HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-02-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I indicate that I understand there are quite a number of contributions that will be made at clause 1, and there may be some members who wish to make a contribution in the next sitting week. So subject, of course, to the will of the chamber, the intention of the government will be to have the contributions today at clause 1, to report progress and then to adjourn until the next sitting week.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I appreciate the minister's clarification for the council and I seek the indulgence of the council in an unusual situation where this bill was referred to a select committee to inquire into the bill. That was done on 28 November 2024. That select committee was chaired by myself and established under my motion, so I will outline some of what the committee's work undertook and heard. That committee was populated by myself, the Hon. Connie Bonaros, the Hon. Mira El Dannawi, the Hon. Sarah Game and the Hon. Laura Henderson. I particularly want to thank our secretary, Ms Maureen Affleck, and our research officer, Dr Margaret Robinson, who gave up, unexpectedly in some cases, their summer holidays to do this work.

That committee, of course, advertised and took submissions. There were 50 recognised submissions and 11 form submissions from carers. They were substantive. For a bill that we were told had been consulted on, I note that there were at least 50—depending on how you want to count them—substantive submissions from organisations and individuals and 11 form submissions, so over 60 submissions in that summer period. There were also three days of witnesses.

We heard from the Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People, Commissioner Lawrie. We also heard from the Guardian for Children and Young People, Shona Reid. We heard from Junction and The Carer Project, in particular Lisa O'Malley and Gavin McAloney. We heard from the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, and I thank them for their contribution. We heard from Connecting Foster and Kinship Carers, in particular Fiona Endacott, chief executive officer, and Niamh Keller, carer advocate. We heard from Uniting Communities, in particular Simon Schrapel AM, chief executive of Uniting Communities, as well as Leisha Olliver, senior manager of community services.

We also had the department come and present and the chief executive Jackie Bray, the deputy chief executive Darian Shephard-Bayly, and the director of legal services Elizabeth Boxall, all of whom made time available to present to the committee. A former member of this place the Hon. John Darley OAM made a submission and presented with his former staffer Ted Lee, and the former deputy chief executive of the Department for Child Protection, Adam Reilly, also presented.

While we heard from those witnesses—and we heard from more witnesses than that—and took those submissions, the committee members have not come back with resolutions because that is the role of this council. Given the short period of time we had, I reflected on moving a motion to compel a select committee that this would be a process a little like a Budget and Finance Committee report, where we simply came back with the evidence out in the open, and then that would be able to inform members—and we now have a new additional crossbencher, the Hon. Jing Lee, but the opposition and crossbench members—with the information we felt we needed to participate in this debate fully.

As Chair, I have my own views. The members of the committee will no doubt have their views; other members of this council will have their views. But what I think is really important is that those views are formed not in a silo, not in an echo chamber, but with the transparency that this select committee has been able to provide. It often used to be said that children should be seen and not heard. It seemed to be the attitude of this government that those who wish to advocate about the Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill should be seen and not heard.

We are here today having a debate on clause 1 of this bill with not just a few amendments but no doubt with dozens of amendments to come because I feel the government did not do its homework. The stakeholders who corresponded with us raised many concerns. The first of those concerns that I wish to speak to in the main today, and which form the basis of my first set of amendments to this bill, relate to those stakeholders who presented or made submissions to the committee on the paramount consideration, as it is in this bill currently, going to child safety as opposed to best interests of the child.

The committee took these submissions, and I would say that it was a growing number of submissions as this committee undertook its process, and we had a situation where we in fact published the uncorrected transcripts of the Hansard on the day of the hearing and we published the submissions as we went, and we found that those stakeholders who had participated in well over a year of consultations with the government, and being siloed by the government, started to realise that they were not sole voices in advocating for paramountcy of best interests of the child.

The Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People, on page 1 of her submission, stated:

The Bill does not recognise the best interests of children and young people as the paramount consideration in making decisions consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In fact, her recommendation 9 was:

9. Restore 'best interests' as the paramount consideration within the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017...

She went on to also observe:

…that for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children their best interests are determined in the context of the application of the 5 pillars of the ATSICPP as a paramount consideration.

She was hardly Robinson Crusoe. Connecting Foster and Kinship Carers, on page 1, recommendation 1, state:

That the Bill be amended to hold the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration under the Act.

