{"id":"child-protection-review-powers-and-immunities-act-2002","name":"Child Protection Review (Powers and Immunities) Act 2002","slug":"child-protection-review-powers-and-immunities-act-2002","collection":"act","jurisdiction":"sa","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":31741,"registerId":"sa-child-protection-review-powers-and-immunities-act-2002-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-01","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Child Protection Review (Powers and Immunities) Act 2002","content":"South Australia\nChild Protection Review (Powers and Immunities) Act 2002\nAn Act to facilitate the Child Protection Review by conferring powers and immunities.\n\nContents\n1\tShort title\n2\tInterpretation\n3\tProcedure\n4\tProvision of false information\n5\tConfidentiality and disclosure of information\n6\tPrivileges and immunities\nSchedule—Terms of reference for review of child protection in South Australia\nLegislative history\n\nThe Parliament of South Australia enacts as follows:\n1—Short title\nThis Act may be cited as the Child Protection Review (Powers and Immunities) Act 2002.\n2—Interpretation\nIn this Act—\nappointed means appointed by the Chief Executive of the Department of Human Services;\nauthorised person means—\n\t(a)\tthe person appointed to conduct the Review; or\n\t(b)\tany person appointed to assist in the conduct of the Review;\nauthorised police officer means—\n\t(a)\ta member of the police force who is of or above the rank of sergeant or who is in charge of a police station, or any other member of the police force designated as an authorised police officer by the Commissioner of Police for the purposes of this Act; or\n\t(b)\ta member of the police force of another State or a Territory of the Commonwealth, or of the Commonwealth, who is of or above the rank of sergeant (or an equivalent rank), or any other member of any such police force designated as an authorised police officer by the Commissioner of Police for the purposes of this Act with the agreement of the officer who is in charge of the relevant police force;\nReview means the processes required by the terms of reference for review of child protection in South Australia set out in the Schedule.\n3—Procedure\n\t(1)\tThe person appointed to conduct the Review—\n\t(a)\tis not required to hold a hearing for the purposes of the Review; and\n\t(b)\tmay obtain information from such persons and in such manner as the person thinks fit; and\n\t(c)\tmay determine whether a person providing information or making submissions in the course of or for the purposes of the Review may have legal or other representation.\n\t(2)\tSubject to this Act, the procedure to be adopted in relation to the Review will be as determined by the person appointed to conduct the Review.\n\t(3)\tAn authorised person is not entitled after the completion of the Review to exercise any powers conferred on the authorised person by this Act.\n4—Provision of false information\nA person must not provide information that the person knows to be false or misleading in a material particular to an authorised person in the course of or for the purposes of the Review.\nMaximum penalty: $10 000.\n5—Confidentiality and disclosure of information\n\t(1)\tAny law requiring a person to keep particular information confidential or in any way restricting the disclosure or publication of information does not prevent a person from providing information in the course of or for the purposes of the Review.\n\t(2)\tInformation obtained in the course of or for the purposes of the Review must not be further disclosed or published if—\n\t(a)\tthe information is personal information relating to a child, a child's guardians or other family members or any person alleged to have abused, neglected or threatened a child; or\n\t(b)\tthe information discloses the identity of, or leads to the identification of, a person who has notified an authorised person or the Department that he or she suspects that a child has been, or is being, abused or neglected; or\n\t(c)\tthe person appointed to conduct the Review, having formed the view that it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice or to prevent hardship or embarrassment to any person, makes a declaration forbidding the further disclosure or publication of the information.\n\t(3)\tHowever, subsection (2) does not prevent the further disclosure or publication of information—\n\t(a)\tfor the purposes of the Review or a report to the Minister; or\n\t(b)\twith the consent of the person (not being a child) to whom the information relates; or\n\t(c)\tto a person engaged in the administration of the Children's Protection Act 1993 or a similar law of another State or a Territory of the Commonwealth; or\n\t(d)\tan authorised police officer; or\n\t(e)\tby way of evidence adduced in accordance with subsections (4) and (5); or\n\t(f)\tif the information has been made public.