HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-02-20 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 6 February 2025.)

Clause 1.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have been asked to thank the Hon. Tammy Franks for her questions, provided last week, which were taken on notice, and I can now provide answers. Before responding to those questions, it is important to make very clear that the government will not be compromising the safety of children and young people.

The bill clearly lays out and elevates the best interests principle and enshrines it in this legislation in a way that frontline workers will be able to clearly apply to their hard work with and for children and young people, but safety will remain as the paramount principle, and we will not apologise for putting child safety first. If that is not the will of the chamber we will seek to adjourn the debate.

Regarding the member's question about the stakeholders who advocate for the elevation of safety as the paramount principle over best interests as the paramount principle, firstly I can reassure members that safety has not been elevated. Currently, in the 2017 act, it is the only principle to be considered.

What the government has actually done is reintroduced and elevated the best interests principle to the draft bill. This was removed after the tragic death of Chloe Valentine where the coroner recommended to the government that safety be placed as the principle in the act. The elevation of the best interests principle applies to all decisions made by the department and its staff except when the best interests principle and the safety principle are in conflict. Further to the member's questions, I have received advice that the minister and chief executive heard from staff and young people that they wished for safety to remain the paramount principle.

Frontline DCP workers always work in the best interests of children, and this legislation articulates that they must now do so when making decisions. They are sometimes faced with unimaginable life or death situations where they must make critical decisions about children and young people. When they are in these situations they have told the Minister for Child Protection that they need utter clarity that their first consideration is safety.

I also take the opportunity to reference a joint statement from four key organisations that represent the needs and interests of vulnerable South Australians and young people and those who care for them. This joint statement was sent out yesterday and was from Child and Family Focus SA, the peak body for child safety and child protection, representing the needs of South Australian children, young people, families and the non-government not-for-profit organisations which support them; Connecting Foster and Kinship Carers—SA Inc., the independent peak representative body for foster and kinship carers; the CREATE Foundation, the peak body representing the voices of children and young people with an out-of-home care experience; and the Reily Foundation, the parent and family support and advocacy body for South Australia. This joint statement states:

…the four agencies agreed today to support the passage of this Bill through parliament. There are many elements in the Bill that will fundamentally improve the operation of the child protection, support and care system in South Australia and vulnerable children, young people and families, and those that support them, need those changes.

They go on to list the reasons as to why this legislation is important and its passage must be prioritised. The government will not apologise for prioritising the safety of children and young people as, indeed, the citizens of South Australia expect.

Furthermore, the member asked further questions regarding the Chief Executive of the Department for Child Protection misleading a select committee hearing, allegedly. According to my advice, as was said last week, it is the expectation that all public officials would do their best to provide accurate answers at all times. I am advised that the chief executive did not mislead the select committee. I am aware that Ms Jackie Bray has now met with the Guardian for Children and Young People and discussed the matter further. I am asked to take the opportunity to state that accusing any public official of misleading parliament is extremely serious and should not be done lightly.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the minister please table the entirety of that statement she has just made reference to?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Which statement is the honourable member referring to?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: CAFFSA, Reily Foundation and Fostering—the joint statement she read selected quotes from. If she can table the entire thing that would be really good.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am happy to provide this letter for tabling.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am due to speak in a moment after the Hon. Sarah Game, but given what the minister has just said, I would also like a copy of the answers that she has just provided to be circulated to members as well, please, so we can consider that in the context of the debate.

The Hon. S.L. GAME: I would like to speak at clause 1. I rise to speak on the Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill 2024 in response to evidence given during the recent select committee where numerous stakeholders willingly and courageously, and with very little notice, generously offered to tell their stories and recount their experience of a system that is clearly in crisis. It is never easy to speak up and continue to challenge such a powerful bureaucracy with a self-serving agenda, so I want to commend all the stakeholders who persisted and persevered in their advocacy for our state's most vulnerable children and young people, and the many carers and workers trying to do their best in a system that is no longer fit for purpose.

It would have been a lot easier and far more convenient for members of this chamber to just rubberstamp the government's proposal on that last sitting day of 2024, and head off into Christmas holidays under the guise of it having at least passed through something rather than nothing in the hope that there would be some improvements to the care of our young people.

