Bills

Statutes Amendment (Screening) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Ms COOK: Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of house.

A quorum having been formed:

Mr BOYER (Wright) (15:48): I rise to make a few brief remarks on the Statutes Amendment (Screening) Bill. I think it is fair to say that nobody on this side of the house was surprised when the cuts, closures and privatisations started coming in the first budget from this Marshall Liberal government. That is very much in the DNA of any Liberal government, I think, but what has been surprising is where those cuts have been targeted and where this government has sought to pinch a few pennies and save some money.

This bill and its clawback provisions is another fantastic example of just how out of touch with everyday priorities this government is. Seeking to claw back a measly sum of money from volunteers is a shameful act. Under this government, we have seen money that was given to schools by the previous Labor government, under the Building Better Schools program, for things like performing arts centres and gymnasiums, to name just a few, being pulled back by the Minister for Education, who is on his way out now as we start talking about this. This money has now been pulled back to plug holes in the grossly underfunded transition of year 7 into high school. It is a grossly underfunded transition.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order, sir: the member for Wright is both making stuff up and, more importantly, reflecting on members' positions, accurately or inaccurately, in the chamber.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for that point of order, Minister for Education. I am going to tell you, and you would be aware of this, that I have just taken the chair. I will listen very carefully to what the member for Wright says from now on. Member for Wright.

Mr BOYER: I will just repeat the last few words I was saying.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you have to.

Mr BOYER: I feel I should. It was an important point.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will be listening.

Mr BOYER: It might have been lost on the government; I would not like that to be the case. Money was given to a few schools by the previous Labor government under the Building Better Schools program. I am happy to name a couple. Golden Grove High School had $10 million—

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order, sir: the member is not only making stuff up but is being irrelevant to the bill at hand.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill at hand is the Statutes Amendment (Screening) Bill. You seem to be talking about some budgetary lines, member for Wright.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The member for Wright is pretending that the Labor Party had guaranteed funding for certain projects when, in fact, they had guaranteed funding to schools, which is continuing to be delivered.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for that speech, Minister for Education. Your point of order really is relevance. Member for Wright, we are debating the Statutes Amendment (Screening) Bill. I ask you to stay close, at least, to the bill at hand.

Mr BOYER: My comments were in relation to savings that have been made or have been sought to be made by this government in their first budget. That includes the clawback provisions, which are in this screening bill. They seek to recover money from volunteers who, under the very clear election commitment that this government made when it was in opposition to provide free screening checks to volunteers, will have to repay the government some money that they would have spent otherwise on having that check if they work something like one hour a day for up to seven days in a year.

I mentioned other savings measures that were announced by the government in that budget. The one to which the Minister for Education took particular umbrage was about schools, but we have seen the closure of Strathmont swimming pool as well, the end of a taxi voucher scheme and cuts to SHINE SA, which has seen a number of centres actually close.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order: these matters may be relevant to a supply speech or a budget speech, but it is now really stretching it to suggest that this has anything to do with working with children checks and screening.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have raised a fair point of order, Attorney. I was listening carefully. It was a bit of a stretch, member for Wright. Let's try to get back to the bill at hand.

Mr BOYER: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I would not expect those opposite to enjoy what I am saying. This bill would see workers forced to repay the cost of their free volunteer screenings should they commence any form of paid employment for more than seven days. To add insult to injury, that paid employment could be as little as one hour per day for seven days over a 12-month period.

I am not sure whether it has yet been touched on today as other members on this side have spoken about this bill, but I would very much like to know how much taxpayer money is going to be spent on investigations that are no doubt going to have to occur into volunteers who have received a free screening and then gone on to be employed in a job that ticks that box of at least an hour of employment per day for seven days.

Who then does the investigation into whether someone has breached that provision and needs to pay the money back? There must be a person or people in Public Service land who will be given the job of doing that investigation, and I would be very surprised if what we are paying those public servants to do that investigation is not more than the measly amount of money that this government is seeking to claw back from the volunteers themselves.

