HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-11-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill

Second Reading

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (11:03): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading explanation and explanation of clauses inserted in Hansard without my reading them.

Leave granted.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order: can the second reading speech from the government please be distributed so that members of this place can have a copy? The government, yet again, I think is thumbing its nose at process in this place.

The PRESIDENT: Do members have a copy?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: No. Point of order: the minister has just inserted it without reading it. We do not have a copy. I think it is highly inappropriate to insert it in the first place—she should have the courtesy of reading out the speech for the rest of the chamber.

The PRESIDENT: Attorney, is there something we could move on to?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If it is possible to go back a moment in time; perhaps for the benefit of the chamber the second reading speech could be read out so that everyone can hear it.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is now denied, minister. I invite you to read the second reading speech, please.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill 2024 is important legislation that will reform and improve the child protection and family support system and make life better for many children and young people and their families and carers.

The bill repeals and replaces the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017. This legislation is significant and speaks to the government's shared determination to progress improvements that give children and young people in our state the best opportunity to be loved, safe, well and enabled to thrive. As we legislate the conditions under which some of the most vulnerable and at-risk children and young people are considered, and the enormous decisions that sometimes have to be made, we must always hold the interests of young people and those who might be affected by the laws we make into the future.

This is a system that was built decades ago to respond to single incidents of physical or sexual abuse, and it must continue to do so. However, the reality is also that many families now face complex, interwoven and intergenerational disadvantage and patterns of neglect, sometimes resulting in cumulative harm. Responses to single incidents, whilst always needed, do not always address the breadth of challenges that families meet.

Our system is underpinned by hardworking, dedicated professionals, but we cannot rely on their good intentions alone. This analysis of our system does not attribute blame to any person, department, agency or anyone else, but rather urges that together we recognise that structures built over time are not equipped to respond to the overwhelming need we confront, and that different collective responses are required.

The current act was part of the state government's response to the child protection system's royal commission and key coronial recommendations. It provided a new legislative framework for the child protection and family support system, with a greater emphasis on safety, as it should. The act itself required that it be reviewed five years post commencement. Nearly 1,000 people engaged in the review of the current act via public forums in metro and regional locations, online surveys, written submissions and targeted discussions, to generously share their expertise, experience, wisdom and insights into what was working and what could be improved.

An extraordinary amount of feedback came from stakeholders: children and young people with experience of the system and their families; foster and kinship carers; government and non-government partners, who work with and in the child protection or family support system; as well as the legal profession, peak organisations and crucial oversight bodies, such as the Guardian for Children and Young People, the Commissioner for Children and Young People and the Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People.

The review included targeted consultation with Aboriginal community members, leaders and representatives from Aboriginal organisations. In line with the commitment in the South Australian Closing the Gap Implementation Plan, the review team also held a series of workshops with the South Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation Network, focused on amendments related to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child placement principle.

The bill was publicly released in August via YourSAy, and public briefings with some stakeholders provided further written feedback, which led to additional refinement to the bill before us today. It is important that we acknowledge the breadth and nuance of perspectives and proposals, raised in both the original review, which formed the core part of our consultation process, and through recent feedback on the draft bill.

The bill reconciles, as far as possible, this diversity of views. Where this is not possible, it embeds broad policy settings and directions, which reflect the themes called for, and provides an important opportunity to continue our process of reform, together through the bill's implementation, on which we will again carefully engage with stakeholders.

This bill is an opportunity to lay the foundations for and bring to life a way forward that gives us the best chance of improving children's lives. It includes a focus on getting the settings right, by establishing guiding principles which underpin the legislation through clear statements of parliamentary recognition, including for children and young people, through providing renewed thresholds for intervention and through supporting our partners.

It provides a pathway for transition to a sector for Aboriginal children and their families, where Aboriginal children lead decision-making and service delivery, because we know that Aboriginal children and young people will do better when decisions and services are led by Aboriginal people. We also acknowledge that connection to family, culture, community and country is both a right and a protective factor. We know that our efforts and our response must always be informed by the voices of children and young people, and their birth and carer families. The bill ensures that children and young people are at the centre of decision-making. This bill is for them.

I will not focus on those provisions that have been retained from the current act but rather on what is new. The addition of the words 'and support' to the title of this bill is meaningful. The current act guides child protection and family support responses from the point of a notification that a child is at risk of harm. It provides for investigations and assessments, and focuses on looking after our children in care.

The clear focus is on the safety of this cohort of children and young people, a crucial focus we maintain. However, whilst there are some broad functions relating to intervention and support for children and young people at risk of harm, the current act does not sufficiently acknowledge the responsibility of government to address this. The change in title recognises that keeping children safe requires a legislative framework that values and enables proactive support for children, young people and their families.

Part 2 of the bill includes a revised and amended set of guiding principles and related matters. Every person or body engaged in the administration, operation or enforcement of the act is required to consistently give effect to the guiding principles, with the paramount principle of ensuring that children and young people are safe and protected from harm. In the case of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander children and young people, this includes additional guiding principles contained in part 4, division 3 of the bill, to which I will shortly return.

The concept of safety as the paramount consideration in child protection legislation was introduced into the Children's Protection Act 1993 in 2015 as a direct response to a recommendation of the Coroner arising from the inquest into the tragic death of Chloe Valentine, and continued as the paramount principle when the current act was introduced the following year. While safety rightly remains paramount, the bill introduces best interests as a guiding principle to be upheld in all decision-making, setting out a non-exhaustive list of the factors to potentially give regard to in determining what is, indeed, in the best interests of the child.

The Minister for Child Protection has consistently and rightly advocated that all children and young people should expect those responsible for their care to have a focus on their best interests. We want children to be safe and supported. Complementing this, the bill also introduces the principle of effective intervention, emphasising timely action that is direct and targeted to the individual circumstances of the young person. This part of the bill includes parliamentary recognition of the duty every person in our state has to safeguard and promote the best outcomes for children and young people, and that the provision of services addressing underlying risk factors contributing to child abuse and neglect is critical in helping children and young people to be safe and well.

Crucially, the bill includes parliamentary recognition of the impact of past laws and policies that led to the stolen generation, and recognises the state's responsibility to safeguard and promote the cultural identity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people and enable self-determination.

Part 2 also recognises our commitment to privileging the voices of children and young people by introducing a new division requiring reasonable steps to be taken to ensure that their voices are heard in prescribed decisions which impact them, including in family group conferencing, case planning, placement decisions, contact decisions, annual reviews, leaving care plans, and internal reviews. This part of the bill also enshrines the statement of commitment to foster and kinship carers in legislation and provides, as directly advocated for, a new statement of commitment to parents and families.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples are formally recognised as documents informing the administration and operation of the legislation. Through part 4 of the bill, we proudly introduce some profoundly important and fundamentally transformative provisions relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people. It includes additional legislative objects relating to Aboriginal children and young people and delivers on national and state-level commitments to embed all five elements of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle: prevention, partnership, placement, participation and connections to the standard of active efforts.

Active efforts require that steps taken must be timely, practicable, thorough and purposeful, consistent with the explanation provided by SNAICC in its guide to embedding the principle in legislation, policy, programs and practice. Active efforts require practitioners to help families overcome barriers to participation in the services which could help them stay together or be reunified, including services to assist with family-led decision-making.

The bill recognises that identification is the precursor to the placement principle and requires active efforts from the earliest point of contact to identify Aboriginal children and young people to connect them with culture, country and kin and to then maintain that connection. Importantly, the bill stipulates that without limiting any other provisions or any other power the court may have, the court must, before making an order, be satisfied that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle has been, so far as is reasonably practicable, implemented to the standard of active efforts before making an order other than an assessment order or an interim order in relation to an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child or young person.

This operates as an accountability mechanism, ensuring that the principle is truly embedded into decision-making practices and will operate as a framework guiding actions and decisions involving Aboriginal young people. Some people have asked why the bill includes a clause providing that a failure to comply with some of the requirements does not of itself affect the validity of the decision or order—for example, in relation to a failure to comply with the placement principle to meet the standard of active efforts or for the court to be satisfied that the placement principle has been implied to the standard of active efforts before it can make an order.

There is understandably some concern that this was intended to remove the very accountability that had been built into the bill. The government says on record that this is absolutely not the case, and I respond to this very important question. The government is deeply committed to ensuring that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle is implemented to the standard of active efforts from the earliest possible point of decision-making involving an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child or young person.

We know that this is the key mechanism by which the best interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people and their families will be realised. As a government, we take this seriously and we welcome this accountability. We expect that the court will consider whether, so far as practicable, the placement principle has been implemented to the standard of active efforts before making orders.

We are confident that we will be held to account on this. However, it is so important that we do not let form override substance when we are talking about the most precious community members. It is important to note that the clause provides that failure to comply does not of itself invalidate the decision made. That means we do not want a decision or order to be automatically invalidated or precluded if it has not been implemented completely or as thoroughly as intended or where there are arguments that it has not been.

This is important because sometimes it might be that a decision or order has been made that is still the best decision, ensuring that the safety and best interests of the child or young person are met even when, for example, an aspect of the placement principle could have been implemented more thoroughly than it was. If it turns out that an order was invalid because of noncompliance, this could potentially mean a child needs to be returned to an unsafe environment because of that invalidity. It may be in a number of cases that the exact same decision or order would have been made if the placement principle had been perfectly complied with.

These provisions mean that we will crucially have to explain what we have done to comply with the placement principle. We will have to be accountable as to how we have applied the standard of active efforts to each element, but if we do not always get that right it will not mean that good decisions that have been made are automatically invalidated. We expect there will be occasions where the court does refuse to make an order because it is not satisfied that enough was done to implement the placement principle to the standard of active efforts.

The bill facilitates a scheme for the involvement of respected persons in court to support Aboriginal children and to assist the court in relation to the practices and culture of Aboriginal people and communities. The bill includes new objects which provide guiding principles to inform our efforts to deliver transformative change. Part 4 of the bill requires active efforts to explore reunification. It embeds the principle of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander family-led decision-making. It requires regard to be given to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child rearing practices when considering the best interests, and it enables the progressive delegation of authority to Aboriginal entities which will be critical to our shared goal of an Aboriginal-led sector.