Thankfully, the opposition and crossbenchers in this place resisted that temptation, and we stood together to send this half-baked piecemeal proposal to a select committee where disgruntled stakeholders would finally be afforded an opportunity to be heard. It was a pressing and overwhelming call from stakeholders to hold this government to account and advocate for much-needed change that has inspired members of this place to do all they can to get the government to listen.

I would like to commend stakeholders, legislators and advocates who have been willing to admit the mistakes of the past, in particular the reforms of 2017, which made the safety of the child the paramount principle and which we are now aware has had unintended consequences. With the benefit of hindsight, we can always do things better, and that is why we are here today to do our due diligence to the best of our ability, and hopefully prevent the possibility that in 10 years from now we will not again be forced to fix the mistakes of the past.

Recently, on 11 February, my office attended a collaborative briefing with industry leaders from the child protection sector, which included brave grandmother Belinda Valentine, whose granddaughter Chloe died so tragically back in 2012. Belinda eloquently and passionately explained how Chloe's death impacted the psyche of this state, and how the elevation of 'child safety' to become the primary and paramount principle was how the state collectively attempted to heal the pain of Chloe's death.

The state believed that with child safety at the forefront of the department's decision-making, tragedies like Chloe's would never happen again. However, despite these good intentions to keep children safe, Belinda noted that many families in crisis now avoid reaching out for support and assistance due to the fear of having their children removed under the primary principle of safety. This view is supported by all other providers in the sector who attended the briefing and is also confirmed by the alarming increase in children and young people in care in South Australia since 2014, which, according to data presented by the CEO of Uniting Communities, Simon Schrapel, is 4 per cent above the national average.

Consequently, the question must now be asked: why does South Australia have such a higher rate of children in care compared to other states? The clear and unequivocal answer from all industry providers is that other states have 'best interests of the child' as the paramount principle, and not 'child safety', which means that government bodies and social workers in other states are more focused on supporting families to care for their children rather than removing children from what the department has determined to be an 'unsafe' environment.

However, the Minister for Child Protection continues to support the retention of the 'child safety' principle as paramount, despite the overwhelming rejection from key stakeholders and the long list of personal accounts from children and families about the negative impact of retaining this principle. This raises an important question for the minister regarding the government's rationale for insisting that this principle be retained as the primary principle, above the best interests principle.

In response to questions on notice put forward to the chief executive, Jackie Bray, as part of the select committee process, it was stated that retaining the child safety principle ensured that child protection officers had a clear and unfettered focus on the safety of the child. It is clear from this response from the chief executive that retaining the safety principle serves an important function but it is not to uphold the best interests of the child. It is ultimately to protect the department and its decision-making process, regardless of the effect that these decisions will have on the wellbeing of children in their care.

Such a position can no longer be defended by the minister, given the overwhelming opposition from stakeholders and the ramifications to the care of children. To retain safety as the primary principle only serves to highlight that the key problem with child protection and care in this state is the dysfunctional self-serving bureaucracy that views its own flawed procedures and processes as sacrosanct and refuses to listen to the growing calls from stakeholders to honour the fundamental reason for its existence, which is to act in the best interests of the children and young people in their care, no matter how difficult or challenging this might be for decision-makers.

Another key recommendation from the Leadership Coalition for Child Protection Reform that would go some way to resolving the premature removal of children from their families is the expansion of active efforts where the department and other industry providers must engage in a process of supporting and assisting families before making the significant decision to remove a child.

It has been put forward by the Leadership Coalition for Child Protection Reform that active efforts should be legislated to make it mandatory for the courts to consider whether the department is effectively engaged with certain prescribed actions of support and assistance before removing a child. This would ensure that the department is legally accountable for its commitment to engaging in a process of support and assistance to families in crisis, rather than just claiming to be acting in the best interests of the child. This measure would specifically enshrine this commitment into legislation.

In addition to this, stakeholders have called for a renewed commitment to reunification measures where families in crisis are supported to recover and rebuild the family unit, rather than feeling isolated and discarded by an unsympathetic system. It is important to reiterate that this renewed focus on best interests of the child will always include a commitment to child safety and the removal of children from unsafe environments where necessary, but removal will be the last resort rather than the first. Without this fundamental reform, the system will continue to fail our most vulnerable children and families.

This morning, my office attended a briefing with the minister's office and it was made very clear that the government is determined to maintain and defend its position. This is unfortunate, given the extensive history of the bill's passage through this place since it was introduced late last year and then referred to a select committee so that stakeholders who felt unheard were given an opportunity to state their case.