Members of Junction Australia perhaps led the government to feel that they had a slight glimmer of hope in support for their contention that child safety be the paramount consideration, but Junction Australia's recommendation on page 1, recommendation 2, was that:

2. Dual Paramountcy Framework: Ensure safety and long-term best interests are equally paramount…

However, Junction, when presenting to the committee, had seen everyone else's submissions and gave evidence to the committee that actually they thought they were not allowed to have best interests of the child as the paramount consideration so they reprised their position and they stand and advocate for best interests of the child to be paramount. It emerged that the government had told them that was simply not on the table for negotiation.

The Commissioner for Children and Young People, in recommendation 3 of her submission, stated:

3. Make the best interests of the child the paramount principle and consideration in decision making.

Uniting Communities, on page 4 of their submission, stated:

Uniting Communities strongly endorses a shift to Best Interests as the Paramount Principle in the Bill.

Infinity Community Solutions, on page 3 of their submission, stated:

Elevating 'best interests' of the child from a guiding principle to be incorporated into the paramount principle. Safety should not be a stand-alone paramount principle [they contended]. There are suitable examples of this being achieved in other Australian jurisdictions...

The Leadership Coalition for Child Protection Reform, on page 3, category 1, stated, 'Best Interests Principle to be paramount.' They expanded upon that in their submission and certainly have since made several contributions and, indeed, circulated a public document following the select committee's work with their four key reforms, the first of which is, 'Elevating Best Interest as the Paramount Principle in the legislation.'

Should you have not heard of the Leadership Coalition for Child Protection Reform before, that is no surprise; they felt the need to actually unite and band together in order that their voices and their advocacy be heard. They are indeed Infinity, Uniting Country, Uniting Communities, Baptist Care, Junction, KWY and Lutheran Care, the very people we rely on as NGOs in this sector, the experts in this sector. They all banded together to try to finally have their voices heard.

The Reily Foundation, on page 3, point 2, states:

…we urge the select committee to highlight that safety must be considered alongside the best interests of the child.

I will go into that later because, in fact, in their submission they acknowledge, and again were under the impression from government, that they could not ask for what they really believed, that it was not on the table, and so again fall in with best interests of the child.

Child and Family Focus SA at page 10 say:

It is recommended that the best interests of the child be the paramount principle for all decision making, in line with other Australian jurisdictions.

KWY Aboriginal Corporation at page 5 state that they:

…support the QLD Child Protection Act 1999 definition of the Paramount Principle which states "safety, wellbeing and the best interests of a child, both through childhood and for the rest of the child's life, are paramount".

Again, I will note that we then had the Leadership Coalition for Child Protection band together, realising that they were no longer to be siloed and silenced, and advocate that the paramount principle be the best interests of the child.

A little organisation called the Legal Services Commission of South Australia might know a thing or two about the law. At page 2, and then extensively in their submission, they stated:

Legal Services supports best interests as the paramount principle for the welfare of the child rather than the safety of the child as the paramount principle. We would argue that the safety of the child is part of a consideration of their best interests.

South Australian Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation Network (SAACCON), at page 6, urges the select committee to reinstate the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. SACOSS (South Australian Council of Social Service)—again, a little organisation; you might have heard of them—at page 10, said:

The paramount principle and consideration must be the best interests of the child.

John Darley, a former member of this place and, like some members of this place, involved in the original debates where we did support safety as the paramount principle, put on record that:

The best interests of each child and young person, including their safety and security, must be the focus of present efforts.

He supported that the paramount principle be the best interests of the child.

Relationships Australia SA, at recommendation 3, said: 'Ensure decisions are made in the Best Interests of the Child.' At page 6 they said:

The best interests principle promotes a holistic approach, balancing immediate safety with the broader context of a child's developmental, emotional, cultural and familial needs…By prioritising safety over best interests, the proposed legislation diverges from international and national standards, isolating South Australia's child protection system from established best practices.

The Australian Centre for Child Protection, at page 10, stated:

ACCP recommends the principles be revised to elevate children's best interests as the paramount principle and cautions the committee that there are potential unintended negative consequences of retaining safety as the paramount principle.

That is the Australian Centre for Child Protection. The Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, at recommendation 1, stated:

Best interests must be the paramount principle for all decisions made for children.

The Guardian for Children and Young People, at page 16, stated:

Restoring the best interests of children and young people as the paramount consideration in decision-making and operation of the legislation.

Certainly, it was quite interesting to note the holistic view of so many stakeholders that the best interests principle be paramount. I reflect on when the department was asked about this and was asked to name a stakeholder, an organisation, that wished safety to remain—as is in the current bill that is before us and that we debate today.