Finally, the bill requires that family group conferences are offered to Aboriginal families, to embed accountability around ensuring the requirement to offer a family group conference is implemented. The program is based on the New Zealand model, which is acknowledged as the best practice approach. It is culturally inclusive and has a strong focus on enabling Aboriginal family and community members to identify strategies to keep children and young people safe with family and kin. We know family group conferences work. We know the success rate for 2023-24 was 90 per cent, and we know the community is asking for more. When family is consulted, involved, supported, listened to and empowered to lead, we get results that are better for children.

Recently, the Minister for Child Protection was in New Zealand learning from this model, and the NGOs that implement family group conferencing. One key thing the minister was informed about was the importance of ensuring the conferences are family led, and expansion of the program is done in a way that does not reflect the first step in statutory intervention. FGCs must be rolled out in a considered approach that ensures they remain successful and in the best interests of families.

This part of the bill also explicitly recognises Aboriginal people's right to self-determination and enables the progressive delegation of authority to Aboriginal entities. These measures have been designed to progress our shared commitment to advance an Aboriginal-led child protection and family support sector where the cultural authority of Aboriginal people to lead decision-making and service delivery for Aboriginal children is privileged and the right to self-determination enlivened.

The bill introduces a requirement for a whole-of-state strategy for the safety and support of children and young people. We have repeatedly heard the need for government to take this opportunity to get the settings in place across government, and indeed across community, that best facilitate a system where collective responsibility for the wellbeing of children and families is held.

The bill includes a framework for implementing a public health approach to child protection and family support, widely recognised as the preferred approach, that expands the focus away from a narrow cohort of children requiring statutory intervention toward a framework through which we address the needs of all families in our community.

Establishing the state strategy will promote collaboration and coordination across relevant government agencies and other entities in the provision of supports and services to children and their families. Part 7 clarifies that mandatory reporting requirements are in addition to the duty of every person to help ensure the safety and wellbeing of young people. It amends our threshold for mandatory notifications, which is currently arguably the lowest in Australia, to be 'significant harm', which is also aligned with the threshold for the removal of a child.

The bill provides an exemption to mandatory reporting where there is no material change in risk and the circumstances of a matter are already the subject of a notification. This means that when a mandated notifier is working with a family on an ongoing basis and they have already made a mandatory notification about risk of harm to children, notwithstanding that they are actively working with the family to address those risk factors, the bill makes it clear that the notifier is not required to continue to make repeated notifications where the circumstances have not changed to a substantial extent. The notifier is, of course, not prevented from making a further notification if they have ongoing concerns about the safety or wellbeing of the child. Further, if the circumstances change to a substantial extent, they are again required to make a notification.

Getting the threshold right for reporting and responding to children at risk is a critical part of keeping children safe while also recognising the need to meet community expectations about when statutory intervention is required and when other responses might be more appropriate. In a situation where one in three children in South Australia is notified to our system, where families are contemplating deeply complex challenges and our system is overwhelmed with notifications, we want to ensure that we have the settings right to help identify and respond to children at risk. This change better aligns South Australia to interstate legislation regarding notifications.

The definition of harm now explicitly and rightly includes exposure to domestic violence as a factor which may cause harm. Approximately 80 per cent of child protection cases have a domestic violence element. This important change acknowledges the horrific prevalence of violence and the long-lasting impact this has on children and young people.

This bill broadens the circumstances in which the chief executive can direct drug and alcohol testing to take place and amends the Criminal Law Consolidation Act to rightly toughen penalties when offences are committed against children and young people in care. Parts 11 and 12 of the bill deal with case planning and placement and contact arrangements. Substantive amendments include considering the need for a child or young person to maintain connection with their family and culture and giving weight to the importance of sibling contact when making contact arrangements and strengthening provisions relating to the Contact Arrangements Review Panel.

Amendments have been made to the provisions relating to internal reviews and reviews of decisions by the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) in part 17. The bill clarifies the internal review provisions specifying who was entitled to apply for an internal review, which decisions are reviewable and what actions may be taken by the chief executive following an internal review.

It clarifies the jurisdiction of SACAT to review internal decisions and makes provisions about requirements for the establishment of two panels of assessors, comprising Aboriginal people and persons with social work qualifications or relevant child protection experience respectively, from which appropriate assessors will be drawn when performing functions under the bill. This amendment balances the rights of carers as a crucial part of the child protection and family support system with timely decision-making in relation to placements in the child's best's interests.

Finally, this bill strives to put children at the centre of everything we do. It strengthens participation provisions, ensuring that children have a voice in the decisions and actions that implement them, which is what we must do. I commend the bill to the chamber and I seek leave to have the explanation of clauses inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Commencement

These clauses are formal.

3—Interpretation

Key terms and phrases are defined for the purposes of the measure.

4—Meaning of harm and significant harm

Harm and significant harm are defined for the purposes of the measure.

5—Meaning of at risk of harm and at risk of significant harm

At risk of harm and at risk of significant harm are defined for the purposes of the measure.

6—Act to bind, and impose criminal liability on, the Crown

The Crown is bound by, and is liable for offences against, the measure.

7—Interaction with other Acts

The measure is in addition to, and does not derogate from, any other Act or law, and is to work in conjunction with all the laws of the State to further the principles set out in Part 2 of the measure.

Part 2—Guiding principles and related matters

Division 1—Preliminary

8—Requirement to give effect to give effect to this Part and Part 4 Division 3

Certain persons are required to give effect this proposed Part of the measure, along with Part 4 Division 3 in the case where an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child is involved, however a failure to do so will not, of itself, affect the validity of an act or omission under the measure.

Division 2—Parliamentary recognition of children and young people

9—Parliamentary recognition of children and young people

The Parliament of South Australia recognises the importance certain matters in respect of children and young people.

Division 3—Guiding principles

10—Paramount principle—safety of children and young people

The paramount principle in the administration, operation and enforcement of the measure is to ensure that children and young people are safe and protected from harm. The paramount principle cannot be displaced by any other principle or requirement of the measure.

11—Best interests principle

It is a principle of the measure that the best interests of each child and young person are to be upheld and effected in decision making under the measure. In considering what is in the best interests of a particular child or young person, regard should be given to the matters specified.

12—Principle of effective intervention

It is a principle of the measure that decisions made, actions taken and support offered in relation to a particular child or young person should be timely, direct and fit for purpose given the circumstances of the child or young person.

Division 4—Voices of children and young people to be heard

13—Voices of children and young people to be heard

Certain persons and bodies must take reasonable steps to ensure that the voice of each child or young person is heard in the course of making particular decisions and that the child or young person is provided with particular information or documents. However, a person or body need not comply with this obligation in certain circumstances.

Division 5—Charter of Rights for Children and Young People in Care

14—Charter of Rights for Children and Young People in Care

The Guardian for Children and Young People must prepare and maintain a Charter of Rights for Children and Young People In Care. Each person or body engaged in the administration, operation or enforcement of the measure, and other laws as defined, must perform their functions so as to give effect to the Charter.

15—Chief Executive must provide copy of Charter to certain children and young people

The Chief Executive must, except in certain circumstances, provide a copy of the Charter, and information in respect of the Guardian for Children and Young People, to a child or young person as soon as is reasonably practicable after the child or young person is placed in the custody, or under the guardianship, of the Chief Executive.

Division 6—Statement of Commitment to Parents and Families

16—Statement of Commitment to Parents and Families

The Minister must prepare and maintain a Statement of Commitment to Parents and Families. Each person or body engaged in the administration, operation or enforcement of the measure must perform their functions so as to give effect to the Statement. Procedural matters relating to the Statement are set out.

Division 7—Statement of Commitment to Foster and Kinship Carers

17—Statement of Commitment to Foster and Kinship Carers

The Minister must prepare and maintain a Statement of Commitment to Foster and Kinship Carers. Each person or body engaged in the administration, operation or enforcement of the measure must perform their functions so as to give effect to the Statement. Procedural matters relating to the Statement are set out.

Part 3—Administration

Division 1—Minister

18—Functions of Minister

The functions of the Minister are set out.

19—Minister may direct Chief Executives of certain State authorities to meet to discuss interagency approach

The Minister may, in the specified circumstances, direct that 2 or more Chief Executives of certain State authorities meet to discuss an interagency response to prevent harm being caused to a child or young person, or a specified class of children and young people.

20—Minister may enter agreements for provision of services to children and young people and their families

The Minister may enter into agreements with specified persons or bodies for the provision or promotion of services to children and young people and their families.

21—Minister may establish programs for children and young people and their families

The Minister may, in accordance with any prescribed requirements, establish specified programs for children and young people and their families.

22—Powers of delegation

A standard power of delegation is set out in respect of the Minister.

23—Minister's annual report

The Minister must prepare an annual report setting out the matters specified.

Division 2—Chief Executive

24—Functions of Chief Executive

The functions of the Chief Executive are set out.

25—Powers of delegation

A standard power of delegation is set out in respect of the Chief Executive.

26—Chief Executive's annual report

The Chief Executive must prepare and submit to the Minister an annual report setting out the matters specified.

Division 3—Quality of Care Report Guidelines

27—Quality of Care Report Guidelines

The Chief Executive must publish guidelines relating to the reporting of harm, or risks or suspicions of harm, caused to children and young people in care by certain carers.

Division 4—Child protection officers

28—Child protection officers

Certain persons are specified to be child protection officers for the purposes of the measure. If a person is authorised under this clause as a child protection officer, the person must be issued with an identity card and their authorisation may be made subject to conditions or limitations.

29—Powers of child protection officers

The powers of child protection officers are set out.

30—Child protection officer may require information etc

A child protection officer may, by notice in writing, require a specified person or body to provide particular information and documents, and to answer questions or provide written reports. A refusal or failure to comply with a notice constitutes an offence.

Division 5—Child and Young Person's Visitor scheme

31—Interpretation

Prescribed facility is defined for the purposes of this proposed Division.

32—Child and Young Person's Visitor

The Minister may establish a Child and Young Person's Visitor.

33—Functions of Child and Young Person's Visitor

The functions of the Child and Young Person's Visitor are set out.

34—Reporting obligations

The Child and Young Person's Visitor must provide an annual report to the Minister on the Visitor's work, and may prepare a special report to the Minister on any matter arising out of the Visitor's functions.

Division 6—Networks and services for children and young people and their families

35—Networks and services for children and young people and their families

The Minister may establish certain networks or services in respect of children and young people and their families. Such a network or service will consist of such persons or bodies specified by the Minister and has the functions assigned to it by the Minister or by the measure.