Now we stand at another crossroads, where the minister is once again locked into a battle with stakeholders with no clear pathway forward. I understand how impossible it is to please everyone in such a contentious space, but no-one will benefit from this perpetual gridlock, least of all the children and young people who need our support.

Another fundamental element of these reforms is the vital role of carers and the need to recognise, reward and protect these courageous individuals who willingly sacrifice their lives and open their homes to care for our most volatile and vulnerable children. It is clear from the feedback of multiple carers and carers' advocates that carers have been neglected by the child protection system and in many instances punished for speaking out. This is why there has been an ongoing call from carers for an independent body to be established to afford carers the right to be heard. An independent carers' advocate combined with an independent investigation body to hear all complaints will go some way to addressing widespread concerns about the insular nature of the current model of carer advocacy and the hearing of complaints.

I have drafted an amendment to section 144A to ensure that all reasonable costs associated with providing out-of-home care to a child or young person will no longer be borne by carers but will be paid for by the Crown. This would be a significant measure which not only recognises the valuable work of carers but also shows the community that we are prepared to invest in the care of our most vulnerable children.

In our ongoing exchange with carers, it was clear that many children in care require significant medical treatment and assistance and it is often the case that carers end up paying for this. It is my intention that, with such an amendment, this would fully cover the cost for carers; however, I would not be able to support this bill anyway in its current state.

In closing, I want to commend carer and advocate Lisa O'Malley, whose determination and unwavering commitment to the cause of carers and the reformation of the child protection system has inspired all of us in this place to stand firm and continue to push this government to recognise the need for practical, positive changes that will make a meaningful difference to the lives of all involved in the child protection system.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I have to start by saying it is hard not to begin by responding to the answers that were just served up by the minister, but I will resist for now. I will use this opportunity to speak on the child protection bill before us:

An enlightened truth, and the bedrock of sound child protection, is that childhood is fleeting. This time of life must be optimised for children’s sake, and for society’s good, because bad early experiences have deleterious, life-long consequences. Because today’s child is tomorrow’s citizen, modern nations place a premium on the care, education and socialisation of children. That adults have a duty to nurture and not damage, disturb and distress children is a universal aspiration shared by all civilised peoples. That Australians allow this social norm to be transgressed in our rich and prosperous country is what’s so shocking about the harm done under the rubric of child protection. The wrongs hereby perpetrated are of biblical proportions; doubly wicked are those who protest otherwise but must know, in their hearts, minds and consciences, that what they say is false.

That is the foreword of the inquest into little Chloe Valentine. Chloe Lee Valentine died on 20 January 2012. She was four years and five months old at the date of her death. A post-mortem examination, conducted by forensic pathologist Dr Karen Heath, provided a report giving the cause of death as Chloe's head injury, with possible contributing factor extensive subcutaneous and intramuscular haemorrhage. That finding was also adopted by former Coroner Mark Johns.

The inquest makes for very difficult and harrowing reading, as does every inquest into the death of a child, but it is also critically important in this debate. I appreciate Chloe's grandma Belinda, who is here today, giving me permission to speak about Chloe as part of this debate. The inquest is important first and foremost because it recommended the Children's Protection Act be amended to make it plain that the paramount consideration is to keep children safe from harm, and that maintaining the child in his or her family must give way to child safety.

This parliament supported that recommendation unanimously and overwhelmingly, and nobody has disputed that. Those of us who were here at the time supported that change. Chloe's grandmother Belinda, well known to many of us, advocated and fought for that change in the hope that no other child would suffer the same fate as her granddaughter. I know. I was here. I worked with Belinda at the time, fighting for the same change.

During the last sitting week, Belinda sent an open letter to all members of parliament, and that letter reads:

Dear Members of Parliament

Unfortunately, I don't need to introduce myself.

You all know my granddaughter Chloe's story. She died at four and a half years old in 2012 after the system meant to protect her failed at every turn. Since then, I've fought to ensure no other child suffers as she did.

Now, you have another opportunity to make real change. I implore you not to waste it—or rush it.

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 wording and loopholes. This is a missed opportunity to prevent future tragedies.

If you're going to ask people with lived experience what they think, really listen—don't just tick a box and move on. I engaged in the recent consultation at first, but I stopped when it became clear it was another box-ticking exercise.

