part; or

(b) apply a visitor scheme that is in operation under another Act to children who are subject to a treatment order under this Part (and may prescribe modifications to the visitor scheme under that other Act in its application to children in accordance with this Part).

(5) In this section—

relevant Chief Executive means—

(a) in relation to a child who is detained in a training centre—the Chief Executive within the meaning of the Youth Justice Administration Act 2016; or

(b) in any other case—the Chief Executive of the Department;

visitor scheme means a scheme under which a visitor (being a person who is independent of direction or control by the Crown) is required to visit and inspect facilities in which people are cared for or receive treatment of some kind and to act as an advocate for such people.

This amendment imposes an obligation on the relevant chief executive to provide for a range of protections for children and young people subject to this part, whether they are detained in a training centre or any other case. This includes providing for assistance and support to be made available for children, including interpreter assistance, when required; the opportunity to be supported and assisted by a family member or an appropriate advocate in proceedings; to be afforded the opportunity to communicate with family and friends and receive visitors; and to engage in these in reasonable privacy. It also ensures the rights of the child in relation to having access to a visitor scheme, the scheme to be determined by regulation.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I seek the committee's guidance. Is amendment No. 5 [Maher-1] an amendment in competition to the amendment that has been put by the minister? If so, is this the opportunity to speak?

The CHAIR: There might just be one procedure that I wish to undertake before I come to you, Leader of the Opposition. Thank you for that. Leader of the Opposition, your amendment No. 5 [Maher-1] talks about—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The rights of the child and access. It does some of what the Wade amendment does but more, I think, if I am reading that correctly. If they can both be put I am happy to do that.

The CHAIR: Whilst we get some clarity around that, we have amendment No. 60 [HealthWell-1], which has been moved by the minister. We will come to amendment No.1 [Bonaros-2], which seeks to move an amendment to the minister's amendment, and we then have amendment No. 5 [Maher-1]. We have taken some advice from parliamentary counsel and we are advised that amendment No. 60 from the minister cannot sit with amendment No. 5 [Maher-1]. Members are going to have to take that into account when they seek to vote, when I put the question which one they prefer, but I will open it up for debate on all three amendments if members wish to speak to them.

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The CHAIR: We can talk about amendment No. 1 [Bonaros-2] but I do not necessarily want it put yet because I just have to work out the order of my questions. The minister has explained amendment No. 60. I will give the call to the Hon. Mr Pangallo—sorry, the Hon. Ms Franks—just to talk to amendment No. 1 [Bonaros-2] and then I will give you the call. Will that assist the committee? The Hon. Mr Pangallo.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–2]—

Amendment to Amendment No 60—Clause 7, page 8, after line 32 [clause 7, inserted Part 7A]—

After 'family member' in inserted section 54IA(1)(b) insert:

or other person who is acting as an advocate for the child

This is to provide for another person to be the advocate for the child or person in the treatment, as well as a family member, if there is no family, or will or be able to do this.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The government supports this amendment. We think that access to an advocate would be appropriate.

The CHAIR: Just before I give the call to the Hon. Ms Franks. This process is a little bit easier because the minister has indicated that the government will be supporting the Bonaros amendment. The order of sequence will be that I will be putting the question in relation to the Bonaros amendment that seeks to amend the minister's amendment. That will be the first vote. Then, if that is successful, the minister's amended amendment will be put to the committee. If you support the Hon. Mr Maher's amendment you will vote that down and then I will put the question, but if it is successful then the committee has already effectively voted on the Maher amendment.

