1.5.5. South Australia 1.5.5.1. Original position at 1 January 2003: South Australia Children’s Protection Act 1993 In South Australia at 1 January 2003, the Children’s Protection Act 1993 (SA) s 11(1) imposed a broad range of mandatory reporting duties for all four classical forms of abuse and neglect. or neglect’ was ‘Abuse defined in s 6(1) to include: (a) sexual abuse; or (b) physical or emotional or neglect, to the extent that: (i) the child has suffered, or is likely to suffer, physical or psychological injury detrimental to the child’s wellbeing; or (ii) the child’s physical or psychological development is in jeopardy Therefore, there was a significance threshold for all types of abuse/neglect other than sexual abuse. Section 11(1)(a) imposed the reporting duty on a designated person who on reasonable grounds ‘suspects that a child has been or is being abused or neglected’. In addition, s 10 included within the concept of or neglect’ reasonable likelihood, in terms of s 6(2)(b), of the child being killed, injured, abused or ‘abuse ‘a neglected by a person with whom the child resides’. Therefore, there was also a qualified duty to report suspected risk of future abuse/neglect. Section 11(1) imposed the duty when the suspicion was formed in the course of the person’s work (whether paid or voluntary) or of carrying out official duties. Immunity was conferred by s 12. Confidentiality was conferred by s 13. The penalty for noncompliance was $2500. Section 11(2) imposed the duty on a broad range of professionals: medical practitioners (ab) pharmacists registered or enrolled nurses dentists psychologists police community corrections officers social workers teachers in any educational institution including a kindergarten approved family day care providers
1.5.5. South Australia 1.5.5.1. Original position at 1 January 2003: South Australia Children’s Protection Act 1993 In South Australia at 1 January 2003, the Children’s Protection Act 1993 (SA) s 11(1) imposed a broad range of mandatory reporting duties for all four classical forms of abuse and neglect. ‘Abuse or neglect’ was defined in s 6(1) to include: (a) sexual abuse; or (b) physical or emotional or neglect, to the extent that: (i) the child has suffered, or is likely to suffer, physical or psychological injury detrimental to the child’s wellbeing; or (ii) the child’s physical or psychological development is in jeopardy Therefore, there was a significance threshold for all types of abuse/neglect other than sexual abuse. Section 11(1)(a) imposed the reporting duty on a designated person who ‘suspects on reasonable grounds that a child has been or is being abused or neglected’. In addition, s 10 included within the concept of ‘abuse or neglect’ ‘a reasonable likelihood, in terms of s 6(2)(b), of the child being killed, injured, abused or neglected by a person with whom the child resides’. Therefore, there was also a qualified duty to report suspected risk of future abuse/neglect. Section 11(1) imposed the duty when the suspicion was formed in the course of the person’s work (whether paid or voluntary) or of carrying out official duties. Immunity was conferred by s 12. Confidentiality was conferred by s 13. The penalty for noncompliance was $2500. Section 11(2) imposed the duty on a broad range of professionals: medical practitioners (ab) pharmacists registered or enrolled nurses dentists psychologists police community corrections officers social workers teachers in any educational institution including a kindergarten approved family day care providers
child-abuse-and-neglect-v3-nsw.docx