When the chief executive officer was given the opportunity in front of the committee to name a stakeholder that was a legitimate, credible organisation in the child protection space—one single organisation that saw that child safety should be the paramount principle over and above the best interests of the child—she was unable to do so. We allowed her to take that on notice. She was still unable to do so. The weasel words in the response some days later are worthy of mention later. I think I will be raising them later in the debate as a question. So I alert the minister to that.

Other stakeholders noted that the bill is not consistent with Australia's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: article 3, all organisations concerned with children should work towards what is best for the child; article 12, children have the right to say what they think should happen when adults are making decisions that affect them and to have their opinions taken into account; article 20, children who cannot be looked after by their own family must be looked after properly by people who respect their religion, culture and language; and article 25, children who are looked after by their local authority rather than their parents should have their situation reviewed regularly.

As I say, almost every stakeholder supported best interests of the child, albeit some stakeholders were silent on the issue because they had other issues that they wished to raise with the committee. Certainly the idea of an independent process for complaints about the Department for Child Protection was also consistent in those. However, they were not just raised, as they have been for some many years now, by carers; they were particularly raised by those Aboriginal NGOs and stakeholders with that context. In some cases they were raised for the rights of children, of siblings, to have their voices heard, for staff employed in the workforce to have their voices heard in a protected way so that they could be whistleblowers. But those voices and those calls for an independent investigations process—where we move away from the current situation where DCP investigates DCP—were also ignored by the government and are ignored in this bill, in effect.

There is a lot of rhetoric in this bill and there are some good measures in this bill. I do not think any member of this council has expressed a wish to not have this debate. We would have appreciated a debate where the government had done their homework properly and had listened to the voices of stakeholders, so we will force the government to listen to the stakeholders at this point.

Stakeholders, in particular the Leadership Coalition for Child Protection, have identified at least four key reforms for those particular organisations that they would like to see. I will move on from best interests but I will return there later. They also add in those four key reforms the consistent application of significant harm threshold, as well as expanding and amplifying active efforts within the bill and prioritising and creating stronger provisions for the reunification of families.

Professor Leah Bromfield of the Australian Centre for Child Protection certainly went some way to share her expertise, and I cannot understand why somebody who is Australian of the Year for South Australia and lauded by this government was ignored by this government in this bill. I have no idea how powerful you must be or how much cachet you must have on a subject matter to be literally nominated as the South Australian nominee for Australian of the Year, be an expert in child protection, and still be ignored in this consultation process, so heaven help those who are more vulnerable and less powerful and have less government cachet.

I draw members' attention in particular to the correspondence as well from the Guardian for Children and Young People, and note that in that correspondence the guardian appreciated the opportunity not only to provide a submission in the first place but to provide a supplementary submission that then reflected on the evidence of not only herself but also the department. I really do urge members of this council to read that submission in full. I will be revisiting some aspects of the guardian's submission with my questions to the minister, both today and ongoing, and I look forward to better answers than the committee received in the last 10 weeks.

I will not labour the point today. I feel like the committee has done an excellent job in allowing stakeholders to finally be heard. It is now up to this council to do the hard work of listening properly and listening deeply and to move beyond the rhetoric. We are going to no doubt be happy to see some of the government's hard work that is reflected in this bill supported as improvements. But I find it extraordinary that submission after submission, stakeholder after stakeholder argued that best interests of the child be the paramount principle, that the chief executive could not name a single stakeholder who supported the government's position, and yet here we are with a bill that has got it all around the wrong way as far as all of the credible stakeholders were concerned.

I currently have two sets of filed amendments. One goes to best interests of the child. Fortunately for us, other jurisdictions have given us something to follow. Jurisdictions that previously thought—just like our jurisdiction did—that child safety as the paramount principle was actually the advisable way to go have since moved their position. In fact, none of those other jurisdictions right around the country now has child safety as the paramount principle. We are alone in South Australia in holding that line.

The Victorian example is the one that I have chosen to use as a model for my set of amendments in Franks-1. The amendment defines best interests of children and young people as paramount. I reflect that there are 20 points here about what that actually means, which does give guidance and is something that is well tested and advisable for this government to take seriously.

I refer the current filed amendment to the council. Again, I will not labour the point here because I think it will be wise for members who will have a vote on this to read the submissions, to digest what has been ignored and to make their own decisions on whether or not a good job has been done here in the consultation process and the drafting of this bill.