Division 7—Information gathering and sharing

36—Chief Executive may require State authority to provide report

The Chief Executive may, in certain circumstances, require a State authority to prepare and provide a report on certain matters. Noncompliance with such a requirement may result in the Chief Executive requesting from the State Authority a report setting out reasons for the noncompliance. This report may be submitted to the Minister who must then prepare a report to Parliament on the matter.

37—Sharing of information between certain persons and bodies

Circumstances in which the sharing of information and documents may occur between the specified persons and bodies are outlined.

38—Interaction with Public Sector (Data Sharing) Act 2016

Nothing in proposed Part 3 Division 7 affects the operation of the Public Sector (Data Sharing) Act 2016.

Part 4—Additional provisions relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people

Division 1—Preliminary

39—Primary purpose of Part

The primary purpose of this proposed Part is set out, namely to ensure that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle is implemented throughout all stages of the administration, operation and enforcement of this Act to the standard of active efforts.

40—Objects of Act relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people

The objects of the measure in respect of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people are set out.

41—Application of Part

The application of this proposed Part is set out.

Division 2—Identifying Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people

42—Identifying Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people

As soon as reasonably practicable after a child or young person comes into contact with the child protection and family support system, certain persons and bodies must make active efforts to ascertain whether the child or young person is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child or young person.

43—Presumption as to acceptance by Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community

A presumption as to the acceptance of a child or young person as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander by an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community is set out.

Division 3—Additional guiding principles in respect of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people

44—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle is set out. Certain persons and bodies must give effect to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle to the standard of active efforts in respect of certain decisions.

45—Standard of active efforts

The standard of active efforts is set out.

46—Additional considerations relating to reunification of certain Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people and their parents

The Chief Executive must, if an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child or young person is removed from their parents under this Act, make active efforts to explore how the family can be reunified. If the Chief Executive is of the opinion that reunification is unlikely, the Chief Executive must make active efforts to identify members of the child or young person's family with whom they can be placed.

47—Principle of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander family-led decision making

The principle of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander family-led decision making is set out, which is to be observed by certain persons and bodies when making decisions in respect of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people.

48—Additional considerations relating to best interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people

Additional matters which must be given regard when considering what is in the best interests of a particular Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child or young person are set out.

Division 4—Recognised Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander entities

49—Minister may recognise certain Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander entities for purposes of Act

The Minister may recognise specified entities as recognised Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander entities for the purposes of the measure.

Division 5—Delegation of functions in respect of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people

50—Delegation of certain functions to recognised Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander entities

The Chief Executive may delegate certain functions under the measure to a recognised Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander entity or a member of such an entity. Before delegating a function, the Chief Executive must take certain steps, with an exception applying in respect of one particular step specified. The Chief Executive may provide certain information and documents to a delegated decision maker and the Chief Executive may require a delegated decision maker to provide certain information or documents to the Chief Executive.

51—Costs of recognised Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander entity performing delegated functions to be borne by Crown

The Crown is to bear costs and expenses reasonably incurred by a delegated decision making performing functions under the measure.

Division 6—Family group conferencing for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people

52—Additional purposes of family group conferences for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people

Additional purposes of a family group conference convened in respect of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child or young person are set out. A coordinator of a family group conference convened in respect of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child or young person may determine conference procedures the coordinator thinks necessary to further the additional purposes.

53—Chief Executive to offer and convene family group conference in certain circumstances

The Chief Executive must offer to convene a family group conference in the circumstances specified and, if the offer is accepted, take reasonable steps to convene it.

54—Coordinator of family group conference to be Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person

The coordinator of a family group conference convened in respect of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child or young person must, unless it is not reasonably practicable or prescribed circumstances apply, be an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person.

Division 7—Court proceedings under Act involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people

55—Regulations etc to establish scheme for Respected Persons to participate in Court proceedings involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people

Regulations may establish a scheme for the use of Respected Persons in Court proceedings for certain purposes.

56—Court to be satisfied that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle implemented before making certain orders

The Court must be satisfied that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle has been implemented to the standard of active efforts, so far as is practicable in the circumstances, before making certain orders or decisions in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people, and makes related procedural provisions.

57—Court not to make certain orders in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people unless family group conference offered

The Court may only make orders of the specified kind in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people if a family group conference has been offered or held.

Division 8—Case planning for Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander children and young people

58—Additional requirements relating to case planning for Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander children and young people

Additional requirements for case planning in respect of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people are set out.

Division 9—Placement of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander children and young people by Chief Executive

59—Chief Executive must consult with recognised Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander entity before placing Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child or young person

The Chief Executive must, if it is reasonably practicable to do so, consult with and have regard to any submissions of, a recognised Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander entity prior to placing an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child or young person under the measure. This requirement does not extend to a delegated decision maker performing functions relating to the placement of a child or young person under the measure.

Division 10—Reviews of contact arrangements and reviews of circumstances for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people in care

60—Additional requirements relating to reviews by the Contact Arrangements Review Panel in respect of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people

Certain additional requirements that attach to a panel convened by the Contact Arrangements Review Panel to review contact arrangements in respect of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child or young person are set out.

61—Ongoing review of circumstances of certain Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child or young person

Certain additional requirements that apply to a panel conducting a review of circumstances of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child or young person are set out.

Part 5—State Strategy for the Safety and Support of Children and Young People

Division 1—State Strategy for the Safety and Support of Children and Young People

62—State Strategy for the Safety and Support of Children and Young People

There is to be a State Strategy for the Safety and Support of Children and Young People which must include the parts specified. A prescribed person or body must have regard to, and seek to give effect to, the State Strategy.

63—Preparation of State Strategy

The State Strategy is to be prepared by the Minister in consultation with specified persons and bodies.

64—Annual report on State Strategy

The Chief Executive must provide an annual report to the Minister on the operation of the State Strategy.

65—Review of State Strategy

The Minister must cause the State Strategy to be reviewed at least once in each 5 year period.

Division 2—Children and Young People Safety and Support Plans

66—Application of Division

The proposed Division applies to prescribed State authorities and any other person or body prescribed by the regulations.

67—Children and Young People Safety and Support Plans

Each person or body to whom the proposed Division applies must have a Children and Young People Safety and Support Plan, which must set out certain matters.

68—Annual report on operation of Children and Young People Safety and Support Plans

Each prescribed State authority must provide an annual report to the Chief Executive on the operation of its Children and Young People Safety and Support Plan. Any other person or body to whom the Division applies (not being a prescribed State authority) may provide such a report.

69—Review of Children and Young People Safety and Support Plans

A prescribed State authority must cause a review of its Children and Young People Safety and Support Plan to be undertaken at least once in each 5 year period.

Part 6—Providing safe environments for children and young people

70—Certain organisations must have policies and procedures to ensure safe environments provided

Certain organisations must adopt specified policies and procedures to ensure that child safe environments are established and maintained. Such organisations must comply with various other specified requirements in respect of policies and procedures prepared or adopted under this clause. A refusal or failure to comply with a requirement under this clause constitutes an offence.

Part 7—Protecting children and young people at risk of harm or significant harm

Division 1—Reporting suspicion that child or young person at risk of significant harm

71—Application of Division

The requirement imposed by proposed Part 7 Division 1 for certain persons to report that a child or young person may be at risk of significant harm is in addition to any duty that a person may have to promote and ensure the safety and wellbeing of children and young people.

72—Certain persons must report suspicion that child or young person may be at risk of significant harm

Certain persons must report a suspicion, formed in the course of their employment and on reasonable grounds, that a child or young person may be at risk of significant harm, unless specified circumstances apply.

Division 2—Responding to reports indicating children and young people at risk of harm

73—Assessment of reports indicating child or young person at risk of harm

The Chief Executive must cause an assessment of each report made under proposed section 72 and any other report made to the Department that a child or young person may be at risk of harm.

74—Chief Executive must take certain actions following assessment if child or young person at risk of harm

The Chief Executive must cause certain specified actions to be taken if, after completing an assessment under proposed section 73, the Chief Executive suspects that a child or young person is at risk of harm.

75—Chief Executive may assess circumstances of a child or young person

The Chief Executive may cause an assessment of the circumstances of a child or young person to be carried out in the circumstances specified.

76—Referral of matter to other State authority

The Chief Executive may refer a matter evaluated under proposed section 73 to another State authority and may give directions or guidance to the State authority in respect of the matter.

77—Direction that child or young person be examined, assessed or treated

The Chief Executive may, in certain circumstances, direct that a certain child or young person be examined or assessed. A person who examines or assesses a child or young person under the proposed section may treat the child or young person if the person considers it necessary to alleviate any injury or suffering of the child or young person. A person who examines, assesses or treats a child or young person under the proposed section must provide a written report to the Chief Executive. Failure to do so constitutes an offence.

78—Direction that person undergo certain assessments

The Chief Executive may, in certain circumstances, direct a certain person to undergo an assessment relating to drug and alcohol use, parenting capacity or mental health. A refusal or failure to comply with a such a direction constitutes an offence.

79—Random drug and alcohol testing

The Chief Executive may require a certain person to take part in random drug and alcohol testing. Regulations made for the purposes of the proposed section must include certain specified matters. A refusal or failure to comply with a requirement of the Chief Executive without reasonable excuse constitutes an offence. The privilege against self-incrimination is displaced.

80—Direction that person undertake rehabilitation program

The Chief Executive may direct that a person undertake a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program. A refusal or failure to comply with such a direction without reasonable excuse constitutes an offence.

81—Forensic materials not to be used for other purposes and test results not admissible in other proceedings

Forensic material obtained during an approved drug and alcohol assessment, a random drug and alcohol test or an approved drug and alcohol rehabilitation program must not be used except as contemplated by the measure. The results of such assessments, tests and programs are not to be relied on as grounds for the exercise of any search power or the obtaining of any search warrant and are not admissible in evidence, except in proceedings for an order of the Court under the measure.

82—Destruction of forensic material

Any person or body who possesses forensic material obtained during an approved drug and alcohol assessment, a random drug and alcohol test or an approved drug and alcohol rehabilitation program must ensure that the material is destroyed.