There is no doubt that this is a breach of the election commitment that was made by this government when it was in opposition. The commitment was completely clear: free screenings for South Australian volunteers. I know and will happily admit that, among the people whose doors I knocked upon, there were many who thought this was a good announcement. They welcomed it. I have no doubt that there were some people who chose to vote for the now government because of this announcement, and they have been greatly let down.

The bill also seeks to standardise and streamline screening requirements throughout South Australia, and this is undoubtedly a positive step and one that the opposition welcomes. Approved screenings will now last five years, rather than three years, with continuous monitoring through data sharing between the Department of Human Services, the Department for Child Protection and SAPOL. This will give greater certainty that people who pose a risk to children and vulnerable persons in South Australia will be identified and precluded from gaining employment in areas where they should not be employed.

I think it is fair to say that we cannot do too much in this area. This is a really important area. Sadly, we have had many high-profile cases in this state where people have managed to infiltrate areas of employment, which certainly they should not have been anywhere near, and get access to vulnerable persons. The sad truth is that these would-be predators in most cases are actually very cunning and very skilled at doing so. They are very good at the crimes they perpetrate.

It is a great shame that such an important bill with such noble aims is going to be used as a vehicle to pinch a few pennies, particularly when the clawback provisions in the bill could have the effect of actually discouraging people from volunteering. That would be a very sad outcome from a bill that promised so much.

Ms MICHAELS (Enfield) (15:56): I rise today to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Screening) Bill and focus on two particular issues that concern me about it. Broadly, the standardisation of screening and extending the life of the checks to five years are positive improvements made by the bill and I support them. These improvements are welcomed by the opposition and can be attributed to the continuous monitoring system, which, I understand, began under the former Labor government. The continuous monitoring system provides a greater level of protection against people who pose a risk to our children and our vulnerable South Australians. I understand the risks will be identified much faster and hopefully these people will be removed from the system much faster.

However, the government promised South Australians a plan that they summed up as creating more jobs, lowering costs and providing better services. A particular aspect of the bill flies in the face of that government promise. In particular, clauses 9 and 20 of the bill will insert into the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016 and the Disability Inclusion Act 2018 respectively a section that will make a fee payable by anyone who uses a screening check to work with children or the disabled respectively, other than as a volunteer. These clauses will force volunteers to pay back the cost of their screening fees if they obtain just seven days of paid relevant work in a 12-month period.

That part of the bill will put in barriers to employment and increase costs to volunteers. We are not talking about high wage earners in these two sectors: we are talking about people working in caring roles. Largely, we are talking about women, mothers who might be doing classroom reading at their kids' school, for example, which is when I first got my similar check. The last thing these women and others in similar situations seeking to re-enter the workforce need is another barrier to their employment. The cost burden of having to repay the screening fee should not be a consideration that a person needs to think about when choosing one more additional day of casual work.

Ninety seven per cent of people working in the childcare industry are women and similarly high numbers of females are working in the disability sector. People working in child care earn as little as $21 an hour. A woman who works casually at a childcare centre may have to pay back almost an entire day's wage if she were to work more than seven days in that 12-month period. That is actually a significant cost to these sorts of casual workers, a cost that may discourage people from taking on an additional day of work. That is exactly why we sought to have this requirement amended from seven days to 150 hours of work, which is equivalent to four weeks of full-time work.

We know the cards are stacked against women in the workforce and those seeking to re-enter the workforce. It seems that the government is once again ignoring the needs of our lowest paid workers with this aspect of the bill and putting an unnecessary burden on those wonderful people who choose to work with children and the disabled. Late last year, KPMG published a report, entitled 'The cost of coming back: achieving a better deal for working mothers'. That report outlined the staggering cost to women of re-entering the workforce and the disincentives they face.

The costs outlined by KPMG for women returning to the workforce are further compounded by this government's plan to have volunteers repay their screening fees, and that is unfair and cruel. KPMG found that in a family where both parents are earning the minimum wage and have two children in child care, the woman effectively earns just $2.50 per hour on her fourth day of work if she increases her working week from three days to four. What kind of incentive is that to return to the workforce if we have this additional cost burden?