I ask the council to disregard my second set of filed amendments. In the government's rush to put this on priority one for this week, I sent some instructions to parliamentary counsel. Parliamentary counsel did not read the email that outlined the full scheme of an independent complaints and grievance process and only had one small section of it in their instructions, so I will not be pursuing those amendments. They are not what I was intending, but they are a reflection of this government rushing this council, and the parliamentary counsel, in a way that was not productive.

But I find it quite amusing that the government spent a lot of time today running around telling stakeholders that the sky is falling because of an amendment that was going to be moved by me that was never intended to be moved by me. So you know how it feels now to have to clean up other people's messes.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Inoperable—that is how the bill before us today has been described. In this chamber we see a bill, and we often see in black and white, but after hearing from the witnesses appearing before the select committee to which this chamber referred this bill, it is hard not to see the many faces that the child protection system has let down. It is a stark reminder of what is at stake if we get this wrong.

This is not just any bill. This bill gives us as a parliament the very rare but the very real opportunity to make a meaningful impact on the lives of so many vulnerable South Australian children, to make a meaningful impact on the carers who so passionately advocate for the children in their care, who at times feel that they have a mountain to climb within the department just to be able to protect and advocate for the child who is in their care.

As a parliament, we have the opportunity to give these little humans a voice in this big, scary system that impacts them more than anybody else. We have the opportunity to encourage the early intervention and prevention that stops families from getting to that pointy end where children need to be removed, and to ensure that the department has done everything in their power to do all that they can before a child is removed from a family. We have the opportunity to encourage the reunification of families where it is safe to do so. But we only do this if we get this right, and heaven forbid if we get this wrong.

To read from the co-signed letter 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 say:

Our advice is; the Bill is not ready, and it is not aligned with the commitments and objectives articulated within. It will not create the meaningful change that children and young people need. And there are parts which will cause new harms.

The Bill, in its current form, does not serve the best interests of children and young people. It will be ineffective to turn the tide on the overrepresentation of Aboriginal children and young people in care. It is inconsistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Despite these concerns and the many concerns of others in the child protection sector, the government indicated late last Thursday afternoon that it intended to pass this bill this week. Notably, this bill was listed as the first item on their agenda.

The select committee established to review this legislation only finished hearing from witnesses roughly around 5pm last Wednesday afternoon and reported back to the parliament on Tuesday of this week. I appreciate the minister has now indicated that they only intend to progress to clause 1 today, but their priority letter that was sent out last week was listed to complete all stages by the end of sitting today and to have this legislation listed as their number one priority.

From the outside looking in, this does not appear to be a timeline of a government which is actively listening and taking on board the feedback of the sector. This government sat on the report for the review of the act since February 2023 and only introduced the bill before us in October of 2024, roughly around 20 months after the report for the review of the act. Yet somehow this government has been able to consider the work of the parliamentary committee in less than the span of a week.

This parliamentary committee received over 50 submissions. They, for the most part, were not short submissions either. Each of these submissions had been formulated with great consideration and contemplation of the bill before us and the system more broadly. Most, if not all, of these submissions included numerous recommendations on ways in which this legislation could be improved and highlighted ways in which this legislation was lacking.

My point in sharing this is that to actually consider the submissions and whether each and every proposed amendment in the submissions should be brought would have been, I would have thought, something the government could not adequately do in the span of 24 hours. I say 24 hours because that is roughly how long it was between the conclusion of the committee's final witness and hearing and the government indicating that they planned to take this legislation to a vote this week as its number one priority.

The government took roughly around 20 months to produce legislation after the report for review of the act, yet they want to pass this legislation the same week the committee reports back. Somehow this government thinks it is good practice, good governance and a good way to legislate by ramming through highly complex legislation the week after the select committee concludes hearing evidence.

We have been told as an opposition and as a committee time and time again that the consultation this government has undertaken is lacking and that stakeholders feel that their voices have not been heard in this process. Importantly, we have heard from many stakeholders that this legislation in its current form should not be supported and that there are many changes that need to be made.

We have been given a long list of different changes stakeholders would like to see made to this flawed legislation. A list that, quite frankly, cannot properly be considered, nor the amendments drafted and consulted on, to meet this government's rushed timeline. It is not good practice to turn a piece of legislation into a package of amendments in an attempt to put lipstick on a pig to meet this government's rush to ram this legislation through. Sound policy reform involves broad consultation, something that this government's timeline does not allow for.