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

The intent behind these principles has been lost, and without real systemic change, this bill won't fix it. It's like trying to open a coconut with a plastic spoon—pointless and ineffective. Children's rights—including both safety and best interests—must be the foundation of any reform, and this bill doesn't achieve that.

We need real action, not just more words. Independent child representation must be introduced to give children a voice in the decisions about their lives—because right now they don't have one.

Family Group Conferencing should be the 'right' of every child involved with this department and the process needs to be strengthened so families are genuinely included in solutions, rather than being sidelined.

Changing the threshold when it comes to 'harm' should be based on outcomes not resourcing issues.

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 recognize 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.

Belinda ends the letter by issuing an open invitation to all MPs, including the minister, to discuss this issue further.

Belinda's letter is far from politically motivated and anybody who knows her—and I would like to think after all these years I do know her well enough to say this—would know she will do absolutely anything within her power to spare another child Chloe's fate and to spare another young parent her daughter's fate.

They would know the lengths she went to in order to protect her granddaughter and that if she had her time over, she probably would have ignored every person who gave her advice and told her what the consequences would have been of ripping that child from her own daughter's care and suffered the legal or criminal consequences for it—because none, absolutely none, of those sorts of consequences come close to losing little Chloe in such needless and tragic circumstances. Belinda did not lose one child; she lost two.

They would know the trauma that Belinda and her family relive each and every time they learn of another child dying and another inquest is conducted. They would know that, despite how painful and triggering this debate might be, she is still as committed today as she was all those years ago to child protection in this state—but only where it is meaningful.

Chloe died at a time when best interests of the child was the paramount principle. I know how difficult that particular set of words is for Belinda to hear, yet she has been here pleading with all of us not to support the government's proposal. She—and pretty much everyone else—is now pleading with the government to change the paramountcy principal again. Why? Because what we know now is that it is simply not working.

If you need proof of that, I refer you to the 'Trust in culture—a review of child protection in South Australia' report prepared by Kate Alexander and published in November 2022. That report tells the story of six children who died and were the subject of coronial processes since 2010. Four of the six—Heidi Singh, Amber Rigney, Korey Mitchell and Zhane Chilcott—are Aboriginal children.

Ebony Napier, another of those six children, was four months old when she died in 2011 from blunt force head trauma. She was mercilessly and seriously brutalised. In addition to head injuries, she had multiple injuries to her spine, her rib cage and her upper and lower limbs. She had 48 old healing rib fractures and four recent fractures. There were new fractures on the sites of the old fractures. Her finger and toe fractures were consistent with squeezing and stomping, and her injuries were believed to have all been deliberately inflicted. The evidence demonstrated the injuries occurred at the hands of her parents, both of whom were young and both of whom had their own history with child protection.

Heidi was 14 when she was found deceased at a train station near an electricity pylon. Her cause of death: electrocution. When Heidi died, she was under the care of the minister and living in emergency accommodation that was staffed by contracted rotating commercial carers. The Coroner focused on the lack of collaboration and silo-driven approach taken by all, the level of support and services provided by CAMHS and the use of emergency care and staffing, as well as the insufficient efforts to connect Heidi with kin and to follow the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle.

Amber and Korey were aged six and five respectively when they were killed by their mother's partner. Both children were exposed to parental drug use, violence and neglect. In the lead-up to their deaths there were ongoing proceedings in the federal court, which dealt mainly with the custody of Amber and Korey's older brother, but an independent children's lawyer was appointed to represent the interests of all three children, and the Coroner referred to previous recommendations regarding mandatory obligations available to child protection workers to intervene when children are at risk that resulted in the Alexander review to which I am referring.

Zhane died in circumstances of suicide in July 2016 aged 13. He was removed from his mother's care before his first birthday and lived under a guardianship arrangement. He lived in 18 different placements, including foster care, emergency commercial care and residential care in his 13 short years. The inquest into Zhane's death considered the experience under the guardianship of the minister and the significant concerns about the level of care and support he was provided.

Sadly, that is not the end of the list. That is the six that are outlined in that report, and the six inquests into deaths that have occurred since little Chloe, since the same matter that the minister just referred to in her opening remarks as the justification for this piece of legislation.

There has been a deafening silence over the death of little Spencer, who members in this place will recall was killed after sleeping in a skip bin in Port Lincoln, along with his two mates, when it was emptied. I can say that I called for an inquiry into Spencer's death—it was about four years ago—but I was mindful of the fact that there might be an inquest.