Things do not improve for women in higher income households either. In a household where the father earns $80,000 a year and a mother earns $24,000 a year, the KPMG report tells us that for each extra day of work a week that mother would improve the household's overall financial position by just $294 per year. We are suggesting that these people repay $100 plus back to the government for their volunteer screening. For the last 20 years, the gender pay gap between men and women has sat at somewhere between 15 and 20 per cent. We know the flow-on effects of this pay gap on women throughout the course of their working lives, including the significant disparity in superannuation when they retire.

We cannot continue implementing policies that continue to place barriers in front of women who are seeking to get back to the workforce. The decision by this government to make volunteers repay their screening fee is a barrier to greater female participation in the workforce. The decision by this government to make volunteers repay their screening fee is unfair and unjust. The Premier promised volunteers would get free screening checks, and this is clearly a broken promise.

Another point I wish to make is in regard to the red tape and bureaucracy that this aspect of the bill introduces. What is it going to cost the taxpayer to chase some $100 from someone two or three years after they get their screening check? Are we really going to prosecute someone and fine them up to $5,000 for doing nothing more than altruistic good in giving up their time to help kids and the disabled? How does this apply to our incredible youth volunteers who might go on to work at the Royal Show for a couple of weeks or the Magic Cave at Christmas? Is the government really going to chase them for $100?

Having come from the real world of having to read and help community members understand this type of legislation, I take it as my duty to review it with a practical eye having regard to how it will actually work in practice. Quite frankly, in my view this aspect of the policy will not work. It will either never be implemented by the bureaucrats or it will be but at an unnecessarily and disproportionately high cost and with a totally unfair result to our lowest paid workers—those trying to do good, necessary work with our children and our disabled. In either case, whether it is never implemented or implemented at a ridiculous cost, this part of the bill is, in my view, bad policy. I do, however, support the remainder of the bill.

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:03): I rise to support the lion's share of the bill, but I would like to have an opportunity to say a few words, not least because, although I was not the minister responsible for the screening unit in the last government, having been education minister for three years I nonetheless had quite a bit to do with the experience of people applying for and receiving screening checks.

It seems to me that there are really two ideas at play when we think about a screening process. They are not always entirely compatible, so it is worth teasing them out a bit. On the one hand, for people who require a screen, whether they are volunteers or whether they want a job that requires the clearance, it is fundamentally about a process, how long it takes and how much it costs. It is important that we get that right. A few years ago, for a period of time we did see a growing queue, which was immensely frustrating for people. My colleague the member for Ramsay did everything in her power very successfully to streamline and bring down that waiting time and increase resourcing to deal with that as a process.

At the same time, the other idea at play here is that it is part of an ongoing and never-ceasing attempt to keep our children and other vulnerable people safe. I speak mainly about children because that was my experience. I appreciate that it is far broader than that. When we are thinking about that idea we need to ensure not only that the right people are being screened but that the screen is done into areas that would be fruitful, areas that are useful to know and understand.

Again, I pay tribute to the member for Ramsay when, as minister, she, along with the then attorney-general, was able to introduce a process for continuous screening to enable us not to simply hope that someone who had clearance at one point remained clear for the term of that clearance. The reason I raise it is to acknowledge its importance as part of our attempts to keep our children and vulnerable people safe and to remind everyone that it is not fail-safe, that it is not the only tool we have and that it is not infallible.

We are talking about a very imperfect world in which we are constantly seeking to stop bad things happening to vulnerable people and to children. The screening process is of immense weight in its importance in trying to do that. Every change we make and every consideration cannot be about just processing time, speed, efficiency and so on; it also has to contemplate the necessity to keep our children safe.

I want to draw attention to some comments made in the other place yesterday by the minister who is now responsible for screening because I was concerned that it is either mistaken or there is a proposal for a different approach in screening policy. The Hon. Ms Lensink was asked about parents working or volunteering in schools and at what point they required a clearance. The Hon. Ms Lensink answered the question, as follows:

…if a parent is assisting at a school and they are not engaged with other children—say, for instance, they are there for the purposes of assisting their own child—then they are not required to have a check. If they are there to read to other children then my understanding is that they do need to have a working with children check.