Division 3—Removal of children and young people

83—Removal of child or young person

A child protection officer may remove a child or young person from a particular premises or place if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the child or young person is at risk of significant harm, that it is necessary to remove them in order to protect them and that there is no reasonably practicable alternative to removing the child. If such a child or young person is in hospital for medical treatment or residing at some other specified premises and the officer does not consider it to be in the best interests of the child or young person to remove them from their location, the officer may (instead of removing them) issue a custody notice placing the child or young person in the custody of the Chief Executive.

A child protection officer may, by notice, place a child or young person in the custody of the Chief Executive if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the child or young person would, if they resided with a certain person, be at risk of significant harm, that the child is residing with a person other than certain person and the officer does not consider it to be in the best interests to remove the child from their location. A custody notice must be served on certain persons. A similar scheme is provided where a child or young person is in hospital etc for treatment.

84—Action following removal etc of child or young person

A child or young person removed under proposed section 83, or in relation to whom a custody notice is issued under that section, is in the custody of the Chief Executive until such time as is specified.

Division 4—Intervention if parent of child or young person found guilty of certain offences

85—Interpretation

Key terms are defined for the purposes of this proposed Division.

86—Chief Executive to be notified if person found guilty of qualifying offence

The Courts Administration Authority must, as soon as it is reasonably practicable to do so, notify the Chief Executive if a person is found guilty of a qualifying offence.

87—Temporary instruments of guardianship

The Chief Executive must issue an instrument of guardianship in respect of a child or young person if the Chief Executive becomes aware that the child or young person is residing with a parent who has been found guilty of a qualifying offence. Procedural matters in relation to such instruments are set out.

88—Restraining notices

The Chief Executive must issue a restraining notice to a person if the Chief Executive becomes aware that a child or young person is residing, or is about to reside, with the person (not being a parent of the child or young person) and the person has been found guilty of a qualifying offence. Contravening a restraining notice constitutes an offence. Procedural matters in relation to such notices are set out.

89—Extension of periods for instruments and notices

The Court may, on the application of the Chief Executive, extend an instrument period or restraining notice period if satisfied that it is appropriate to do so.

90—Application for Court orders to be made if instrument of guardianship or restraining notice issued

The Chief Executive must apply for an order or orders of an appropriate kind under proposed Part 10 in relation to a child or young person as soon as is reasonably practicable after an instrument of guardianship or a restraining notice has been issued in relation to the child or young person.

Part 8—Family group conferences

91—Application of Part

This proposed Part applies in relation to children and young people whether or not they are, or are to be, in care.

92—Purpose of family group conferences

The purpose of family group conferences is specified.

93—Family Group Conference Guidelines

The Chief Executive must publish guidelines relating to the conduct of family group conferences. The guidelines must set out and provide for certain matters.

94—Chief Executive may convene family group conference

The Chief Executive may convene a family group conference in the specified circumstances. A family group conference is to be conducted by a coordinator nominated by the Chief Executive.

95—Procedures and attendees at family group conferences

A family group conference is to be conducted by a coordinator in accordance with the Family Group Conference Guidelines. The coordinator may, subject to the measure and the Family Group Conference Guidelines, determine the procedures of the conference. A coordinator may, after consulting with the child or young person and any other persons specified in the Family Group Conference Guidelines, exclude certain persons from a family group conference if satisfied of certain matters. The coordinator must ensure that certain procedural requirements are satisfied.

96—Chief Executive etc to give effect to decisions of family group conferences

The Chief Executive and State authorities should give effect to valid decisions made at family group conferences, subject to certain exceptions.

97—Statements made at family group conferences not admissible

Evidence of any statement made at a family group conference is not admissible in legal proceedings, except in the circumstance specified.

Part 9—Voluntary custody agreements

98—Voluntary custody agreements

The parents or guardians of a child or young person may enter a short term voluntary custody agreement in respect of the child or young person with the Chief Executive, placing the child or young person in the custody of the Chief Executive. This clause makes procedural provision with respect to such agreements.

Part 10—Proceedings before the Youth Court of South Australia

Division 1—Parties and procedures etc in relation to Court orders

99—Application for Court orders

An application made under this proposed Part may be made by specified persons and in certain circumstances. The Chief Executive must assess the likelihood of reunification occurring, and other related matters, before applying to the Court for certain orders in respect of a child or young person removed under the measure.

100—Parties to proceedings

The persons who are parties to certain applications under this proposed Part are specified.

101—Copy of application to be served on parties

A copy of an application made for an order under this proposed Part must be served on the parties to the application. The other provisions are procedural.

102—Approved carers to be provided opportunity to be heard

The Court must provide an approved carer of a child or young person a reasonable opportunity to make representations to the Court in any proceedings relating to the child or young person, unless the Court is of the opinion that to do so would not be in the best interests of the child or young person.

103—Other interested persons may be heard

The Court may, on application, hear submissions from a specified person who is not a party to proceedings under this proposed Part.

104—Court not bound by rules of evidence

The Court is not bound by the rules of evidence, but must act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities and legal form.

105—Standard of proof

The standard of proof in proceedings under the measure is on the balance of probabilities, unless the proceedings are for an offence.

106—Duties of legal practitioners when representing child or young person

The requirements with which a legal practitioner must comply when acting for a child or young person under the measure are set out.

107—Views of child or young person to be heard

A child or young person to whom proceedings under the measure relate must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard in such proceedings, subject to certain exceptions.

Division 2—Case management

108—Expeditious hearings and adjournments

Proceedings under the measure must be dealt with expeditiously. The Court may adjourn proceedings for the purposes of referring a matter to a family group conference. The Court may, on adjournment, make such orders under this proposed Part as it thinks appropriate.

109—Conferences of parties

The Court may require parties to proceedings under the measure to attend a conference for the purpose of determining what matters are in dispute, or resolving any matters in dispute. Certain procedural matters are set out.

Division 3—Court may convene family group conference

110—Court may convene family group conference

The Court may convene a family group conference in respect of a child or young person. Such a family group conference is to be conducted by a coordinator nominated by the Judge of the Court. The other provisions of the measure under proposed Part 8 (and certain modifications made under proposed Part 4 in respect of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander children and young people) apply to family group conferences convened by the Court.

Division 4—Court orders

111—Assessment orders

The Court may make an order granting custody of a child or young person to the Chief Executive for a period not exceeding 8 weeks to enable an assessment of the child or young person's circumstances to be carried out. Such an order is not subject to appeal.

112—Other orders that may be made by Court

The Court may make other orders of the kinds, and in the circumstances, specified. If the Court places a child or young person under the guardianship of a person or persons, the person or persons is or are the legal guardian or guardians of the child or young person to the exclusion of all others.

113—Interim orders

The Court may make interim orders relating to an application under this proposed Part. However, interim orders relating to an assessment order under proposed section 111 must be consistent with that section.

114—Limitations on orders that may be made by Court

The Court is not to make orders in relation to the placement of a child or young person who is in the custody, or under the guardianship, of the Chief Executive or in respect of contact arrangements for a child or young person. The Court is not, except with the agreement of the Chief Executive, to place a child or young person in the custody, or under the guardianship, of a person other than the person specified in the application.

115—Limitations on orders that may be made if child or young person unrepresented

The Court must not hear an application for orders under the measure unless the child or young person to whom the application relates is represented, or if the Court is satisfied that the child or young person has made an informed decision not to be represented. If the hearing of the application is urgent, the Court may proceed without such circumstances applying, in which case the Court is to make interim orders.

116—Consent orders

Without limiting proposed sections 114 or 115, the Court may make orders under this proposed Part with the consent of the parties to the proceedings who participate in the proceedings, and in doing so, need not consider the matters that would otherwise need to be considered by the Court.

117—Court may make declaration as to name of child or young person

The Court may, if satisfied it is in the best interests of the child or young person and only if certain orders have been made, make a declaration of the name by which a child or young person is to be known.

118—Variation, revocation or discharge of orders

The Court may, on application, vary, revoke or discharge an order made under this proposed Part.

119—Orders for costs

The Court may make orders for costs against the Crown where an application for an order under proposed section 112 of the measure is dismissed.

120—Noncompliance with orders

If a person has been personally served with an order made by the Court under the measure, it is an offence for the person to contravene the order (unless the person is the child or young person to whom the order relates)

Division 5—Specified person guardianship orders

121—Certain approved carers may apply to Chief Executive to seek specified person guardianship order

An approved carer in whose care a child or young person has been for at least 2 years (or such shorter period as the Chief Executive may determine) may apply to the Chief Executive for an application to be made to the Court for a specified person guardianship order placing the child or young person under the approved carer's guardianship until they attain 18 years of age. The Chief Executive must, as soon as is reasonably practicable after receiving an application under this clause, assess and determine whether a proposed guardian is suitable to be the guardian of the relevant child or young person.

122—Guardianship care plan to be prepared

If the Chief Executive determines under clause 121 of the measure that a person is a suitable guardian for a child or young person, the Chief Executive must cause a guardianship care plan to be prepared in respect of the child or young person.

123—Chief Executive to apply to Court for specified person guardianship order

The Chief Executive must, after a guardianship care plan is prepared under clause 122 of the measure, apply to the Court, without undue delay, for an order placing the relevant child or young person under the guardianship of the proposed guardian until they attain 18 years of age and any other orders under this proposed Part as the Chief Executive considers necessary and appropriate. However, the Chief Executive need not apply to the Court if certain circumstances exist.

124—Court may make specified person guardianship order

If the Court is satisfied that it is in the best interests of a child or young person, the Court may, on application, make a specified person guardianship order.

125—Onus on objector to prove order should not be made

If a person objects to the making of a specified person guardianship order, the onus is on that person to prove to the Court why the order should not be made. This does not apply if the person is the Chief Executive or the child or young person (so long as the Court is satisfied that the child or young person is not being unduly influenced).

126—Variation or revocation of specified person guardianship orders

A party to proceedings may apply for the variation or revocation of a specified person guardianship order. If such an order is revoked, the child or young person to whom the order relates will be taken to be under the guardianship of the Chief Executive, unless the Court orders otherwise.

If all persons under whose guardianship a child or young person is placed under a specified person guardianship order die, the child or young person to whom the order relates will, unless the Court orders otherwise, be taken to be under the guardianship of the Chief Executive until they attain 18 years of age

Division 6—Court may issue warrant for apprehension and return of certain children and young people

127—Court may issue warrant for apprehension and return of certain children or young people

The Court may, in specified circumstances and on application by a specified person, issue a warrant for the apprehension of a child or young person who has been placed in the custody, or under the guardianship, of the Chief Executive or another person or persons under the measure or a repealed Act.