I just dread that we have to wait to hear from the Coroner the harrowing accounts that resulted in the death of Spencer, or any other child, the recommendations upon recommendations that we get back from the Coroner, and our inability to listen to the advice being given to us or to follow it as was intended.

We cannot have this debate without referencing those cases I have just alluded to. They all happened post Chloe, they all point to ongoing and systemic child protection failures, they all highlight that the changes we made in this place in 2017—however well intended—simply have not worked. I just do not think we managed to achieve what former Coroner Mark Johns envisaged in Chloe's inquest.

Six inquests to date, a related royal commission, at least four major reviews, the formation of a Department for Child Protection, a new child protection strategy, a select committee of inquiry into child protection, legislation followed by more legislation followed by more children dying, followed by more and more of the same—that is what we have had. It is little wonder, then, that people are fed up and frustrated.

I honestly cannot wrap my head around it anymore. I do not understand the government's reluctance to listen, to engage, to hear the concerns of an entire sector, all of whom have been shouting from the rooftops that what we are doing is not working, and if we do not do something different kids will continue to die, families will continue to be destroyed, patterns of generational trauma (which disproportionately impact our Indigenous kids) will continue to thrive, because that is what they are doing now. I do not know why we bother appointing commissioners tasked with providing advice to the government and to us on the wellbeing and welfare of children only to ignore the advice once they give it to us.

I know I am not alone. Just last week we heard an impassioned plea from a young man during the Youth Parliament who I think could put this debate more eloquently than any of us in here possibly could. He said:

Mr Speaker, fellow parliamentarians and distinguished guests, every child deserves to feel safe, loved and protected—that goes without a doubt—yet right now in South Australia there are thousands of children who go to sleep every night afraid of abuse, afraid of neglect and afraid of being forgotten by a system that was designed to protect them but has instead failed them. I know this pain firsthand; I grew up around the system. I have seen its cracks, I have seen its blind spots, and I have seen its devastating consequences, and today my own siblings remain caught in the very system that once failed me.

This is not just an issue on paper; this is personal. Let's look at the reality because it is heartbreaking. As of June 2024, there were 4,891 children in care in South Australia and this number continues to rise: 16.1 per cent of those children in out-of-home care in South Australia were living in residential care. This nearly doubles the national rate of 8.5 per cent.

In 2024, over 11,800 calls to South Australia's child protection abuse hotline went unanswered despite receiving 63,600 calls. This is not a crisis of resources, it is a crisis of priorities. If we truly care about our most vulnerable we must act now. What must we do? We must establish an independent child protection watch doctor, hold the system accountable and prevent further failures, and establish a child protection reform commission. We must reduce caseloads for child protection workers. We must increase funding to hire and retain more child protection caseworkers. We must increase funding for family preservation services. We must reduce bureaucratic barriers to fostering. We must offer long-term housing options for children transitioning out of care and we must strengthen the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle to ensure culturally appropriate placements.

Finally, I think it is important to mention we need progress to meet that target under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, which is to reduce the rate of Aboriginal children in out-of-home care by 45 per cent by 2031. The gap is not closing, it is growing and we must set this as a priority. Mr Speaker, the scars of a broken childhood never fade. Children in our care do not need sympathy, they need action. The damage is already done but we still have time to rewrite the future for every child who still hopes for safety, for love and for a home. Let us not be the generation that simply acknowledges the problem, let us be the generation that solves it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

They are the words of a young man who presented here in Youth Parliament. There is nothing in there, there is nothing in that contribution that Jack gave that has not been expressed by all of the stakeholders who have taken part in this process. It is extraordinary that a young man like Jack, who clearly has firsthand knowledge of the child protection system, gets it but we have a minister who not only fails to get it but she fails to listen, she fails to listen to any of the advice that is being offered to her.

My advice to the minister is: go and watch and rewatch and watch it again, go and watch every word that Jack Harrison spoke during Youth Parliament and let every single word he uttered sink in—truly sink in. Do not go out and say, 'Great job, Jack. We stand with you on child protection.' Listen to what that young man is saying because it is the exact same thing that every other person has been saying to the minister for I do not know how long now, and it is all falling on deaf ears.

Jack was not speaking for himself and himself alone; he was speaking for every single kid and every single family who has ever had to deal with DCP. My advice to the minister is to go and listen to him really carefully and come back to us when you are ready to have a meaningful discussion about this bill. Do not come in here and tell us there is no room for negotiation and you will not resile from your position because guess what? Neither will we.