That is not the case. That is not the case because it was deemed important not to block parents from doing what is a normal part of being a parent, which is helping other children learn to read in the same class as their class child is in. If I look to the current policy, according to the department examples of when screening is not required in the Department for Education site or service include:

parents or guardians who volunteer in connection with an activity that involves their own child—involves; not exclusively about their own child—such as volunteering with their own child's class;

one-off guest appearances at concert performances and so on; and

one-off events, such as sports days, working bees and whole-of-school events, including a swimming program that their child is attending.

It is pretty clear that in those instances a parent is not required to have a clearance. That is erring on the side of ensuring that parents are able to engage in the life of being a parent with their children and their children's peers, their children's classmates, in a way that is unfettered by having to get into the process side that I started with.

I do not know how to read the Hon. Ms Lensink's answer. It may be simply that she is mistaken as to the application of the current policy and will correct the record and that everything will continue as is. But I raise in the context of this bill the question about whether the government is perhaps contemplating applying a higher standard to parents who are going to their children's classes to help out in normal activities and whether they are now going to have to have a screening process through the government in order to be able to do that.

There are definitely arguments on both sides. There are no simple measures here. There is process, there is fettering parents from having a life and being parents and there is trying to be hypervigilant about protecting our children. There is no simple answer, but I can say that there would be thousands of people affected who would then be applying for screening clearances in the event that what the Hon. Ms Lensink is signalling is a policy change.

I commend the other comments that have been made on this side of the chamber and the debate that occurred in the upper house about the question of whether these are, in fact, free for volunteers. I think that has been very well canvassed by people on my side, and the contribution I wanted to make was with the benefit of the experience I had as the minister for education. With the changes that we hope will occur through various amendments and so on, I commend overall the idea of continuing to improve the legislation.

Mr SZAKACS (Cheltenham) (16:11): I commend the contributions from my colleagues on this side of the house. I specifically raise my voice and my concerns on behalf of various sporting and community organisations in my local electorate who have contacted me as late as yesterday evening to voice their concerns around volunteer participation, particularly around the recouping of expenditure for volunteer screening. As my colleague the member for West Torrens raised a little bit earlier today, what he said in this place does matter, and we certainly believe that on this side of the house.

What is so disappointing about the subject matter that we are dealing with in respect to the clawing back of the free screening for volunteers is that it was subject to an election promise from the government. I think this is now a product of one thing being said in opposition and another thing being said when burdened with decision-making and responsibility when in government. Unfortunately, it is our volunteers who are suffering this time. It is mums and dads, grandparents and carers. It is the lifeblood of those very same community not-for-profit organisations that I have been speaking with just as late as last night.

I am sure that everyone in this place would agree that the people who volunteer with these community organisations are the heart and soul of our community organisations. They are not paid. They are volunteers and they give themselves fully and completely to these organisations. For that reason, I think it is a ludicrous decision to claw back and indenture these volunteers in the way the government proposes. It comes at a time when we know that the rate of volunteering in our community is declining. That is due to a number of reasons, the least of which is because people are time poor and the nature of work is changing.

People are working longer. People are working more disparate hours. We know that people are working in more precarious work, which means that they do not have the luxury of planning their volunteering time when they are working on a day-to-day contract as a casual worker. Often they work in these casual jobs for many years.

There are three community organisations that I want to mention specifically in my contribution today: the Woodville District Baseball Club, the Seaton Park RSL and the Queenstown Gymnastics club, all of whom have raised directly with me the trouble that they are having, as important organisations in my local community, accessing the same amount of volunteering time they once enjoyed. If we needed anymore compelling evidence than what I am sure as members of this place we are told every day from these same organisations in our same electorates right across the state, it is the report of the peak council for volunteering in the country, Volunteering Australia.

A report was prepared in 2016, in fact, by PwC (then PricewaterhouseCoopers), which interviewed, both in a qualitative and quantitative analysis, over 2,300 volunteers across the country. Of over 2,300 volunteers, the report from PwC on behalf of Volunteering Australia found that 86 per cent of all community organisations needed more volunteers, and 51 per cent of all community and not-for-profit organisations concluded that they did not have the financial means to recruit or train more volunteers at the same time they needed more. At the heart of the matter before the house today was the finding in the executive summary of this report, which I quote:

The biggest barrier to people volunteering into the future is work commitments and out-of-pocket expenses incurred through volunteering.