128—Care of children and young people apprehended on interstate warrants

If a child or young person has been apprehended in this State on an interstate child protection warrant, the Chief Executive may arrange for the safe and appropriate care of the child or young person until it is practicable to take them before a magistrate or court and may, for that purpose, exercise any power the Chief Executive may have under the measure in relation to the child or young person.

Part 11—Case planning for children and young people in care

129—Chief Executive must prepare case plan in respect of certain children and young people

The Chief Executive must cause a case plan to be prepared in respect of each child and young person to whom the proposed section applies. The Chief Executive must, in causing a case plan to be prepared, ascertain the views of any person who has relevant information in respect of the child or young person. A case plan must include certain matters.

130—Case plans must be given effect

Each person and body engaged in the administration, operation or enforcement of the measure must perform their functions so as to give effect to a child or young person's case plan.

Part 12—Placement and contact arrangements etc of children and young people in care

Division 1—Placement etc of children and young people in care

131—Chief Executive's powers in relation to children and young people in care

The Chief Executive may exercise certain powers in relation to a child or young person who is in the custody, or under the guardianship, of the Chief Executive. The Chief Executive must keep each parent or guardian of the child or young person informed of decisions made under the proposed section with respect to the child or young person.

132—Temporary placement of children and young people

It is a requirement of the measure, under proposed section 146, that a child or young person only be placed by the Chief Executive in the care of a person if that person is an approved carer. This clause provides, however, that the Chief Executive may place a child or young person who is in the custody or under the guardianship of the Chief Executive in the care of a person despite that person not being an approved carer if the Chief Executive is satisfied that the child or young person requires placement urgently, that it is not reasonably practicable to place the child or young person with an approved carer and that the risk of harm being caused to the child or young person if they are not placed with a person under this clause exceeds the risk that the person will cause harm to the child or young person.

However, the Chief Executive may still place a child or young person under this clause despite it being reasonably practicable to place the child or young person with an approved carer, if the Chief Executive is satisfied that placing this child or young person under this clause is preferable to placing them with an approved carer. Additionally, the Chief Executive may place a child or young person under this clause with a member of their family or another person known to the child or young person without being satisfied that the placement is urgent or that it is not reasonably practicable to place the child or young person with an approved carer. Placements made under this clause must be temporary and must be brought to an end as soon as it is reasonably practicable to do so. A person with whom a child or young person is placed under this clause is to be construed as an approved carer for the purposes of certain proposed sections of the measure.

Division 2—Provision of information regarding placements and involvement of approved carers in decision making

133—Children and young people to be provided with certain information prior to placement

A placement agency must, if considering placing a child or young person with an approved carer, provide to the child or young person the prescribed information in relation to the approved carer.

134—Approved carers to be provided with certain information prior to placement

A placement agency must provide prospective approved carers with whom the placement agency is considering placing a child or young person with information that enables the approved carer to make a fully informed decision as to whether to accept the placement. The placement agency must have regard to any wishes expressed by the child or young person as to the disclosure of information.

135—Approved carers to be provided with certain information once child or young person placed

A placement agency that has placed a child or young person with an approved carer must provide certain information to the approved carer. An approved carer who has been given information under this clause, and any other person who is aware of the information, must not disclose the information except in certain circumstances. Contravention is an offence.

136—Approved carers entitled to participate in certain decision making processes

An approved carer in whose care a child or young person is placed is entitled to participate in any decision making process relating to the certain matters in respect of the child or young person, unless the relevant decision maker is of the view that it would not be in the best interests of the child or young person for that approved carer to so participate.

137—Noncompliance with Division not to invalidate placement

A refusal or failure to comply with a requirement under this proposed Division does not, of itself, affect the validity of a placement of a child or young person with an approved carer or a decision referred to in proposed section 136.

Division 3—Contact arrangements

138—Application of Division

The children and young people to whom this proposed Division applies is specified.

139—Contact arrangements to be determined by Chief Executive

The Chief Executive is to determine contact arrangements in respect of children and young people to whom this proposed Division applies. If the Chief Executive is of certain opinions, there is no requirement that contact arrangement decisions be made in favour of a particular person. In making a determination under this clause, the Chief Executive must have regard to certain matters and a determination must set out the matters specified.

140—Minister to establish Contact Arrangements Review Panel

The Minister must establish a Contact Arrangements Review Panel to review contact arrangements made under this proposed Division. The regulations are to set out the functions of the Panel and may make other further provisions.

141—Review by Contact Arrangements Review Panel

Certain persons may apply to the Contact Arrangements Review Panel for a review of contact arrangements. Procedural matters in respect of applications to, and determinations made by, the Panel are set out.

Division 4—Ongoing reviews of circumstances of certain children and young people

142—Ongoing reviews of circumstances of certain children and young people

The Chief Executive must cause a review of the circumstances of each child or young person to whom the proposed section applies to be carried out at the request of certain persons or, in any case, at least once in each 12 month period. Procedural matters in respect of such reviews are set out.

Division 5—Miscellaneous

143—Chief Executive may provide assistance to persons caring for children and young people

The Chief Executive may grant financial or other assistance to certain persons in relation to the care and maintenance of a child or young person.

144—Facilitating agreements for funeral arrangements of certain children and young people

The Chief Executive may assist specified parties to reach an agreement about funeral arrangements for children and young people who were in care at the time of their death.

Part 13—Approved carers, licensed foster care agencies and licensed children's residential facilities

Division 1—Approved carers

145—Chief Executive may establish categories of approved carers

The Chief Executive may establish different categories of approved carers for the purposes of the measure.

146—Out of home care to be provided by approved carers

It is an offence for a person to provide out of home care unless they are an approved carer, subject to any other provisions of the measure (in particular proposed section 132).

147—Approval of carers

The process by which the Chief Executive is to approve a person as an approved carer under the measure is set out.

148—Ongoing reviews of approved carers

The Chief Executive must ensure that approved carers are the subject of regular assessment, and that training and other support is provided to them.

149—Cancellation of approval

The Chief Executive must cancel the approval of an approved carer if the Chief Executive reasonably suspects that a person is a prohibited person under the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016. The Chief Executive may cancel such an approval in other specified circumstances.

150—Certain information to be provided to Chief Executive

An approved carer must provide the information specified to the Chief Executive. Contravention is an offence.

151—Delegation of certain powers to approved carers

The Chief Executive may delegate certain powers to an approved carer in respect of a child or young person who is under the guardianship of the Chief Executive.

Division 2—Licensed foster care agencies

152—Interpretation

The term business of a foster care agency is defined for the purposes of this proposed Division.

153—Foster care agencies to be licensed

It is an offence for a person to carry on the business of a foster care agency unless the person holds a licence under this proposed Division.

154—Licence to carry on business as foster care agency

The Chief Executive may, on application, grant a licence to carry on the business of a foster care agency under the measure. The Chief Executive must not grant such a licence unless satisfied of certain matters. A refusal or failure to comply with a licence condition constitutes an offence.

155—Cancellation of licence

The Chief Executive may cancel a person's licence to carry on the business of a foster care agency in certain circumstances.

156—Record keeping

The holder of a licence to carry on the business of a foster care agency must make prescribed records and keep the records in the prescribed manner. Contravention of either requirement is an offence.

157—Ongoing reviews of approved carers by agency

The holder of a licence to carry on the business of a foster care agency must regularly assess the provision of care by each approved carer with whom the agency places children or young people and must assess any requirement of the approved carer for financial or other assistance. Contravention of either requirement constitutes an offence.

Division 3—Licenced children's residential facilities

158—Interpretation

The term children's residential facility is defined for the purposes of this proposed Division.

159—Children's residential facilities to be licensed

It is an offence for a person to operate a children's residential facility unless they hold a licence to do so in respect of the facility under this proposed Division.

160—Licence to operate children's residential facility

The Chief Executive may grant a licence to a person to operate a children's residential facility. Each licence granted by the Chief Executive must impose a condition setting out the maximum number of children or young people that may reside at the relevant facility. The Chief Executive must not grant such a licence unless satisfied of certain matters. A refusal or failure to comply with a licence condition constitutes an offence.

161—Cancellation of licence

The Chief Executive may cancel a person's licence to operate a children's residential facility in certain circumstances.

162—Record keeping

The holder of a licence to operate a children's residential facility must make prescribed records and keep the records in the prescribed manner. Contravention of either requirement is an offence.

Division 4—State residential care facilities

163—Minister may establish State residential care facilities

The Minister may establish residential care facilities.

Division 5—Miscellaneous

164—Persons not to be employed in certain residential facilities unless they have been assessed

A person must not be employed in a licensed children's residential facility or a State residential care facility unless the person has undergone certain psychological or psychometric assessments. It is an offence for a person to be employed in contravention of such a requirement and for a person to employ, or continue to employ, a person in contravention of such a requirement.

165—Chief Executive to hear complaints regarding certain residential and other facilities

Certain persons may make complaints to the Chief Executive with respect to the care that a child or young person is receiving in a prescribed facility. The Chief Executive must cause a complaint to be investigated in accordance with the regulations.

Part 14—Offences relating to certain children and young people in care

166—Direction not to communicate etc with certain child or young person

The Chief Executive may give certain directions if the Chief Executive believes it is reasonably necessary to prevent harm to a child or young person, or to prevent them from engaging in, or being exposed to, conduct of a criminal nature. A person who refuses or fails to comply with such a direction commits an offence. The offence does not apply to the child or young person to whom the direction relates.

167—Harbouring, concealing etc certain absent child or young person

It is an offence for a person to harbour or conceal, or prevent the return of, a child or young person who is absent from a State care placement or to assist another person to do so. The offence does not apply to the child or young person who is so absent.

168—Unlawful taking etc of certain child or young person

It is an offence for a person to induce or encourage a child or young person to leave a place in which they were placed under the measure, or to take a child or young person from such a place, or to harbour or conceal a child or young person who has left or been taken from such a place. The offence does not apply to the child or young person to so taken, harboured or concealed.