Moving forward, before I put the questions, I am going to give the call to the Hon. Ms Franks, and I will then give the call to the Hon. Kyam Maher to talk to his amendment so that the committee can make a decision and take that into account when they are voting on the minister's amendment. Is that clear to everyone or would you like clarity? I owe the call to the Hon. Ms Franks. Thank you for waiting, the Hon. Ms Franks.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Thank you, Chair. I have a question of both the government and the opposition. The question is from some feedback provided, at least to the opposition and I assume to the minister as well, from the Guardian for Children and Young People. Proposed section 54IA(2) states that the guardian must provide advice to the chief executive. As an independent statutory officer it is inappropriate to provide advice to the chief executive. The three acts which establish the guardian's three roles all stipulate that reports are to be provided to the parliament via the minister not directly to the chief executive and the department. Could both members please provide feedback and their perspective on that concern raised with us?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that the honourable member's question actually does not relate to the government amendment; it relates to the Hon. Mr Maher's amendment. We will not be supporting the Hon. Mr Maher's amendment.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Franks, would you like to ask the Leader of the Opposition? I know the Leader of the Opposition was taking—

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: That is actually why I asked for a response from the government and from the opposition.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. Different acts treat things in different ways. I will get to the substance of the amendment that we are moving, but if there were further refining to be done, we think we are happy to look at that between the houses. We think that the opposition's amendment is much more comprehensive and much more suitable for the act that we are looking at. If it pleases the Chair and the committee, I am happy to talk in general—

The CHAIR: No, I want you to move your amendment and then talk to it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move the amendment standing in my name:

Amendment No 5 [Maher–1]—

Page 8, after line 32—After inserted section 54I insert:

54IA—Special provisions relating to detention of children

(1) The Chief Executive of the Department is responsible for ensuring that a child who is subject to a detention order receives appropriate care while so detained and, in particular, for ensuring—

(a) that the child is able to receive family visits while detained (at reasonable times and in accordance with the best interests of the child); and

(b) that the child has access to appropriate courses of instruction or training while detained and, if the child is a child of compulsory school age or a child of compulsory education age, is able to continue or otherwise further his or her school education or vocational or other training (as the case requires); and

(c) that the child is provided with legal representation in relation to the detention order (at no cost to the child or to the parents or guardians of the child); and

(d) that the Guardian for Children and Young People has access to the child while the child is detained; and

(e) that the child is reviewed by a psychiatrist when appropriate and at least after every 4 days of detention; and

(f) that a nurse is present in the same premises as the child, and that a medical practitioner is available on call to attend those premises, at all times while the child is detained; and

(g) if the child is detained for the purpose of ensuring compliance with an assessment order, that the assessment occurs as quickly as possible and the child is detained only for the minimum period necessary for that to occur; and

(h) if the child is detained for the purpose of ensuring compliance with a treatment order, that a treatment plan (developed after consultation with any medical practitioner who is currently providing treatment to the child) is implemented as soon as practicable after the child is detained under which—

(i) the child will receive relevant treatment from a health care professional on each day during which the child is detained; and

(ii) arrangements are made for the provision of ongoing treatment support to the child after the period of detention ends; and

(i) that the child otherwise has rights while detained that the Chief Executive is satisfied are at least equivalent to the rights of a youth detained in a training centre under the Youth Justice Administration Act 2016.

(2) The Guardian for Children and Young People must monitor the circumstances of children who are detained pursuant to detention orders and must provide advice to the Chief Executive of the Department on the quality of the provision of care for such children and on whether the children's needs are being met.

(3) The Chief Executive of the Department must ensure that a website maintained by the Department provides up to date information as to the number of children who are currently detained pursuant to detention orders and the date on which each such child's period of detention commenced (without providing any additional information that might identify a child).

(4) In this section—

psychiatrist means a person registered under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law—

(a) to practise in the medical profession; and

(b) holding specialist registration as a psychiatrist.

This might answer some of the questions I think members may have. The amendment that the opposition is moving introduces a new section that has special provisions relating to the detention of children under these orders.

Before I talk about the opposition amendment, I think the government amendment is a step forward. I thank SA-Best for moving a further amendment to that, which I think improves the government amendment, but the opposition thinks that even the improved amendment is not enough and does not provide enough rights for children. The opposition amendment goes further than that. While we will be voting for the SA-Best amendment to the government position, we will be putting our own forward because we believe it goes even further and gives greater protections and rights to children.