Of course, that brings us to the question today and that is the clawback. As this house has heard from the contributions of my colleagues, that can be characterised in no small part as 'mean for mean's sake'. The administrative burden of the clawback, the financial impact and the cost-effectiveness, is simply not accountable to the policy that we are now considering.

The same data is shared—that is, the declining volunteering across Australia—in the most recent ABS statistics, which show that volunteering is still across Australia at a 5 per cent decline. That is an alarming statistic to be considering at a time where we are saying to volunteers, 'We will give to you with one hand and then taketh away with the other.' This clawback, as has been contributed to the house by my colleagues, is not just about high-income earners. In fact, it has nothing to do with the income at all. Seven days' work with the potential for one hour each time is simply, as I put previously, 'mean for mean's sake'.

It is also about priorities when we would seek to take upon the administrative burden, which is the regime that will claw back from volunteers in this manner, but at the same time we are watching exploitation occur in our community and in workplaces when we are not just standing in the way of laws that will better effect exploitation but in fact refusing to police and enforce laws that are currently on the books. This is about priorities.

As I said to start with, and as the member for West Torrens has put, what is said matters. On behalf of those organisations in my electorate, this matters deeply to me.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (16:18): I rise to make a few brief remarks about this bill. Volunteering, of course, is incredibly important throughout the South Australian community. There is little more that I can add to better exemplify that than what has already been put by speakers on both sides of the chamber, except that I did want to add a little context in relation to the history of the issue we are confronting now, as well as the experience in my own electorate of Lee.

Of course, all members would know that we have had a very substantial increase in the number of screenings that have been required for people who are engaging in different forms of volunteering in the community. I am sure that the following numbers are not perfectly accurate, but they are pretty indicative of the scale of the increase in the number of people who have been screened to be suitable to be providing volunteering services in one capacity or another throughout the community.

My understanding is that 10 to 12 years ago we had something in the order of 15,000 to 20,000 screenings—beyond those professions, of course, like teachers, police and so on—for people who were seeking a clearance primarily for volunteering. I think the total number during the term of the last Labor government reached in excess of 150,000. It is an absolutely extraordinary increase in the number of clearance checks being undertaken by the South Australian government.

Of course, this surge in demand led to all sorts of private businesses setting up, claiming that they could give people screenings or clearances so they could work or volunteer, but not in the way the South Australian government required, which was a far more thorough multiagency check that became known as the 'working with children check'.

This massive increase in the number of people who were seeking these screening checks placed an extraordinary demand on the department that was required to manage and facilitate these checks. Very quickly, it got well beyond the capacity of the department to work through these checks in any form of a timely manner. It was compounded by circumstances where somebody might have the same name as another person who was seeking or who had a clearance or had some form of notification about them or, indeed, for many other reasons.

When people lodged their applications for these checks they expected that they would be done within a small number of weeks. However, very quickly, over a period during that escalation in demand, this turned into many weeks, and on occasion many months, that people were waiting for these checks. It impacted both volunteers and people who required these same checks for paid employment.

Certainly, in my capacity before the last state election as transport minister, I had bus drivers, taxi drivers and the like complaining that they were not getting their clearances in enough time, even though they had requested the clearance perhaps six to eight weeks before it was due so that they could continue their paid employment. They were being slowed down, but volunteers were also being slowed down.

It was a grave problem and the former government chose to address it by increasing the resources to process these applications to try to work through the backlog. But let's be honest about this—they also introduced a higher fee in order to fund those additional resources. It was not the ideal outcome, but one deemed by the government as a necessary outcome. Over time, those additional resources did start to bring down that average waiting time for these checks and did start to unclog what had developed into, in many cases, a very significant backlog for people requesting these checks.

If you then cast your mind back to what the Liberal Party promised in the lead-up to the last election, it made a commitment that it would provide free screenings or free checks for people who were volunteering. I will be up-front enough to recognise that this was not a commitment that was matched by the Labor Party.