Part 15—Assistance to certain children and young people leaving care

169—Leaving care plans to be prepared for certain children and young people leaving care

The Chief Executive must, in relation to a child or young person placed under the Chief Executive's guardianship until they attain 18 years of age who is lawfully leaving that care, in consultation with the child or young person, prepare a plan setting out steps to assist the child or young person in making their transition from care. Such a plan must include certain matters.

170—Chief Executive to assist eligible care leavers

The Chief Executive must cause certain assistance to be offered (and, where accepted, to be provided) to certain care leavers for the purposes of making their transition from care as easy as is reasonably practicable.

171—Certain persons to be provided with documents and information held by Department

Certain persons may apply to the Chief Executive to be provided with documents and information of a specified kind relating to a person formerly in care. Procedural matters in respect of such applications are set out.

172—Internal review of decision to refuse to provide document or information etc

A person who applied, and was eligible to do so, for a document or information under proposed section 171 is provided a right of review by the Chief Executive of a decision to refuse to provide the relevant documents or information.

Part 16—Transfer of certain orders and proceedings between South Australia and other jurisdictions

Division 1—Preliminary

173—Purpose of Part

174—Interpretation

Division 2—Administrative transfer of child protection order

175—When Chief Executive may transfer order

176—Persons whose consent is required

177—Chief Executive to have regard to certain matters

178—Notification to child, parents and guardians

179—Review of decision may be sought

Division 3—Judicial transfer of child protection order

180—When Court may make order under this Division

181—Type of order

182—Court to have regard to certain matters

183—Duty of Chief Executive to inform the Court of certain matters

Division 4—Transfer of child protection proceedings

184—When Court may make order under this Division

185—Court to have regard to certain matters

186—Interim order

Division 5—Registration of interstate orders and proceedings

187—Filing and registration of interstate documents

188—Notification by Registrar

189—Effect of registration

190—Revocation of registration

Division 6—Miscellaneous

191—Appeals

192—Effect of registration of transferred order

193—Transfer of Court file

194—Hearing and determination of transferred proceeding

195—Disclosure of information

196—Discretion of Chief Executive to consent to transfer

197—Evidence of consent of relevant interstate officer

This Part is the current scheme relating to the transfer of orders and proceedings between the State and other jurisdictions, relocated from the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017 which is proposed to be repealed by the measure.

Part 17—Review of certain decisions under Act

Division 1—Internal review of certain decisions under Act

198—Internal review

Certain persons may apply for an internal review of certain decisions made under the measure.

Division 2—Review by SACAT of decisions made under section 198

199—Review by SACAT of decisions made under section 198 etc

SACAT is conferred with jurisdiction to review a decision of the Chief Executive under proposed section 198, or other decisions prescribed by the regulations.

200—Views of child or young person to be heard

A child or young person to whom proceedings under this proposed Part relate must be given a reasonable opportunity to present their views to SACAT, subject to the certain exceptions.

Part 18—Interagency practice review panels

201—Interpretation

The term adverse incident is defined for the purposes of this proposed Part.

202—Purpose of reviews under Part

The purpose of a review of an adverse incident is set out.

203—Interagency practice review panels

The Chief Executive may appoint an interagency practice review panel for the purpose of reviewing and reporting on an adverse incident.

204—Review of adverse incident by interagency practice review panel

The Chief Executive must, in accordance with any prescribed requirements, develop terms of reference in respect of the review of an adverse incident by an interagency practice review panel. An interagency practice review panel may, subject to the measure and any directions of the Chief Executive, determine its own procedures.

205—Reports

An interagency practice review panel must prepare 2 reports, containing the matters specified, following the completion of a review of an adverse incident. The 2 reports attract different provisions relating to their disclosure.

206—Protection of information

The manner in which information obtained by or in relation to an interagency practice review panel must be dealt with is set out. Contravention of certain requirements relating to such information is an offence.

207—Application of Freedom of Information Act 1991

An interagency practice review panel is taken to be an exempt agency under the Freedom of Information Act 1991 and a report prepared by an interagency practice review panel is to be taken to be an exempt document under that Act.

Part 19—Miscellaneous

208—Hindering or obstructing person in execution of duty

It is an offence for a person to hinder or obstruct the Chief Executive, a child protection officer or any other person in the performance of a function under the measure.

209—Impersonating child protection officer

It is an offence for a person to falsely represent that they are a child protection officer or that they are performing a function under the measure.

210—Protection of identity of persons who report to or notify Department

It is an offence for a person who receives a report or notification that a child or young person may be at risk of harm under the measure, or who otherwise becomes aware of the identity of a person who has made such a report or notification, to disclose the identity of the person, except in the circumstances specified.

211—Restrictions on publication of certain information relating to family group conferences and other proceedings

It is an offence for a person to, except in prescribed circumstances, publish a report of a family group conference, or of any statement made or thing done at a family group conference, if the report is of a specified nature or contains specified information. It is also an offence for a person to publish prescribed information in relation to certain proceedings if certain circumstances apply.

212—Restrictions on publication of certain names and identifying information

It is an offence for a person to publish or broadcast information that expressly states or implies that a person is, or that directly or indirectly identifies a person as, a protected person, except in the circumstances specified.

213—Payment of money to Chief Executive on behalf of child or young person

The Chief Executive may receive money on behalf of a child and young person who is under the guardianship of the Chief Executive. Procedural matters relating to such money are set out.

214—Confidentiality

It is an offence for a person engaged or formerly engaged in the administration of the measure to disclose personal information obtained, whether by that person or otherwise, in the course of performing functions under the measure, except in the circumstances specified.

215—Victimisation

It is an offence for a person to victimise another because that other person provides, or intends to provide, information under the measure.

216—Protections, privileges and immunities

Certain privileges and immunities are not affected by the measure. Certain protections from liability are conferred on persons who answer questions, produce information or otherwise do things in accordance with the measure.

217—Limitation on tortious liability for acts of certain children and young people

No tortious liability attaches to the Crown, the Minister, the Chief Executive or any employee of the Department, or a recognised Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander entity or member of such an entity, for an act or omission of a child or young person who is in the custody, or under the guardianship, of the Chief Executive, unless the act or omission occurs while the child or young person is acting as specified.

218—Evidentiary provision

Evidentiary provisions are set out for the purposes of the measure.

219—Regulations and fee notices

Regulation-making and fee notice powers are set out.

220—Review of Act

The Minister must review the operation of the measure after 5 years.

Schedule 1—Persons who may apply for internal review of decisions under Act

Persons who are entitled to apply for internal review of prescribed decisions under proposed section 198 are specified.

Schedule 2—Related amendments and repeal

This Schedule makes related amendments to other Acts to reflect the enactment of the measure by replacing references to the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017 (which is repealed by this Schedule).

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON (11:25): I rise today to speak about the Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill 2024 and, in so doing, I indicate that I will be the lead speaker from the opposition in the Legislative Council on this bill.

There were repeated calls from the opposition and from the crossbench for this crucial legislative reform to be brought to this parliament, after great delay. The report for the review of the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017 is dated February 2023. This bill was introduced to the parliament in October 2024, roughly around 20 months after the report for the review of this act. Despite this, the community was given a month for consultation on the draft bill.

From speaking with stakeholders, it was clear that the consultation period of one month was not sufficient. The feedback we received was that many in the child protection community have busy schedules, some of whom are volunteers, and a month to consider the draft bill, a bill that is quite lengthy, especially in such an important and complex area, to engage with their stakeholders and to be able to draft a submission within that time was not practical for so many.

After speaking with stakeholders, the shadow minister for child protection, Josh Teague MP, and I wrote to the Minister for Child Protection to seek an extension of time for the consultation period by four weeks. This was a request that was promptly denied by the minister on the exact same day that the request was made. It was our view that an extension of four weeks would give the community a greater chance to consider the draft bill but would still have provided the minister with ample time for the final bill to be brought to the parliament by the end of the year after appropriate consideration and consultation.

Community consultation periods, in our view, should not be rushed because the government is all of a sudden in a rush themselves to have movement for this crucial legislative reform. It is not every day that we have the opportunity to reimagine the framework in which the child protection system rests. As such, it is vital that we get this right. This gives us the immense opportunity to create substantial generational change.

This is not an opportunity we get every day. But with it, too, can bring the risk of unintended consequences of new provisions in the bill that would adversely impact the rights and the wellbeing of children in state care should the bill not be properly considered and not be properly consulted on. It is our belief that key to this is listening to the organisations, listening to carers, to stakeholders, to the commissioners, to the guardian, and those with lived experience on their thoughtful and their considered feedback on this bill.

Earlier this week, members of this place will have received a co-authored letter by South Australia's Guardian for Children and Young People, Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People, and Commissioner for Children and Young People, calling on the Legislative Council to refer this matter to a parliamentary select committee on the Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill 2024 for further consideration. To quote from this letter, it says:

The reason that we call for this Parliamentary Select Committee is because the intent and scaffolding for reform is evident—but the Bill is simply not ready, and further consultation is required.

The letter goes on to say:

As experts in this field, and on behalf of children and young people in South Australia, we have substantive advice and evidence to provide government on required legislative reform.

To date, our advice and evidence has not been heeded. We ask the Legislative Council to provide us with another hearing.

The letter further goes on to say:

This advice has been ignored, and government has not answered why.

For officers of statutory bodies to not have their advice or evidence heeded by the government, with no answer as to why, leaving them to call for this bill to be sent to a select committee by the Legislative Council, is quite extraordinary. Frankly, this is something that the minister needs to address.

The call to refer this bill to a select committee has been supported by the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, the South Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation Network, Relationships Australia SA and the South Australian Council of Social Service (SACOSS). Concerns have been raised around the lack of consultation that was undertaken around this bill, in addition to many other concerns. To quote SACOSS, they state:

We recognise the issues and concerns raised by these three independent bodies, statutorily appointed to advocate for the rights, best interests and wellbeing of children and young people in South Australia, have a significant bearing on the framing and future impact of this legislation.

The Hon. Tammy Franks has a contingent notice of motion in her name that I understand she intends to move to refer this legislation to a select committee after the bill is read a second time. I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the referral of this legislation to a select committee. In doing so, I wish to indicate that it is crucial that this process be dealt with expeditiously but thoroughly.

The calls that have been made by Commissioner Lawrie, Commissioner Connolly and Guardian Reid cannot be ignored. As a parliament, we have the opportunity to enact real and meaningful change to the lives of so many vulnerable South Australian children, and we cannot afford to get this wrong.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (11:32): I rise to speak to the Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill. This is a bill that the government has brought to this place today after the required five-year post-commencement review of the current act. The current act was somewhat controversial and indeed was the subject of a select committee itself.