We have just had an inquiry into this very issue. There were over 55 submissions to the inquiry, none that I can reference in favour of the government's position—none—instead of pausing to reflect on why the minister instead has focused on dividing and conquering. We have seen the reference today: miraculously, the day before the debate, the day before this debate starts, miraculously she has four groups co-signing a letter—extraordinary timing! I do not know how this did not happen up until today, but now here it is. She has relied on dividing and conquering those who have opposed her position.

It is morally unconscionable that any minister could, behind the scenes, try to pick off MPs—and we all know it has happened—try to pick off stakeholders, one by one, corner them, tell them what the consequences will be if they continue to support everyone else in this place and not support her bill. It is unconscionable to try to pick off two members in this place and put this legislation through, knowing what she knows.

This is not any other bill: it is child protection. If you or your staff, minister, are going to tell people, 'Either support safety or we'll drop the entire bill,' do it here, do it in this place. Get Minister Scriven to do it. Do it out there publicly. Have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to everyone in here and out there and say, 'We're going to drop this bill. We're going to drop anything good in this bill because you will not budge,' and do so knowing that you are ignoring everything we are being told from commissioners down—the very commissioners that you appointed—and pushing ahead with an agenda that the minister and the minister alone supports. I do not accept that she has the support she says she has. I do not accept it, because I do not accept the way she got that support.

I have to say on that point that even the chief executive was forced in evidence during the committee process to acknowledge that, when it comes to this bill, despite the consultation, despite the minister going on radio and trying to convince us there was a review, that there were a thousand people in organisations who provided feedback, that there were varying views, even she acknowledged in evidence that the outcome was a foregone conclusion.

We knew what the outcome was going to be in terms of the bill that was presented to this place. It did not matter what those thousand people said, it did not matter what the stakeholders said, it did not matter what the foster carers, the kinship carers, the families or the grandparents said—it did not matter what anyone said. The minister had a position and that is what the CE was charged with selling to the public and to this parliament.

If the minister is going to continue down this path then she should absolutely do so knowing that she will be responsible for the continued creation of classes amongst our kids, the ones who are too far gone, the ones where we will do the bare minimum and hopefully keep them alive, and the ones who actually stand a chance and we spend and invest some time and money in. We are writing off families in their entireties and we are doing nothing about it, nothing meaningful about it, and this is the net effect the law is having on kids: kneejerk reactions and decisions based on fear—fear, as Belinda has said, of making that terrible march from the Central Market to the Coroner's Court to explain why a child has died in care, why a child has died under DCP's watch.

I said yesterday and I stand by this: the government's Animal Welfare Bill, honestly, in my view did more to protect animals than we are doing to protect kids in this state. We all love our animals but, by God, we are talking about kids in our state, and we cannot offer them the same level of support and security and certainty that they need for a good future. I cannot wrap my head around that notion.

I challenge the minister to keep working on MPs in the hope of getting to her magic number—it is only two, minister. I know you have been working hard behind the scenes to chip off just two. That is all you need, just two of us, but know that it will come at a very dear cost to kids, or she could choose to work with us because we are all here, as we were in 2015, ready, willing and able to work with government as a collective, as we did in this place yesterday, to agree to change that we will all then be collectively responsible for.

We have all spoken today in this place and in the other place about the power of team SA, the leadership the Premier showed in Whyalla, and a rare show of unity amongst all of us on such a critically important issue. If child protection is not important enough to warrant the same sort of approach, if Minister Hildyard wants to actually be acknowledged for the same sort of leadership, then we are giving her the opportunity to do that. We are all inviting her to sit with us and work this out—not, 'I will not back down. I don't resile from my position. I am resolute,' or however else she described it. It is not going to work. It is not going to work so either come and sit down with us or let this fail at your own—

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Jack Harrison, there is one. I do not know which minister wants a legacy of more systemic failures. If those inquests alone—and these are not kids who are with their parents alone. We have talked about kids in care, we have talked about kids in residential care, we have talked about kids in foster care, and we have talked about kids with their families—and all those kids are dead. If she wants to show some genuine and true leadership on this issue, then we are all giving her that opportunity.