We want to ensure that children subject to detention are provided appropriate clinical care. Our amendment requires a review of the child by a psychiatrist when appropriate and at least every four days in detention. It requires the presence of a nurse in the same premises as the child and a mental health practitioner available on call at all times when a child is detained. It requires that an assessment order is cleared as quickly as possible if a child is detained for the purpose of the assessment order.

For detention orders where the child is detained for treatment, a treatment plan must be implemented as soon as possible. This treatment plan must include treatment from a healthcare professional on each day the child is detained and arrangements for ongoing treatment post-detention.

The amendment also introduces various rights for children during detention, throughout the court process and beforehand. These include the right for a child to receive family visits when detained; the right for a child to continue to access school education, vocational training or other appropriate courses of instruction or training while detained; the right to legal representation in relation to the order at no cost to the child or the parents or guardians of the child; and rights while detained that are at least equivalent to the rights of a youth detained in a training centre under the Youth Justice Administration Act 2016.

I take the point the Hon. Tammy Franks raises and I think we would be very happy to be in discussion with the Hon. Tammy Franks as this moves between the houses. I would say that if we support the government's amendment, then, in all likelihood, the chance of increased protection is lost because it is not likely that that can be negotiated between the houses.

My suggestion to the chamber is that we are happy to continue to look at issues that may need finetuning, but to keep these matters alive I think it is in the best interests to pass the opposition's amendment in preference to the government's amendment. If we go with the government, I do not think the opportunity will continue for the discussion to put more into it. I think it is much easier to take stuff out between the houses, with the government having the numbers in the House of Assembly.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We are okay to support most of the provisions that are in there. The one that we do have an issue with is 54IA(1)(e) 'that the child is reviewed by a psychiatrist when appropriate and at least after every 4 days of detention,' which seems to be quite a frequent visit.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Harassment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I do not know about being harassment, but it certainly seems to be far too frequently being visited by a medical professional. We do support the other provisions that are outlined. Again, there seems to be a great degree of frequency in relation to the child receiving relevant treatment from a healthcare professional on each day during which the child is detained. Again, there just seems to be far too much frequency, if the honourable member is prepared to make an amendment to that. Also, proposed subsection (3) states:

The Chief Executive of the Department must ensure that a website maintained by the Department provides up to date information as to the number of children who are currently detained pursuant to detention orders and the date on which each child's period of detention commenced (without providing any additional information that might identify a child).

We do not support that in principle because the small numbers from the limited cohort could easily lead to identification of individuals, but we do support the other provisions.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his views and his guidance. I can give a commitment to the honourable member that as we go between the houses we would be open to discussion about the frequency. In terms of the frequency, yes, it is frequent, but these are quite powerful measures and I think it was when we were discussing this last time that the minister talked about other jurisdictions where detention orders can only last 10 days.

In other jurisdictions, a 10-day period is seen as the maximum time for orders. If it was four days, that would only be two visits through the whole detention order. I think the minister was making the point when we discussed this last that they are sometimes very short times, and very deliberately short times, because they are a quite extraordinary deprivation of liberty. I can assure the honourable member that we are happy to look at the things he has mentioned between the houses.

I know in my discussions with the shadow health minister, the member for Kaurna, Chris Picton, that he is more than happy, if there are different time frames, to look at those, but if we do not pass these here now, the opportunity to do that between the houses will be lost. I can give an undertaking to the honourable member that we will be very happy to look at those.

Even if SA-Best votes for these now, we understand that that does not lock SA-Best into a position when they come back if we cannot reach a suitable negotiation. We are very happy, as the bill travels between the houses and back here, to further negotiate on these provisions and understand that they are not locked in, but this is a good starting point from which to continue discussions.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It is necessary to ensure there are safeguards to protect children subject to the provisions of this act. However, the government prefers its own two-limbed approach to ensuring that safeguards are provided. The government has set out primary safeguards in its own amendments to the bill and in the bill itself. The government will supplement those safeguards with regulations made in respect of assessment, treatment and detention of children once a model of care has been developed in consultation with both government stakeholders and community stakeholders. They will include those involved in health and drug and alcohol treatment.