\n\t(4)\tSubject to subsection (5)—\n\t(a)\tno evidence of information referred to in subsection (2) may be adduced in proceedings before a court without the permission of the court; and\n\t(b)\tunless such permission is granted, a party or witness in those proceedings must not be asked, and, if asked, cannot be required to answer, any question that cannot be answered without disclosing such information.\n\t(5)\tA court cannot grant permission under subsection (4) unless—\n\t(a)\tthe court is satisfied that the evidence is of critical importance in the proceedings and that failure to admit it would prejudice the proper administration of justice; or\n\t(b)\tthe person (not being a child) to whom the information relates consents to the admission of the evidence in the proceedings.\n\t(6)\tAn application for permission to adduce evidence under subsection (4)—\n\t(a)\tmust not, except as authorised by the court, be heard and determined in public; and\n\t(b)\tmust be conducted in such a manner as to protect, so far as may be practicable, the information concerned pending the determination of the application.\n\t(7)\tA person who contravenes subsection (2) is guilty of an offence.\nMaximum penalty: $10 000.\n\t(8)\tAn authorised person must, in any event, in preparing a report for the Minister about the Review, take all reasonable steps to avoid the disclosure of information that may identify, or lead to the identification of, a particular child.\n\t(9)\tDespite the preceding provisions, the Minister or the Chief Executive Officer may, if of the view that it would be in the public interest to do so, publish a report containing information of a kind referred to in this section, or otherwise disclose or authorise the disclosure of such information, as the Minister or the Chief Executive Officer thinks fit, but not if to do so would be contrary to a law other than this Act or contrary to a direction of the person appointed to conduct the Review.\n\t(10)\tA term used in this section will, if it is defined in the Children's Protection Act 1993, have the same meaning as in that Act.\n6—Privileges and immunities\n\t(1)\tAn authorised person has, in connection with the conduct of the Review, and in respect of any report prepared in the course of, or at the end of, the Review, the same protection, privileges and immunities as a Judge of the Supreme Court.\n\t(2)\tA person who provides information to an authorised person that has possible evidentiary value to the Review has the same protection, privileges and immunities as a witness in proceedings before the Supreme Court.\n\t(3)\tA legal practitioner who represents a person in connection with the Review has the same protection, privileges, immunities and obligations as counsel involved in proceedings before the Supreme Court.\nSchedule—Terms of reference for review of child protection in South Australia\nTo deliver a plan to the Minister that provides effective strategies to improve the provision of child protection services in this State and ensure better outcomes for children, young people and their families.\nIn doing this, the Review will:\n\t•\tReview Department of Human Services policy, practice and procedures and include both government and DHS funded services\n\t•\tDetermine the effectiveness of the legislation, practices and services in protecting children and young people\n\t•\tProvide advice on early intervention and prevention strategies that prevent abuse of children\n\t•\tEnsure particular attention is given to the needs of indigenous children and their families\n\t•\tConsider whether current Acts (Children's Protection Act 1993 and Family and Community Services Act 1972) adequately provide for the care and protection of children and young people and provide advice on any legislative reform.\nTo examine the adequacy of the SA criminal law and police procedures in dealing with child abuse.\nTo provide advice to government on the strategies and systems required to achieve a whole-of-government, co-ordinated and integrated response to the protection of children.\nTo provide advice to government and consider legislation to ensure organisations protect children from sexual and physical violence whilst in their care. Particular attention will be given to screening mechanisms for checking suitability of employees/volunteers, policies, procedures and training.\nLegislative history\nNotes\n\t•\tFor further information relating to the Act and subordinate legislation made under the Act see the Index of South Australian Statutes or www.legislation.sa.gov.au.\nPrincipal Act and amendments\nNew entries appear in bold.\nYear\nNo\nTitle\nAssent\nCommencement\n2002\n6\nChild Protection Review (Powers and Immunities) Act 2002\n1.8.2002\n1.8.2002\n2006\n17\nStatutes Amendment (New Rules of Civil Procedure) Act 2006\n6.7.2006\nPt 14 (s 52)—4.9.2006 (Gazette 17.8.2006 p2831)\nProvisions amended\nNew entries appear in bold.