In closing, I want to thank everybody, and the stakeholders and commissioners in particular, for all their assistance on this issue, but above all I want to thank everyone who shared their stories with us—Belinda, Steve, families, carers, parents and kin alike. I know how hard this is. I know their fears and I know how triggering and upsetting this is and how traumatic it is for all of them, but I thank them for their courage, for their determination and for their commitment to getting this right on behalf of all kids in SA.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I thank the minister for her response to some of my questions from the previous time we were in committee. However, the most important question I thought was: can the minister representing the minister please provide organisational stakeholders that support the idea of paramountcy of safety over paramountcy of best interests of the child, because we have provided dozens who support best interests of the child being paramount, and we have yet to hear a single organisational stakeholder that supports the minister's and the CEO's position.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the minister has been listening to the frontline social workers who are performing these functions every day at the frontline. She has also heard directly from young people about the need to keep them safe. The government wants safety to be put first, and that is what frontline workers have asked the government to do, this is what children have asked the government to do and this is what families have asked the government to do.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Is it not the position of the Australian Association of Social Workers and the Australian Association of Social Workers South Australia that the best interests of the child be paramount, and indeed do not social workers right across this country actually implement and work with best interests of the child as their guiding paramount principle?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I reiterate the advice that I have received in regard to the minister listening to frontline social workers.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Does the minister acknowledge that that is not an organisation that the minister has been able to provide this minister with for this council? Does she understand the difference between an individual and an organisation—not the minister representing the minister but indeed the minister and her advisers who are responsible for this bill?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The minister considers it is important to be hearing directly from the social workers, and that is what, according to my advice, she has been doing. I will reiterate that the bill elevates the best interests of the child. As I mentioned in my contribution at clause 1 upon returning today, safety has not been elevated. Currently, in the 2017 act, it is the only principle to be considered.

What the government has done is reintroduced and elevated the best interests principle to the draft bill. Clause 11 of the bill provides:

It is a principle of this Act (the best interests principle) that the best interests of each child and young person are to be upheld and effected in all decision making under this Act (and a reference in this Act to a particular decision being in the best interests of a child or young person will be taken to be a reference to the decision being made in accordance with the best interests principle).

As I outlined, the elevation of the best interests principle will enable decisions made by the department and its staff except in those circumstances where the best interests principle is in conflict with the safety principle.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Could the minister representing the minister outline those areas where she anticipates that conflict would occur?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: One of the explanations that has been provided to me refers to clause 11(2)(b):

the desirability of the child or young person's family having primary responsibility for the child or young person's upbringing, protection and development;

This is under, 'In considering what is in the best interests of a particular child or young person'. That is one of the things that should be given regard. However, in terms of family preservation, some of the other subclauses there refer to similar concepts. That is clearly something that needs to be given due regard; however, if it is in conflict with the safety of an individual child or young person, that is when safety would take precedence.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I know the Hon. Laura Henderson also has many questions. The minister undertook to the Hon. Connie Bonaros to provide the answers that she read out previously, in response to the previous committee stage, but we have yet to receive those. They have not been tabled. Could we please have those tabled, so that members of this council can read them?

On the statement that you have provided today, the joint statement on the draft Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill 2024, I have some simple questions. What is the date of that statement, and who are the signatories? Given the minister came here championing and waving around a bit of paper that she claimed was the silver bullet, how is this a hard question to answer?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: We were checking in regard to the date. What we can say is that it was provided yesterday, so that would be 19 February, and the signatories are those four organisations.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Within that statement, on page 2 of 2, it is quoted:

The Minister has given us written reassurance that we can work in partnership to evaluate the outcomes of the legislation as it is implemented, rather than the usual practice of undertaking a review at 5 years.