It is our view that it is premature to attempt, if you like, to construct within this bill a model of care that is yet in the process of development and will have further consultation. The level of detail that is in this amendment is the sort of thing you would expect to see in a model of care. You might see it in a regulation. You would not see it in legislation.

I am concerned that there are provisions here that would significantly malapportion the provision of support services to the child or young person. For example, 54IA(1)(e) 'that the child is reviewed by a psychiatrist when appropriate and at least after every 4 days of detention' has echoes of the amendment that was not supported by the council earlier in its consideration.

In some cases it might be quite appropriate that a child or young person be assessed every four days. For others, the nature of their situation would mean that every four days would be quite unnecessary, and we need to make sure that we are targeting resources that produce outcomes for children and young people, not trying as a legislature to legislate for a model of care.

The Hon. Tammy Franks has already raised concerns about subsection (2). In relation to subsection (1)(h), I would argue that is already covered by a previous government amendment. I share significantly the concerns of the Hon. Frank Pangallo in relation to subsection (3). We are not talking about hundreds of people here, and once you start putting on a website what seem to be real-time updates about individuals, you very seriously run the risk of identifying them, and there are no protections there for the children or young people. There is a parenthesis at the end that suggests we can avoid identifying a child, but considering the relatively small numbers that potentially may be affected, particularly by the detention provisions, I think you do run a significant risk of identification.

I suggest to honourable members that the government officers and the non-government participants in the field should be given the opportunity to develop the model of care. That may well lead to detail in regulations, which is a much more appropriate place for this sort of detail than in the primary statute.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not think there is a lot more to debate here, but I think the minister has outlined what he has suggested a couple of times in different bills: effectively, 'Trust us, we'll stick it in regulations. The Legislative Council shouldn't be concerned about details. We are the ones who should work this out.' I take on board a couple of the comments that have been made, but I reiterate that this is something we do not have the chance to revisit; we just have to trust and hope it is in regulations later. If we keep this alive between the houses, we can continue the discussion on these matters.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would simply refute the assertion made by the honourable member: regulations, as we all know, are regularly put before this place.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Maher opposition amendment is an imperfect amendment, but the Greens will be supporting it. I am disappointed that the request for more time to respond was made because the correspondence I read out was from December 2018 and was provided to the opposition, to their shadow minister, at the time. I would have expected perhaps that a renewed set of amendments might have been made, and certainly with the independence of the guardian the Greens will be very staunch should this provision come back to us.

In regard to the idea that a child is reviewed by a psychiatrist when appropriate, or at least after every four days of detention, I do not think that the child seeking and getting a medical professional to visit them is harassment. I am pretty sure that the child probably feels that the detention is somewhere higher on the scale of harassment, so I found those words from the minister quite unedifying, that he saw that treatment by a medical professional as harassment, and I ask the minister to reflect on that contribution.

The requirement that under this legislation, where somebody may be detained for up to a year, that that be recorded in a public place is the least we can do. This bill tramples all over people's civil liberties and treats a health issue as a criminal issue, so that transparency is the least we can afford these people.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am determined to stand up for the rights of children and young people. In my view, of course, mandatory assessment, treatment and detention are all matters that have to be carefully considered and that is why this bill has been the subject of significant consultation and significant amendment by the government that put it forward.

I would assert that subsection (3) actually increases the potential detriment to children and young people, particularly in terms of their privacy. We are not talking about hundreds; we are hopefully talking about a relatively limited number of people who will be subjected to these detention provisions. As I said in earlier parts of this debate, it is my hope, particularly through the assessment, that children and young people will gain better awareness of the impacts of drugs and that they will be willing to cooperate with treatment so that the need for detention is not even considered.

The CHAIR: Honourable members, where we sit at the moment is the minister has moved his amendment No. 60 [HealthWell–1]; the Hon. Mr Pangallo has moved amendment No. 1 [Bonaros–2], which seeks to amend the minister's amendment; and the Hon. Kyam Maher has moved amendment No. 5 [Maher–1].