I find it interesting that the minister has said she will consider amendments that are put to this bill. Respectfully, minister, it is the government's job to listen to stakeholders and to consult on this legislation before it is brought to this parliament. Instead, the minister has decided to outsource her job to the crossbench and the opposition rather than taking the time to consider what stakeholders are asking the government for.

Rushing amendments to a flawed piece of legislation does not remedy the inherent issues, it only perpetuates them. When we rush through amendments without thorough review, consultation and debate of those amendments we risk entrenching errors that could have long lasting and unforeseen, unintended consequences for South Australia's most vulnerable children and families.

It is imperative that the government take responsibility for its legislative agenda and be accountable to the electorate, which is loudly and clearly telling them that they are not happy with the legislation in its current form. It is imperative that the government take the feedback given to the committee and come back to the parliament with amendments that address those concerns.

For the government to push ahead without a single amendment, and at such haste, really paints a picture of a tin ear approach to the many submissions received by the committee and, in turn, the many suggestions from the sector as to how this legislation could be improved. Instead, this government and this minister have deferred responsibility and showed that this government is not proactive in its engagement with the sector.

The government has spoken of extensive consultation being undertaken—I believe the number given was around 1,000 people—but consultation should not be about volume. It should be about meaningful engagement. Based on feedback given by stakeholders and, quite frankly, what we are witnessing play out before us now with the government trying to ram legislation through without bringing amendments based on feedback from the select committee, this government seems to be adopting a tin ear approach, an approach of, 'We know best.'

One of the key issues that highlights the government's tin ear approach best is the retention of safety as the paramount principal. It has been apparent throughout the select committee process that the child protection sector is at odds with the government on one of the key founding principles of this legislation, that the safety of the child be the paramount consideration.

It is been abundantly clear that the sector largely disagrees with the adoption of safety, and is for the most part in support of the best interests of the child being the paramount principal. It strikes me as unusual that the government would adopt an approach that appears to be contradictory to the views of the sector.

What is important to note is that best interests includes a child or young person's safety as one of the core rights that should guide all assessments of best interests. Keeping a child or young person safe is always in their best interests. The best interests principle does not sit in opposition to the principle of safety.

Based on feedback received, safety as the paramount consideration results in a one-dimensional application of decision-making rather than a holistic framework that considers safety amongst emotional needs, developmental needs, cultural identity, and long-term outcomes, amongst other things. It has been said that:

the current framework is purposely intended to create an unfettered focus on safety. This is not the full picture in how we grow our children, and it is not fair to children and young people in care that they have to live under that framework through no fault of their own

We heard about what safety as the paramount principle means in reality. In reality, it means that children are unable to go on play dates because their friends' parents are sick and tired of going through police checks. In reality, it means children could not go on a school trip to Canberra with their peers. In reality, safety means that children are being told that they have to stand out from their class photo on school picture day. I want to share with this chamber exactly how it was put to the committee by the guardian because, quite frankly, I cannot paint this picture any better than she has. The guardian said:

I have children calling me—and this is the one that gets me—crying because they have to stand next to the photographer on school photo day because it's not safe, according to their social worker, for them to be in the school photo, despite there being no assessed safety risks. Those embarrassing school photos are a rite of passage for every person. We look at them and we laugh at our hair and how times have changed.

Imagine just for a second what it would feel like if your whole class is up there and you are standing there next to the photographer and all the kids are looking at you and the photographer. They know that you are that kid in care. They know that stuff has happened to you. Also, you are looking back at them. You know that you're not worthy of a photo, or that's at least what you are telling yourself. You have no photographic memory available to you about your experiences at school. You won't even remember that one teacher who gave you a fair go. So these are the very real things that that safety clause has put into play that we must address, because it has very real impacts for children and they are missing out on life opportunities because of that.

What has been abundantly clear throughout the committee process is that some issues within the child protection system stem from the legislation, but other issues stem from issues of either culture within the department or issues with practical application of procedures. Ultimately, though, the person who suffers as a result of these issues is the young person.

The committee heard that often appointments or referrals for children in state care are not obtained in a timely manner or are not pursued at all, despite recommendations or requests that this occurs. The committee was told that where multiple services or assessments are required or recommended, as is often the case when a child first enters out-of-home care, the department may only support access to one service initially, and that these delays or refusals lead to carers seeking out services through private channels and paying out-of-pocket for medications, appointments and assessments without reimbursement from the DCP. Where reimbursements are provided, carers can experience significant delays in receiving them.