Could the council please be provided with a copy of that ministerial undertaking to the so far unnamed entities?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes, I am advised that can be provided.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: This joint statement on the draft Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill from Child and Family Focus SA letterhead that we now understand to be from yesterday, noted that while there had been people within their organisations who had advocated for best interests, that they simply wish to see the passage of this legislation, does that mean in its initial form or in an amended form?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the understanding is that that would refer to the version of the bill that is currently before the chamber.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: So to be very clear, this joint statement on the draft Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill 2024, which is from Child and Family Focus SA, Connecting Foster and Kinship Carers SA, the CREATE Foundation and the Reily Foundation, asked for the bill to be passed in its current form as it sits, completely unamended, before the council? Is that the case?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: What I can say is that the four agencies agreed today—presumably that was yesterday—to support the passage of this bill through parliament. There are many elements in the bill that will fundamentally improve the operation of the child protection support and care system in South Australia, and vulnerable children, young people and families, and those that support them need those changes.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It is still not clear to me whether or not this statement is calling for the bill to be unamended or amended, yet the government has amendments. Did the government intend that their amendments are different to everyone else's amendments?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the government has consulted with these agencies in regard to the proposed government amendments.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Does consulted mean they are going to get a guarantee that their amendments are going to get up? The government has moved amendments to this bill. The government has moved amendments to their own bill, which were filed yesterday. Is the government anticipating that the council will support those but not support any of the council's own amendments should they be put? Is that the proposition from the Malinauskas government?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that our understanding is that the four organisations that were signatories to this letter support the government bill with the proposed government amendments. In terms of what the government expects to occur, we obviously are in the hands of the chamber.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: So is the government intending to go and do deals with any other stakeholders or is it just these four?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The government will continue to engage with stakeholders. The minister is always keen to listen and I think she has demonstrated that she has done that, whilst not necessarily meaning that the government or the minister would necessarily accept all of those different competing viewpoints because obviously some of those will be in conflict with each other.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: In relation to the joint statement on the draft Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill that the minister has provided us with today, can the minister please advise if the CREATE Foundation, which is a part of this particular statement, is the same CREATE Foundation that is on the child protection department's website, where it states:

The Department for Child Protection is proud to be sponsoring the CREATE Foundation Voices in Action Conference at the Adelaide Showgrounds from 21-23 March 2024.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised the CREATE Foundation is the peak body representing the voices of children and young people with an out-of-home care experience. It is not unusual for sponsorship or support of conferences for peak bodies, and I believe the honourable member is referring to a conference that has already occurred. I think she referred to last year.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON: Can the minister please advise if any of the four groups have received funding in the last two years?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Chair, we are still waiting for the copy of the minister's words that the Hon. Connie Bonaros now asked for quite a significant period of time ago. I just alert you to that. It was agreed by the minister she would provide it. We are still waiting for those words to be provided.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Just in regard to that particular question about the notes, they are provided in a form that cannot be provided, at this stage, to the chamber, contained as they are within a briefing note. However, we are seeing whether we can provide the particular quotes that I believe the honourable members were seeking.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Chair, is it not the case that a minister is reading from a piece of paper in this council and a member has requested it, and it was agreed to by the minister that it should be provided and tabled in the council? Could you just—

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: To clarify, I believe the particular remarks that were requested were within another document, hence the delay in obtaining the particular parts that were requested.

The CHAIR: I will quote from standing order 452 so that there is clarity:

A Document quoted from in debate, if not of a confidential nature or such as should more properly be obtained by Address, may be called for at any time during the debate, and on Motion thereupon without Notice may be ordered to be laid upon the Table.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: In regard to the question about funding, we are unable to obtain that information at the moment; we do not have that answer.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order: we actually asked you to make a ruling, and we were in the middle of a different thing.

The CHAIR: Okay. We will get to it.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! Minister, sit down. Minister, you were reading from a document. The standing order says:

… if not of a confidential nature or such as should more properly be obtained by Address, may be called for at any time during the debate…

So, minister, are you prepared to table the document?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Chair, before the minister answers that question, I remind her and you, Chair, that she (a) already agreed to it, and (b) told us at the outset that it was in response to questions that had been asked in this place by the Hon. Tammy Franks and perhaps others during the last sitting week. Those were her opening words in response to the document that she was referring to.

The CHAIR: Minister, are you going to table the document?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Not in the current form, because it is more extensive than what was requested and what was agreed to provide. What I would suggest we do, Mr Chair—

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Point of order: how do we establish that it was more extensive than what she offered to provide? Who is going to assess that?

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: It's the minister's claim, and you accept it.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am not willing to accept it.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Well, you've got to, I'm afraid.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Based on what?

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Because that's what the minister has said.

The CHAIR: Order! Just sit down for a second. I am going to seek some advice and then I am going to rule, and that is going to be it.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Mr Chair, may I suggest a proposed way forward?

The CHAIR: I am going to tell you that, unless you claim that that document is of a confidential nature, there will be a motion put that that document be tabled. It will be debated and voted upon. So is it of a confidential nature?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think we can resolve that the rest of the document is not particularly confidential, and so I seek leave to table the document.

Leave granted.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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