Before I proceed, it is my intention to put as follows: I will be putting the amendment No. 1 [Bonaros–2], which is the amendment to the minister's amendment. I will put the question first, and if I understand honourable members' positions, that will be successful. I then will be putting the question whether the minister's amendment finds favour with the committee. If you are supporting the Hon. Mr Maher's amendment, you would vote no to that and then you would vote yes to the Hon. Mr Maher's amendment.

It would assist me greatly if I could just understand the position, the Hon. Mr Pangallo, whether you will be supporting the minister's amendment as amended by you or the Hon. Mr Maher's amendment. Could you give me some assistance there, the Hon. Mr Pangallo?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will be supporting the minister's amendment.

The CHAIR: The minister's amendment.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Not unless you are prepared to make that change.

The CHAIR: It is a matter for you, the Hon. Mr Pangallo. At the moment, you have indicated to me that you will be voting for the minister's amended amendment, and if you vote yes for that there will be no question put on the Hon. Mr Maher's amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: In principle, we support most of Mr Maher's amendments, so we will be supporting the opposition's amendment.

The CHAIR: In that case, you would be voting yes to your own amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Yes.

The CHAIR: Then, even though it successful, you will be voting no to the minister's amendment and then voting yes to the Leader of the Opposition's amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Yes.

The CHAIR: Thank you. I normally do not ask your voting position but, given the complexity of what I am about to put, I thank you for your guidance. The Hon. Ms Franks.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will be supporting the SA-Best amendment to the government amendment but not the government amendment, and we will be supporting the opposition amendment.

The Hon. F. Pangallo's amendment carried; the Hon. S.G. Wade's amendment negatived; the Hon. K.J. Maher's amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 61 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 8, line 39 [clause 7, inserted section 54J(b)]—Delete 'respondents' and substitute 'children'

I put to the council that this is consequential on amendment No. 3 [HealthWell-1], which was supported by the council.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 62 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 8, lines 40 and 41 [clause 7, inserted section 54J(c)]—Delete 'and treatment services' and substitute ', treatment services and any other facilities in which children are detained pursuant to detention orders'

This amendment extends the regulations which may be made to require reporting by assessment services and treatment services to include any other facilities in which children are detained pursuant to detention orders.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 63 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 8, after line 41 [clause 7, inserted section 54J]—After paragraph (c) insert:

(d) require an assessment service, treatment service or other facility in which a child is detained pursuant to a detention order to comply with any prescribed agreement, code or charter or to obtain any specified type of accreditation (and to comply with any conditions of such accreditation);

(e) make provision in relation to the operation and oversight of facilities in which children are detained pursuant to detention orders.

This amendment expands the regulation-making power in the bill, in particular, in two ways. Firstly, to prescribe agreements, codes or charters or specified types of accreditation to be complied with or obtained by persons or bodies involved at the three different stages under the bill, the three stages being assessment services, treatment services and detention. Secondly, the amendment seeks to expand the regulation-making power to state that regulations can make provision for the operation and oversight of detention facilities. Such regulations, for example, might include provisions for official visitors, inspectors, inquiries and related matters.

This amendment seeks to respond to concerns expressed by the Law Society and other stakeholders, including the Guardian for Children and Young People, the South Australian Network of Drug and Alcohol Services and Uniting Communities regarding compliance with relevant child protection instruments.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Maher–1]—

Page 8, after line 41—After inserted section 54J insert:

54JA—Reports

(1) An annual report of the Department required under section 12 of the Public Sector Act 2009 must include the following information in respect of the period to which the report relates:

(a) the number of detention orders made during the period;

(b) the age and sex of each child who was subject to a detention order;

(c) the length of time each child who was subject to a detention order spent in detention and the number of ongoing detention orders at the time of the report;

(d) the number of children subject to a detention order who were of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent or who identified themself as being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin;

(e) the number of children subject to a detention order who absconded from detention;

(f) the outcome of each treatment order, including the number of children who failed to comply with a treatment order;

(g) the cost of the treatment provided to each child pursuant to a treatment order;

(h) the cost of detaining each child pursuant to a detention order.