\nProvision\nHow varied\nCommencement\ns 5\n\n\ns 5(4)\namended by 17/2006 s 52(1), (2)\n4.9.2006\ns 5(5)\namended by 17/2006 s 52(3)\n4.9.2006\ns 5(6)\namended by 17/2006 s 52(4)\n4.9.2006\n","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"Scope cannot be assessed — the actual text of the legislation was not retrievable. The submission contained only a 'Page Not Found' error from the South Australian legislation website, not the content of the Act itself."},"complexity_factors":["Insufficient legislative text was provided — only a website error page was returned","Based on title alone, the Act likely involves interplay between administrative powers and legal immunities, which can be technically complex","Child protection law in Australia often intersects with multiple other Acts and frameworks, adding potential complexity","Score is necessarily tentative without access to actual legislative content"],"plain_english_summary":"## ⚠️ Content Unavailable\n\nThe actual text of the **Child Protection Review (Powers and Immunities) Act 2002** (South Australia) could not be retrieved. The legislation website returned a 'Page Not Found' error, meaning the specific content of this Act was not accessible at the time of analysis.\n\n### What we can tell you from the title alone:\n- This is a **South Australian law** passed in **2002**\n- It relates to **child protection reviews** — likely governing bodies or officials who conduct reviews into how children are being kept safe\n- The words **'Powers and Immunities'** suggest it defines:\n  - What **powers** reviewers or investigators have (e.g. access to records, ability to interview people)\n  - What **immunities** (legal protections from being sued) those people have when doing their jobs\n- Laws like this typically affect **government agencies, social workers, foster carers, parents under investigation**, and anyone involved in child protection proceedings\n\n### ⚠️ Important note:\nNo reliable legal analysis can be provided without access to the actual legislative text. Please visit [www.legislation.sa.gov.au](https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au) directly or contact the South Australian Office of Parliamentary Counsel at OPCWeb@sa.gov.au to obtain the current version of this Act."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":4,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The Act's core purpose—facilitating a child protection review—remains, but the scope of how Review material may be used in court and how applications for admission are handled was altered by later amendments to the confidentiality/evidence provisions (notably ss 5(4)–(6) as amended). These amendments changed procedural handling of sensitive information without altering the Review's overall terms of reference."},"complexity_factors":["Cross‑statutory definitions and dependencies: terms in s 5 refer to definitions in the Children's Protection Act 1993 (s 5(10)), requiring cross‑reference to another statute.","Judicial‑style evidentiary gateway: courts must grant permission before sensitive Review material can be adduced, subject to stringent tests (ss 5(4)–(6)); this creates procedural complexity in litigation contexts.","Wide discretionary powers vested in the reviewer: the appointed person may determine procedure, ways of obtaining information and representation (s 3(1)(b),(c); s 3(2)), increasing implementation variability.","Detailed confidentiality regime with multiple exceptions and criminal sanction: prohibitions on further disclosure, enumerated exceptions, closed hearing rules for permission applications and a $10,000 penalty (ss 5(2)–(7)).","High immunity stakes: authorised persons, witnesses and legal representatives receive protections equating them to Supreme Court judges, witnesses and counsel respectively (s 6), which affects legal risk allocation.","Cross‑jurisdictional police authorisation: authorised police officers may include senior officers from other States, Territories or the Commonwealth subject to designation/agreement (s 2), adding inter‑agency coordination requirements.","Ministerial/CEO publication override with limits: s 5(9) permits publication in the public interest but is constrained by other laws and the reviewer’s directions, creating an administrative judgment call."],"plain_english_summary":"This Act authorises an appointed reviewer to run a statewide child-protection review, giving that reviewer power to obtain information and decide the Review's procedure and representation, and it grants reviewers and participants court‑level immunities (ss 3, 6). It creates criminal penalties for knowingly false statements and limits further disclosure of sensitive material while listing specific exceptions and permitting the Minister or CEO to publish material in the public interest (ss 4, 5). It therefore affects anyone who provides information, the Department, police and the Minister."