The committee also, concerningly, heard that sometimes services are not deemed necessary or appropriate according to the Department for Child Protection's determination, even if this is contrary to the views of service providers, medical professionals, school staff and the carer. One example given to the committee was psychology support being recommended by a service provider working with the child; the department has deemed it not necessary or appropriate. The parliament was told that these decisions are not made in partnership or in consultation with the care team and could even be made by a DCP psychologist who has not met with the child or young person.

The committee was informed of cases where access to services had been denied based on lack of funding. These decisions are not limited to decisions regarding health or education. One example given for funding being denied was classroom support, such as an education support officer. The parliament was also told that despite no change in the child or young person's support needs, funding is denied or considerably reduced due to funding restrictions. These are but a couple of examples that were shared with the committee. Whether it is an issue of legislation, of policy or procedure or application, it is ultimately the child and young person who misses out and suffers.

Some of the other areas the sector would like to see changed within the legislation before us, that the committee and we as an opposition have heard about—but, to be quite frank, this does not even scratch the surface of the many issues that have been identified—are:

a lack of an independent complaints process;

inconsistent application of the significant harm threshold;

expanding and amplifying active efforts;

prioritising and creating stronger provisions for reunification of families;

establishing firm principles to prioritise family-based placements for all children and young people in care;

bringing external oversight to decisions about children's contact with their family and other important people by making these decisions judicially reviewable;

mandating referrals to family group conferencing, placing the decision-making about whether to participate in the hands of family in conjunction with an independent coordinator;

prioritising and scaffolding early intervention and prevention pathways over statutory removal responses;

requiring family group conferencing be offered to all families to promote family-led decision-making, family preservation, and preventing children from entering care supported by intensive family support to enact decision-making; and

lacking recognition of informal kinship carers.

This does not even begin to touch the surface of things that have been requested by the sector to be amended within the legislation before us today. We call on the Minister for Child Protection and the government to pause its plans to forge ahead with this bill. We call on them to go away and to consider the many suggestions of stakeholders and to come back to the parliament with some considered amendments that they have consulted on. As an opposition, we have consulted broadly on this legislation and have heard from most stakeholders that they do not want this bill to pass in its current form.

The ball is in the government's court to consider the vast number of amendments that are being called for to be made by the sector. It is not every day that we get this opportunity and we should make the absolute most of it. In closing, I would like to share a couple of quotes with the chamber:

This bill as it stands risks overburdening an already strained child protection system by failing to address systemic issues like resource shortages, high caseloads and underfunded support services. I urge this committee to pause and engage in deeper consultation, ensuring this legislation is not just a reaction to current crises or a way to satisfy small interest groups by the substantial evidence-based framework that looks to the future. Without this foundation the reform risks being ineffective, inconsistent and detrimental to children and families.

Another quote:

To put it bluntly and give you an analogy: I believe it is an appeasement bill aimed at oiling squeaky wheels, patching punctured tyres and trying to click over a 300,000-kilometre mark on an old Holden that hasn't been serviced in decades. My assessment of this bill is that at a practical level it is confusing. It sends mixed messages with those charged to enact it, it relegates children and young people to being sidelined in a range of arenas, as they sit and watch those with a vested interest argue about what should be done to them. All of this is done with no real requirement to engage and prioritise children's feelings, thoughts and perspectives. There are statements about the importance of voice and reasonably taking steps to hear them, but in the same breath there are actual obligations to include children in their own life, and their existence has been taken out of the legislation.

Finally, I leave the chamber with the words of Belinda Valentine, a name that everyone in this chamber should know:

This bill does not do enough to protect the next Chloe.

My question to you is simple: will this bill actually protect children like Chloe, or is it just more empty words? The overwhelming feedback is the latter.

What will you do to help protect children today? And when will we get serious about a community education campaign and recognise the invaluable point of reference that lived experience brings to the table?

Chloe would have turned 18 this year. She should have had a happy childhood and a full life. Instead, she was left in danger and lived only four short years.

Don't let her death—and others like hers—be in vain.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to speak at clause 1 on the Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill 2024 and to express my deep concerns about the legislation. This piece of legislation has been presented by the government as transformative and is intended to fundamentally reform and improve the child protection and family support system. Unfortunately, as we have heard today from many honourable members, particularly the Chair of the select committee and those on the select committee, it does not quite meet their lofty ambition.