(2) A report must not include any information that might identify a child.

This amendment requires various information regarding these orders to be included in the department's annual report. The information includes things such as the number of detention orders made during that year; the age and sex of every child subject to a detention order; the length of time children spent in detention and the number of ongoing detention orders at the time of the report, including the number of children of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent; the number of children who absconded from detention; the outcomes of each treatment order, including failures to comply with treatment orders; the cost of treatment provided to each child under treatment orders; and the cost of detaining each child pursuant to a detention order.

The amendment clarifies that the information to be disclosed in the annual report must not include—and I repeat, must not include—any information that might identify any child. We believe it is vitally important for the department to be open and transparent about these orders so that those of us who are voting on these laws and the public in general can have an understanding of the nature and effect of how these orders are working.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The government will not be supporting this amendment. The amendment requires information about youth detention orders to be reported on as part of the annual report of the department, required under section 12 of the Public Sector Act 2009. This amendment is not supported as the government proposes to make regulations under section 12(7) of the Public Sector Act 2009 as to the content of the annual report after consultation with stakeholders as to the matters that should be reported.

It is our view that it would be more useful to have regulations drafted after that consultation. It should also be noted that the bill contemplates a review of these provisions after three years, when this type of information is also likely to be reported to the parliament in any event.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will be supporting the opposition amendment, and should the government consult and find additional criteria to add into the annual reporting we will welcome that, too.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will be supporting the opposition amendment.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: Honourable members, on the committee table we still have amendment No. 1 [Bonaros-4], which is to clause 7, page 8, and this had just been identified. The Hon. Mr Pangallo, are you still intending to move that?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Yes, Chair.

The CHAIR: Do not move it at the moment because we have passed it. I am just taking some counsel because we may have to report progress and then recommit and come back to this, because we have skipped past the point where the amendment should be inserted. Given where we are at this point in time, and the committee table is consulting the standing orders, I would be interested in what members' views are on that amendment. It is in relation to legal representation.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The government intends to support legal representation, so whether it is possible in this house to deal with it, or, alternatively, I will give an undertaking on behalf of the government that we will move it as an amendment in the other place.

The CHAIR: We can report progress and come straight back in and recommit. I just need to know whether it is—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can indicate that the opposition likewise would support this amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: As will the Greens.

The CHAIR: To take the safest course of action, I have decided that I will put the title of the bill. I will then report progress and then ask the minister to move a motion to seek to recommit and then I will come straight back into committee and we can deal with it expeditiously, given that we have identified the support of the committee.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Chair, will you require an absolute majority to do that?

The CHAIR: No.

Clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (8 and 9), schedule and title passed.

Bill recommitted.

Clause 7.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–4]—

Page 8, before line 33 [clause 7, inserted Part 7A]—

Before inserted section 54J insert:

54IB—Legal representation

(1) In any proceedings under this Part, or in any appeal under section 22 of the Youth Court Act 1993 relating to proceedings under this Part, the child to whom the proceedings relate is entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner provided (at no cost to the child) pursuant to a scheme established by the Minister for the purposes of this section.

(2) A legal practitioner (not being an employee of the Crown or a statutory authority) who represents a child pursuant to this section is entitled to receive fees for the practitioner's services from the Minister, in accordance with a prescribed scale, and cannot demand or receive from any other person any further fee for those services.

(3) Nothing in this section derogates from the right of the child to whom the proceedings relate to engage counsel at his or her own expense, or to appear personally, by the Public Advocate or by another person acting as an advocate for the child.

This is to provide for legal representation for a child in court for any of the purposes in this act. Assessment, treatment and detention orders, or appeal of such orders, are at no cost to the child unless they have engaged their own counsel at their own expense, or want to self-represent or be represented by some other advocate. We note that the government has already committed, in the 2019-20 budget, an amount of $10.8 million over four years for this vital support and protection for the child.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (16:23): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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