},"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"Unauthenticated. Configure AI_GATEWAY_API_KEY or use a provider module. Learn more: https://ai-sdk.dev/unauthenticated-ai-gateway","source":"analysis-cron"},"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[],"contradictions":[]},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":4,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The legislation remains tightly scoped to its original purpose. It is a procedural statute enabling a specific time-bound review of child protection systems. The 2006 amendment (Statutes Amendment (New Rules of Civil Procedure) Act 2006) made technical adjustments to court evidence procedures in section 5 to align with new civil procedure rules, but did not expand the substantive scope beyond facilitating the Review. The Act has not grown to create ongoing institutions, permanent powers, or broader regulatory schemes beyond the original review mechanism."},"complexity_factors":["Nested confidentiality provisions with multiple exceptions (section 5 has 10 subsections with layered conditions — general disclosure ban, then six specific exceptions, then two sub-conditions for court evidence, plus a public interest override)","Cross-reference to external statute — section 5(10) imports definitions from the Children's Protection Act 1993, requiring readers to consult another Act","Dual-level conditional logic in court evidence provisions (subsections 4-6): court permission required, but permission only granted if critical importance test OR consent met, plus hearing must be private","Rank-based definitions for police officers with interstate equivalence calculations (section 2, 'authorised police officer')","Temporal limitation clause (section 3(3)) creating conditional operation — powers expire after review completion, requiring tracking of administrative fact (review status)"],"plain_english_summary":"This South Australian law sets up the legal framework for a one-off review of how the state protects children from abuse and neglect.\n\n**What it does:**\n- **Creates special powers** for the person running the review (and their team) to gather information without needing to hold formal hearings. They can interview whoever they want, however they want, and decide if people can bring lawyers.\n- **Overrides secrecy laws** — normally, some professionals (like doctors or social workers) can't share confidential information. This law says they *must* share it with the review if asked, but with strict limits on what happens to that information afterwards.\n- **Protects identities** — the law bans publishing information that could identify children, their families, or people who reported suspected abuse. There are exceptions for police, court proceedings (with strict conditions), and the final government report (with names removed).\n- **Makes lying illegal** — giving false information to the review carries a $10,000 fine.\n- **Grants legal protections** — review staff get the same legal protections as Supreme Court judges, and witnesses get the same protections as witnesses in court (so they can't be sued for what they say).\n\n**Who it affects:**\n- The review team itself (giving them powers and protections)\n- Anyone with information about child protection (requiring them to cooperate and be honest)\n- Children and families in the child protection system (protecting their privacy)\n- Police and courts (setting rules for how review information can be used as evidence)\n\n**Why it matters:**\nThis is a **time-limited, special-purpose law**. It exists only to let one specific review happen properly — giving investigators teeth to get information that might otherwise be hidden, while balancing that against protecting vulnerable people's privacy. Once the review finishes, the special powers expire (section 3(3)).\n\nThe review itself (spelled out in the Schedule) looks at whether current laws work, how to prevent child abuse, and whether organisations do enough to keep children safe — with special attention to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/child-protection-review-powers-and-immunities-act-2002","history":"/api/acts/child-protection-review-powers-and-immunities-act-2002/history","analysis":"/api/acts/child-protection-review-powers-and-immunities-act-2002/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/child-protection-review-powers-and-immunities-act-2002/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/child-protection-review-powers-and-immunities-act-2002/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/child-protection-review-powers-and-immunities-act-2002/documents"}}