My office has been inundated in recent days with correspondence from a range of stakeholders, peak bodies, carers and families, not one of which, alarmingly, has been in support of the bill in its current form. Many concerns have been raised with me directly and through the select committee process that have given me significant misgivings about the consultation process on the bill and the key areas of so-called reform it is supposed to implement.

After learning about those critical concerns I cannot support the bill in its current form, and I believe it is incumbent on us as legislators to take the time to consider the detailed submissions and proposed changes that have been presented to the select committee. This legislation cannot be rushed and should not be allowed to become law when so many sections of the community feel that it is simply not fit for purpose.

As stated in the report of the select committee:

Evidence heard and submissions received expressed concerns that the Bill is not aligned with the commitments and objectives within and falls short of its stated purpose. It requires amendments to promote meaningful change and the primacy of the best interests of the child.

I would like to thank all the stakeholders and community members who have contacted me in relation to this bill, and I acknowledge their deep commitment to protecting and supporting our children and young people. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the impactful representations that I have received from key bodies in the child protection space.

The Leadership Coalition for Child Protection Reform, as many members have highlighted, represents the largest block of community service agencies operating in the child protection and family support services field in South Australia with significant and longstanding experience in the delivery of out-of-home care, protective interventions and support services for children and families.

I want to pay tribute to the leadership coalition, which consists of CEOs and senior leaders from peak bodies and key providers of child protection and family support services in South Australia. These organisations include Uniting Communities, Lutheran Care, Uniting Country SA, Baptist Care SA, KWY Aboriginal Corporation, Junction Australia and Infinity Community Solutions.

It is very clear that there is a consistent and unified voice on the part of so many leading organisations that have merged together in complete agreement on something as important as the area of child protection. This is a powerful indication that positive reform is needed, and it demands that the minister and the Malinauskas government take their advocacy seriously.

The leadership coalition has provided a detailed submission to the select committee that outlines four key reforms to improve South Australia's child protection system and has provided detailed wording suggestions and proposed amendments that could be included in the legislation. I am very pleased that many honourable members will be moving amendments for consideration next sitting week.

The four key reform principles outlined are (1) elevating 'best interests' as the paramount principle, (2) the consistent application of the 'significant harm' threshold, (3) expanding and amplifying 'active efforts' and (4) prioritising and creating stronger provisions for reunification of families.

I take this opportunity to personally thank Rohan Feegrade, CEO of Lutheran Care, for his valuable input, passionate advocacy and guidance, walking through the four key reform principles directly with me and my office. I also want to make a few remarks on some of the advice I received over the last few days. Simon Schrapel AM, Uniting Communities chief executive and Leadership Coalition spokesperson, said, 'Without all four of these must-have reforms this bill will fail to deliver the transformation needed.'

The Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement also expressed its deep concerns at the prospect of the Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill passing in its current form without revision. The language of the bill does not require the Aboriginal child placement principle to be implemented, nor ensure accountability for complying with it.

Belinda Valentine, Chloe Valentine's grandmother and staunch advocate for child protection, echoed concerns that the bill does not do what it claims and that it does not do enough to protect the next Chloe. Ms Valentine stated in an open letter to all members of parliament:

The proposed Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill does not do what it claims. Instead of protecting vulnerable children, it instead protects the department and the government with vague wordings and loopholes. This is a missed opportunity to prevent future tragedies.

The issue isn't just the words; it's how they're applied. 'Best interests' failed Chloe and safety alone has failed children since.

I have also heard from many foster carers, who expressed their frustrations at the consultation process of this bill and feel that the government has not listened to their concerns and suggestions. I wish to place some of these comments on the public record. One carer wrote:

Despite contributing to many discussions and forums, I do not feel my voice is heard. Many carers have spent much time and effort to offer suggestions for meaningful change. They too have been ignored.

Another carer sent me a copy of the correspondence she sent to the Premier stating:

Despite the vital role we play in providing 24/7 care for vulnerable children, I feel unheard and have not been given the opportunity to engage in meaningful consultation regarding this legislation.

Another advocate for carers highlighted to me:

A continued pattern of dismissiveness and self-interest in addressing critical issues within the child protection system…failure to engage with those on the frontlines of child protection issues, raised serious concerns about the integrity and transparency of this reform process

This legislation is definitely not fit for purpose.