I have to reflect on some parts of the minister's contribution with regard to the potted history of that particular bill, which of course came largely from a royal commission, and largely with that focus on the terrible death of Chloe Valentine. The original attempts of that bill also had some quite concerning elements that were picked up in a select committee process.

In this week where we have had the inaugural Voice to Parliament of the First Nations people, I will remind members of the council who were here and those who are new that at that time the then Minister Rau bill contained a provision where Aboriginal children could choose to deidentify as Aboriginal to somehow reduce the numbers of Aboriginal children in state care in this state. That was a horrific provision in the original version of that bill that was only picked up through the diligence of this council and a select committee process.

I will start by saying that yet again here we are reviewing a brand new act that was required to have a review process five years in, which was a massive overhaul of our previous child protection system, that clearly has current problems with its workings that do need to be reasonably urgently overhauled. To quote the minister—probably quoting the minister—'It is very important that today we do not let form override substance.'

With that in mind, I note that, contingent on the Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill being read a second time, I shall move:

1. That the bill be referred to a select committee of the Legislative Council for inquiry and report.

2. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council.

I do so because this bill before us is not fit to be debated today. It has taken a long time to get this bill to this place. It was a much-needed review. It was a mandated review that the parliament asked for at the time of the passage of that initial establishing legislation that this council has had to push the government on to actually comply with that requirement, and we get here today and it is still half-baked. The bill still has, I believe, many unintended consequences that might be well meaning, but again it is important that we do not let form override substance.

I note—and the Hon. Laura Henderson has made this contribution already—that I am sure that members of this particular place who hold this portfolio or are on the crossbench and therefore hold most of the portfolios, have received an extraordinary amount of correspondence. I also do acknowledge that, yes, there has been a very long process to get to this place that the government has undertaken themselves. In the words of the second reading explanation, nearly 1,000 people engaged in the review of the current act—1,000 people—in public forums, across metropolitan and regional locations, online surveys, written submissions and targeted discussions.

To me, 1,000 people participating in a review process does not indicate that all is fine with this bill and with this act as it currently stands. We know that there are problems with the current working of the child protection system, and we also know that many of the problems can be drawn back to that legislation. Indeed, potentially that legislation that trod a new path has set up new legal precedents and has created a system that we are currently finding, I think, somewhat unworkable and, certainly in many cases, unpalatable and that is not necessarily supporting children and young people, carers, families or the people of South Australia.

I am certainly interested to know that that extraordinary amount of feedback that the government took on has not seen a lack of feedback come to us today, as crossbenchers or members of the opposition, asking us for more changes to the piece of legislation that we see before us. I am not naive enough to believe that the opposition, the Greens, SA-Best, One Nation and the Independent the Hon. Frank Pangallo will all have the same view on every single clause and how it needs to be amended, but what I do know is that we do not have enough information and enough transparency and that the process has not actually been done to the point where we are ready to debate this today.

However, I also note that there is some urgency to reform and so I note that, with that contingent notice of motion that I have now moved, it would be my intention that the select committee report back by 4 February 2025. That is the very next non-optional sitting day of this parliament, which in itself is actually quite a fast process for a parliament. Indeed, I do not think we would be getting through this bill today in its entirety anyway.

So in terms of actually whether or not it impedes the progress of the bill, I think the select committee will come back with recommendations and the resources of the parliament to ensure proper consultation, a thorough investigation clause by clause that is much needed, to ensure a proper informed debate, not a debate where form overrides substance, which is, unfortunately, what I think we would get today should we try to proceed through this.

I also reflect on what is an unprecedented piece of correspondence that certainly I think members of the Legislative Council, if not all members of parliament, have received this week. That has been sent to us from South Australia's Guardian for Children and Young People, the Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People and the Commissioner for Children and Young People.

They are the three commissioners in this sphere, those who I think would be at the top of the tree to be consulted with, all of whom have written to the Legislative Council with regard to the Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill asking that, while they are not wholly unsupportive of this bill and they can see good changes and a vision and a desire for children and young people to grow up safe and supported with their families connected to community and culture, the Legislative Council must urgently set up a parliamentary select committee. To quote the three commissioners, Helen Connolly, Shona Reid and April Lawrie, this is:

…because the intent and scaffolding for reform is evident—but the Bill is simply not ready, and further consultation is required.

It is as simple as that. The three commissioners, the three people you would think would have been most at the government's door providing their feedback, say this bill is not ready.

I note the words of the Commissioner for Children and Young People on 6 November in correspondence to me, noting that she had provided in September of this year feedback on the draft bill that would strengthen the child's voice as well as provide help for children and families earlier to stem the unprecedented number of children entering into the system since the introduction of the 2017 act. She goes on to say in that piece of correspondence that these were largely ignored. That is highly concerning that the Commissioner for Children and Young People's feedback to this review process was largely ignored.

However, she is not alone in that. I note that the Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People has provided not just feedback on this particular review process but an entire report called Holding on to Our Future. That is still awaiting government response and the recommendations of that report have not been incorporated into this bill.

It is an extraordinary set of circumstances that the government would ignore the voice of the Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People in this debate. It is a quite thorough and, I believe, very useful report with recommendations that have been provided not just for government but for this parliament that should have informed the debate on this bill today. It was simply ignored, yet it is the week of the inaugural First Nations Voice to State Parliament, where in fact in his contribution Mr Leeroy Bilney noted that the Voice wished to have more of an input into this very bill. A select committee will give that First Nations Voice the opportunity for that input not just to government but indeed to the parliament through this council.

I could go on. I note that the South Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation Network has also written to all members of the Legislative Council raising their concerns with the consultation, raising their issues with the processes, and indeed noting that they repeatedly requested access to the draft bill to assess how their member input was incorporated and found that a frustrating process that was not treated respectfully. That is signed off by the acting Chief Executive Officer of SAACON, Mr Darren Harris.

They are not alone. Connecting Foster and Kinship Carers South Australia urged—and I was happy to support that—the review process to have brought a bill to this place much earlier than has happened and I know they will welcome a debate that is not dragged out but that is indeed fully supported by an appropriate parliamentary review process, another layer of transparency that hopefully will see a bill come back in February with amendments that improve it.

I thank the work of those such as The Carer Project, the Reily Foundation and so many stakeholders that many people of this place know that will be not just undertaking their ongoing work in supporting the young people and children of this state or strengthening families or supporting that important child protection work but indeed given that opportunity over the next few months to have their voices heard in this debate in a proper and considered manner, not in a way where form overrides substance and we see the government literally have to suspend standing orders, try to rush through a bill without even doing a second reading speech in this place, and bring us a bill today, the last proper sitting day of parliament, that is half-baked and where form has overridden substance.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (11:44): I rise to speak on the government's Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill 2024. This is another significant proposal from the government that will require a lot more time to examine appropriately and to ultimately do justice to the many complex issues raised by various stakeholders.

While the government has responded positively to some of the concerns raised, most stakeholders support the call for this bill to be referred to a parliamentary select committee for further consideration. This will enable time for full submissions to be made and also provide an appropriate opportunity for closer examination of relevant clauses. It is significant to note the diverse range of stakeholders calling for a parliamentary committee, including but not limited to carers, advocates, South Australia's Guardian for Children and Young People, the Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People, the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, and Uniting Communities.

These stakeholders have presented a wide range of concerns, but one common theme throughout is the disappointment in the lack of genuine and quality consultation from government. Another common theme is a shared commitment to achieving significant and lasting reform to benefit children in care. This is a vital opportunity, and we should all avoid the temptation to act in haste in order to fulfil our political agenda.

It would be remiss of me to not recognise the passion of foster and kinship carer advocate Lisa O'Malley. Lisa has provided valuable insight into the role and challenges facing carers in the child protection system. Many of the amendments adopted by the government are, in some part, due to Lisa's tireless advocacy. Many carers have advocated for procedural fairness and an independent complaints and investigation unit. Lisa O'Malley continues to advocate for the need for such a unit, plus an independent carer advocate.

We found that carers are concerned about the lack of consultation and being called into consultation opportunities without genuine consultation. They were told what the minister is doing, rather than truly being consulted. The community is trying to work with the minister, and many carers feel they have been excluded from this process. Had the minister more actively engaged with the carer community, we would not be heading to a select committee and the appropriate legislation would already be in place. Surely now is the time for a dedicated child protection minister.

Lisa will continue to advocate for an independent carer complaints authority to provide carers with the opportunity to have their complaints heard by an independent body rather than be subjected to the potential bias associated with the internal review process. The government has been reluctant to establish such an independent body, citing the current Ombudsman as an appropriate avenue for carer complaints as well as offering further guidance to carers who wish to contact the Ombudsman. A parliamentary committee would facilitate further consideration of this issue and restore some of the confidence and trust that carers have lost in the child protection system.

I have also heard from Uniting Communities, which has expressed their disappointment with the bill's failure to address the ongoing need to further support families and parents in safely caring for their children. According to Uniting Communities, other jurisdictions place responsibility on the government to deliver support services and resources before making a care application. The early provision of services and resources to parents and families to meet their obligations will prevent the need for unnecessary removals. However, this bill has missed the opportunity to put these provisions into legislation and, because of this, Uniting Communities is concerned that the high rates of children and young people in care in South Australia will continue.

Along with this, Uniting Communities believes that this bill has also missed the opportunity to prioritise the need for family restoration and reunification. The safe and effective reunification of children and young people with their families should be a legislative priority. This issue has also been raised by the South Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation Network and the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement. According to Chris Larkin, the CEO of Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, the state of South Australia has the second highest rate of Aboriginal children in out-of-home care in Australia, at a rate of 94.1 per 1,000 Aboriginal children. Mr Larkin has also expressed concern that these reforms will do little to reverse this over-representation of Aboriginal children and young people in the child protection system.

Given the bill's inclusion of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle and the recent establishment of the South Australian First Nations Voice to Parliament, Mr Larkin's comments offer insightful criticism regarding what he describes as the entrenched power of the child protection bureaucracy.