I can be honest enough to look back and give some level of kudos to the then Liberal opposition for making this a policy and recognising the impact that having to pay in excess of $100 for a screening check was having on many volunteers, particularly those volunteers who were for the first time in the course of their volunteering, which might have been going on for decades in local sporting clubs, local community clubs, etc., required to have a check as the government increased the scope of who needed to have these clearances.

As much as it might ill me to take my hat off to the Liberals, I think it is reasonable to at the juncture that they made this commitment in the lead-up to the election. Of course, one of the reasons we did not match that commitment was that we could not quite come to terms with how we would, in effect, be able to make this work effectively and clearly. Then, of course, there was the issue of cost, but the Liberals were willing to bear the cost of their election commitment as they committed to the people of South Australia.

I said that I would talk about the history, which I have done, but I also want to talk about the context in my local electorate. I am aware that my electorate is—or certainly up until recently was, if it no longer is—demographically the oldest electorate in South Australia. A couple of the reasons why are that the very large redevelopment of the land now comprising West Lakes occurred—the Deputy Premier may help me out here—from the late 1960s through to the early 1980s.

Mr Duluk: It was 1966: Sturt versus Port Adelaide at Footy Park.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The member for Waite has to cast back to before the time he was born to recollect an occasion when Sturt was successful over the Port Adelaide Magpies in a grand final.

Mr DULUK: Point of order: the member for Lee is clearly misleading the house, as we know Sturt went back to back in 2017-18, the most recent years in the SANFL.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Waite, thank you for that clarification.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am much obliged to the member for Waite. I inadvertently have referred to the time when the SANFL had a much higher level of importance to the football community.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lee, for your interest and that of others, my recollection is the first grand final was played at West Lakes in 1974.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, indeed. If we are being honest, if that is before my time, it is certainly before the member for Waite's time, but I greatly appreciate those clarifications. Perhaps if I can move us on from the contestable area of football, we were talking about the development of West Lakes. Many lots were developed and many people bought into that development. Without actually having a precise figure, I would posit that, along with Golden Grove, it has been one of the largest scale developments in metropolitan Adelaide where people have originally bought into the development and never left.

As a result, many of those people and families who moved in during that period I mentioned before, predominantly through the 1970s, are now getting on in age. As many of them say to me, they entered into a period of retirement on the understanding that life would be slower and gentler in retirement, but most people actually say the opposite is true: they become busier once they retire because they finally have the time to dedicate to all those pursuits and passions that they have been waiting to dedicate time to once work is out of the way.

Volunteering, of course, is a major part of that for many retirees in my electorate. I talk about that in the context of West Lakes, but I could easily say the same thing for the relatively newer area of Grange, which has come to the electorate of Lee after the boundary redraw. Many of my constituents are volunteers, and I would hazard a guess that the proportion of electors in my electorate would be amongst the highest that are volunteering throughout the state for those reasons.

This bill is of great importance to many of my constituents who are looking forward to the government making good on its election commitment. While we are engaging in some cross-partisan backslapping and congratulations, I would extend some further to the Liberal Party for bringing this bill to this place and attempting to address their election commitment.

However, I must start tapping the brakes at this juncture because what we are now confronted with is not quite what was promised at the election. We are now confronted with a proposition in which not all volunteer screening checks will be free. There is a clawback provision, and it has been the cause of—how can I put it?—some furrowed brow and maybe even angst, particularly before the other place. Of course, it is unparliamentary of me to refer to what has occurred over there in this context.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Only the vote.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Only the vote, or indeed perhaps also the debate, I think, but I am happy to be led, on this rare occasion, by the Deputy Premier. We now have a bill that seeks to come up with a way of making that clawback provision by saying that volunteers who are engaged in seven days of work will not be able to have their check or their screening done for free. They must pay back some money if the situation is that they are a volunteer who is not working and has gained a clearance that lasts for three years and, during the course of that three-year period, they have engaged in seven days' work. They must pay it back.

You will not be surprised to hear us say that we believe that this represents a clearly broken election commitment by the government. They promised free screening checks for volunteers, but we are now learning from the government that they consider that not all volunteers are created equal; that is, those volunteers who may be working seven days are now required to pay it back. I think that is unfair because many of those retirees whom I mentioned and who are constituents of mine may be engaged in what might be captured by the provisions of this bill in terms of working for seven days.