These concerns must be listened to and addressed by the minister and the Malinauskas government. I will be closely reviewing and considering amendments filed by honourable members, and the many submissions and representations I have received from stakeholders in this place.

Vulnerable children and young people in South Australia deserve legislative reform that will safeguard them and bring about genuine reform that effectively supports at-risk South Australian children, young people and their families. I conclude my remarks.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: On 16 January, chief executive Jackie Bray was asked by, I think, myself in the select committee, 'Can the department identify stakeholders who support the elevation of child safety above best interests?' On that occasion of 16 January, a single stakeholder was unable to be identified. That question was taken on notice.

On 28 January, the committee received correspondence from the chief executive, Jackie Bray, which stated in response to that question:

The volume of feedback received from stakeholders presented a wide variety of views across many aspects of the bill. The majority of the submissions received focused on areas stakeholders had identified for improvement, rather than confirming aspects of the bill that they were in favour of retaining. Many of the submissions received discussed the paramount principle and interplay between 'safety' and 'best interests' in a nuanced way that did not preference the elevation of either principle, while a further cohort of submissions did not discuss the paramount principle at all.

My question therefore to the government is, and obviously noting that the minister is representing the minister, can the government now confirm stakeholders who advocate for the elevation of safety as the paramount principle over best interests as the paramount principle?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am happy to take that on notice and bring back any additional information before the next sitting week.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Why has there been no preparation and response to that question now that was first asked on 16 January, and why have the voices of all of those stakeholders who have advocated for best interests being the paramount principle been ignored?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would expect that, given that a response was provided to the select committee, the honourable member has now asked for further clarification around that.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I asked in that committee for a single stakeholder to be named. On 16 January, a single stakeholder could not be named by the chief executive. Over a week later on 28 January, the chief executive in correspondence to the committee could still not name a single stakeholder, and here were are on 6 February and the government is still unable to name a single stakeholder.

One stakeholder who did make it very loud and clear to the government was the Guardian for Children and Young People about her concerns about why safety should not be the paramount principle. The Hon. Laura Henderson has reflected in some ways upon that aspect. It sounds counterintuitive, of course. We all want children to be safe but by elevating safety over best interests we have had some unintended consequences, and the committee certainly heard evidence of that.

The evidence presented by the guardian went some way to that reflected upon by the Hon. Laura Henderson: that children were unable to go on play dates, that children felt isolated and made the odd one out, exposed, unable to be in school photos, unable to participate in the full scope of their lives, their social lives and their schooling lives. Shona Reid, as guardian, presented that information in the consultation of this bill that the government undertook.

In her evidence on 16 January, the chief executive then claimed that Shona Reid, the Guardian for Children and Young People, had never raised those matters with her. We received an additional—and I certainly asked questions about it on 16 January because I was then able to provide quotes from the guardian's submission direct to the Chief Executive of DCP, which were sent on 24 September 2024 at 4.57pm via email direct to Ms Jackie Bray of DCP and copied to the DCP chief executive mailbox and to YourSAy, to the person there in charge of the consultation that outlined those very points that had already been made to Jackie Bray as the chief executive, and also in the official consultation process on this bill.

Those concerns about child safety were claimed by Ms Bray to have never been raised with her. Then when she was challenged and read sections of that submission—and they are heartbreaking sections of that submission in the children's own voices: 'We've been told as children we're not allowed to have our photos taken.' 'Mum knows exactly where we are so it doesn't actually impinge on our safety.' 'We get sick of having no friends, because we're always the ones who need child protection checks before we can go on a play date.'

That had all been raised with the chief executive, Jackie Bray—and quite specifically, as I say, direct to her email on 24 September 2024. The chief executive informed the committee that these things had never been raised with her. Then, when she was challenged with the evidence, she admitted that she had misled parliament—or a parliamentary committee, which is parliament. My questions are:

1. Has Ms Bray now apologised to the Guardian for Children and Young People?

2. Has Ms Bray been counselled by the Minister for Child Protection about misleading parliament?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am happy to take that question on notice and bring back a response.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Is it the view of the Malinauskas government that the chief executive should be able to mislead parliament?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Is that really about this bill?

The CHAIR: We are in the clause 1 committee stage, minister. It's pretty wideranging, normally. You can respond how you see fit.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am sure it is an expectation that all public officials would do their best to provide accurate answers at all times.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In that, I think that we should move to report progress so that we can possibly get some accurate answers next time.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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