The vulnerable children of this state deserve legislative reform that is focused on real, practical outcomes for children and their families. This will require more than stated principles and charters of unenforceable rights. It will require deep consideration of the practical needs of children and families and the significant role of carers in a child protection system buckling under the weight of a bureaucratic framework that is no longer fit for purpose.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (11:49): I rise to speak on this bill and to echo the sentiments expressed by other honourable members. Yesterday it was national electricity laws and today it is child protection. We may have been open to accepting yesterday's debacle in this place, but not today and not on something as critical as child protection. As other members have done, I, too, remind honourable members and everybody listening, particularly the government, that just yesterday we had the privilege of hearing the state's First Nations address in this place. Every word uttered by the presiding member, Mr Leeroy Bilney, needed to be uttered in this place. I, for one, said that I have never been more impacted by a speech in this place as I was yesterday.

The fact that we are here today attempting to debate a bill that disproportionately impacts Aboriginal children is not just hugely disappointing but is an affront to each and every one of those words uttered. The fact that we have a letter co-signed by our three commissioners—Ms Reid, Ms Lawrie and Ms Connolly—and endorsed by bodies like the ALRM, SAACCON, SACOSS, Relationships Australia, Uniting Communities and others, that deal specifically with the failures of this bill when it comes to Aboriginal children specifically, is beyond disappointing.

The fact that Commissioner Lawrie's report that the Hon. Tammy Franks referred to remains unanswered and we are pressing ahead is not only disappointing but is unacceptable. There is always opportunity to deal with these things differently, and that option may very well have existed in this instance as well, but if the timeframe first of all is, as has been proposed to us, and the response from government is that we are never going to get the changes that have been asked for, then there is really no point in engaging in those discussions. You can accept and understand the frustration of each and every organisation and commissioner who has endorsed this bill going to a committee.

Frankly, it is not how this place works, and it irks me that this is lost on members of this government. Nobody can in good conscience push through a bill that would have profound impacts on children and their families as we know this one would. Nobody could, after yesterday's address to this place, do that in good conscience in my view, given the concerns that have been raised specifically but not only in relation to Aboriginal children, who we know are disproportionately represented in our child protection system.

I will seek in a moment to table some of those letters so they are on the public record, because each of those bodies has taken the time to write to us and spell out the concerns they have. It is important to refer to the co-signed letter of the three commissioners and remember that they say to us that, 'In writing to you'—and we have all received this, I am sure—'we are combining our voices as those who are statutorily appointed to advocate for the rights, best interests and wellbeing of children and young people in South Australia.' That is the objective of the piece of legislation that we are debating.

The three commissioners are telling us: this is our job, this is why we have been appointed, this is what we do and we are pleading with you not to press ahead in the way that the government is intending. The commissioners have acknowledged, as have all of us, that they are not wholly unsupportive of the bill. There are good elements of the bill. They see good changes and a vision and a desire for children and young people to grow up safe and supported with their families, connected to community and culture.

But their firm view is that the bill is not ready. It is not aligned with the commitments and objectives that are articulated within their correspondence, and it will not create the meaningful change that children and young people need. In its current form, it does not serve the best interests of children and young people. It is going to be ineffective in turning the tide on the over-representation of Aboriginal children and young people in care. In its current form, it will not work to achieve the social or economic objectives underlying this pressure—and economic pressures should never be placed above the best interests of children and children in care.

There is a strong call from the key stakeholders, many of whom I have referred to, about what sort of corrective action is required that, to date, has not been taken up by the government. I stress this point again: simply saying, 'This is as far as this government is willing to go. We know what those concerns are but the government isn't going to ever accept those concerns,' is not only an affront to each and every group that I have referred to and the work that they do, but it is also an affront to everybody in this chamber who is making representations on their behalf.

The commissioners talk about the concerns they have around eroding children's rights, about a principled approach to reform, about the fact that they do not see that there is prioritising of children and young people's voices, about not listening to and respecting the child-rearing expertise and Aboriginal community voices, statutorily appointed bodies and organisations, and not following the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Of course, probably the one issue that is most contentious in all of this is what the commissioners refer to—and members will have differing opinions on this, depending on where they sit—the misalignment with safe and supported frameworks. Many of us were here at the time of the—

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Some of us were here, and some of us have been here to see lots of iterations of this sort of legislation, but all of us would by now be very familiar with the recommendations that followed the Chloe Valentine inquest. I know I certainly was. I worked with that family in relation to that particular inquest during my former role in this place, and with Belinda Valentine in particular.

It irks me again that we just come in here and say, 'We are doing everything we need to do to respond to the Chloe Valentine inquest,' so many years later, and we have not even mentioned the number of other inquests that have occurred since Chloe's tragic death. We have not acknowledged the number of inquests that we have heard into similarly and equally tragic circumstances that have occurred since that particular inquest. To suggest to us, as we have done in these final days—

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I forget his name, Shillcock—I apologise, Mr President. To suggest to us that this is a good bill and we can do more after it goes through is not okay. It is not okay for us to just say, 'Okay, we will wear this now. We are not going to go as far as some of the things that all the groups that we have referred to have asked because that's just too much, but we will get to it at a future point.'

I also remind members how long we have been waiting for this, because if you think it is just now, you are very mistaken. The reviews we are talking about stem back to the time of the previous government as well, so these changes have not been something that this government has been working on for a short period.

We have gone through a window where we have all been waiting for something for a number of years now, including when the previous government was here and they introduced a bill that got knocked out in its main form. Then a new government comes in and they do their own review process from scratch all over again—start again. So here we are with the results of that, and in the meantime the situation in child protection we have not seen improved. We have not seen any improvements in that phase where we can say we are at a point where we need to be when it comes to child protection. We certainly have not seen that in terms of the disproportionate representation when it comes to Indigenous children, either. They are the sorts of reasons this is so unacceptable today.

Could there have been genuine dialogue about the sorts of issues that have been raised by the ALRM, by Relationships Australia, by Uniting Communities, by SAACCON, by SACOSS? Absolutely there could have been, and I think many of us attempted to see if that was possible, but not within this sort of timeframe and not when the response you are getting is, 'Well, we can't do that,' and certainly not when the three commissioners, endorsed by every group we have referred to, have said, 'We are so concerned about this that we really want you to refer it to a committee.' You cannot do that in good conscience in this place. It is for that reason that I will be supporting the referral to the select committee.

If there are things that are said and heard at that committee that make us uncomfortable, that is good, because that is the function of one of those committees. We can ensure it is done in a swift and timely manner; we are becoming quite good at that when it comes to issues that are raised in this place. We can ensure it is done in time for this bill to come back and be appropriately considered and for us to flesh out and have the opportunity to flesh out all the concerns that have been raised by the three commissioners and every other body that we have spoken to.

Before finishing, I too would like to acknowledge the work of Connecting Foster and Kinship Carers, the Reiley Foundation, The Carer Project and Grandcarers SA and their input into this. I appreciate that this has now become a bit tricky, because in some respects many of us were standing altogether some time ago calling for the changes that we wanted around the issues that impact them to some extent.

If the minister wanted those particular provisions of this bill to go through they could easily have been carved out of this bill and put through, but to suggest, as has been done—and I do not like the fearmongering—'Well, you guys can't refer this to a committee because you're going to hold up the really good bits that apply to foster carers and kinship carers, and you've all gone in to bat for us, and we're eagerly awaiting for those provisions to come in,' to put that back on us because there are glaring issues with the remainder of the bill is highly unacceptable and inappropriate. Even the suggestion that those provisions may somehow kick in before we are able to finalise a select committee is equally disappointing.

Depending on who you speak to, some are very happy with those parts of the bill, but that does not mean that the minister did not have the ability—and chose not to exercise the ability in all this time—to carve those bits out and deal with them separately and then refer the rest of the bill off to committee so that the other issues are addressed. That is assuming, of course, that everybody was happy with those parts of that legislation.

I do not think there is a choice here for any of us. I am certainly not going to go against the advice of the three commissioners, or any other organisation that has spoken and endorsed their concerns, and as such will be supporting the referral of this bill to a select committee.

Before I finish, I seek leave to table—and I am only doing what I have on hand. I apologise to the stakeholders whose letters I do not have in front of me but, importantly, I seek leave to table the co-signed letter by the three commissioners, correspondence dated 25 November, correspondence from the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement dated 25 November, correspondence from Relationships Australia dated 26 November, and correspondence dated 25 November by SAACCON.

Leave granted.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (12:05): I thank each of the honourable members for their contribution and note both their interest in this matter and this piece of legislation and their concerns. I would re-emphasise that there has been extensive consultation on this bill. As I alluded to in my second reading explanation, there has been feedback throughout the period of time.

The existing legislation was reviewed with in-person forums, online surveys, written submissions and targeted discussions with Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people across metropolitan and regional South Australia, and I refer members back to further information that was provided in regard to that. The government does not support the select committee. We would like to see this legislation now moving to the next stage.

Bill read a second time.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (12:06): I move:

1. That the bill be referred to a select committee of the Legislative Council for inquiry and report.

2. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council.

I move this, as I referred to in my second reading contribution, to ensure that in fact we have an informed debate, one where substance actually is overriding form. For all of the very many reasons that the Hon. Laura Henderson, the Hon. Sarah Game and the Hon. Connie Bonaros have outlined, we feel that the sector, while they may have been consulted, have not yet been heard, and this is a debate that we need to get right.

I note it is not the government's intention to even progress this bill further than clause 1 today, so in fact with a report of a select committee coming back on 4 February next year we do not even lose a day of parliamentary debate, but we come back with a more informed debate, so with that I commend the contingent notice of motion.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 10

Noes 9

Majority 1

AYES

Bonaros, C. Centofanti, N.J. Franks, T.A. (teller)
Game, S.L. Girolamo, H.M. Henderson, L.A.
Hood, B.R. Hood, D.G.E. Lee, J.S.
Simms, R.A.

NOES

Bourke, E.S. El Dannawi, M. Hanson, J.E.
Hunter, I.K. Maher, K.J. Ngo, T.T.
Pangallo, F. Scriven, C.M. (teller) Wortley, R.P.

PAIRS

Lensink, J.M.A. Martin, R.B.

Motion thus carried.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

That the select committee consist of the Hon. C. Bonaros, the Hon. S.L. Game, the Hon. M.L. Dannawi, the Hon. L.A. Henderson and the mover.

Motion carried.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

That the select committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and to adjourn from place to place and that it report on 4 February 2025.

Motion carried.

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