I am not quite sure what the actual stricture of working for seven days means. I think that is something we are looking at progressing during the committee stage of this bill. However, during the course of a year of more than 365 days (in the case of a leap year), it does not take much to earn seven days of remuneration in recompense for the provision of one's labour. This will disadvantage many people who consider themselves genuine volunteers. This will disadvantage many people who consider that the bulk of their time out in the community is spent volunteering and not providing their labour for remuneration.

This will perhaps also disadvantage other people in my community, and of course also people across other electorates around the state, namely, those people who are perhaps very low-paid workers and who are workers only by virtue of the fact of the provisions in this bill that define that work, by which there must be a repayment of this check, as seven days. It is not much, given the value of volunteering.

According to the rationale of the government's own election commitment, it is not much to ask. (I believe I hear Tim checking the score of that grand final at the moment. Unfortunately, we are well aware of it, and it continues to haunt us. I thought we had moved past it, but I have been yanked back to that unfortunate reality.)

We think that this is unreasonable. We would also suggest to the government that this is likely to be unworkable and will reflect those concerns that Labor had prior to the last state election. Trying to delineate in this particular way, which the provisions of this particular bill attempt to do, is likely to give the department an extraordinarily difficult judgement to make, let alone a task of administration that is complex, time consuming and resource intensive.

The mechanism to recoup the amount of money that is intended from this measure—if indeed the department or the government have done any modelling around this, and I am not sure whether or not they have—is likely to outweigh the benefit of the revenue that this recouping mechanism seeks to recover. For those reasons, we will be listening with extraordinary interest to the contributions from the government during the committee stage about how they propose to navigate through this very tricky terrain.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (16:35): I would like to commence by thanking all those who have contributed to the debate on the screening bill and for the comments that have been made. The theme I have received from the lead speaker for the opposition has been translated in various forms through a number of speakers from the opposition.

In short, I understand that the opposition's position is that they will support the bill, that they recognise the significance of the benefits of screening for the purposes of child protection and dealing with those who are vulnerable, in the area of disability in particular, and understand the reasons behind the need to have a regulatory framework, which now needs to be supplemented by more statute law. Regulations underpinning the operational work of this legislation are on their way. The significance ought not escape the opposition because, as some speakers have outlined, they are the ones who were in government during the period when the benefits of screening were advanced, explored and expanded.

I am not going to go into the whole history of the matter. It is fair to say that during this century the significance of screening for the purposes of the protection of children has been highlighted by royal commissions and various inquiries, as has the need to ensure that there is some effective gatekeeping in relation to people who, for prurient and unlawful purposes, might seek to explore employment or volunteer activity that gives them access to children. They are the ones who have to be screened out.

We have now had over a decade of very clear indicators, from eminent people who have inquired into these matters, of the need to expand the screening systems that we have had in the past and, indeed, extend the application of those screenings. The most recent of these, post the exposure of Shannon McCoole and his successful attempts to get to children via state government agencies, outlined a very sad chapter in South Australia's history. In particular, failings were exposed firstly in an after-school hours care facility, then in an NGO and subsequently in the department under the state government, which he had access to.

Anyone who reads the sections in the Nyland royal commission report that relate to his capacity to access children through the failings, in that instance, of adequate screening and protection would have a very clear and sobering reminder about why we are doing this. As has been alluded to by other speakers, I think minister Bettison at the time supervised subsequent reforms coming out of the royal commission that basically said that we need stricter rules in relation to screening, we have to extend the application regarding who is screened and we are going to have to set some tougher thresholds.

I have paraphrased that, but I think members will get the gist of it. That is exactly what culminated in some legislation. I think that legislation had passed in 2016, so we are now talking about the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016 and the transitional arrangements that related to the child protection initiatives to expand this protective measure.

When the government changed in March 2018, we were nearly two years down the track from when that legislation had passed, and one of the first things I recall when coming into government was the advice to my office that the preparation of the regulations to support these new initiatives recommended by the royal commission, accepted by the previous government, passed by this parliament, was still underway and there was, frankly, no hope in hell of them being completed to commence by 1 July 2018—not a chance in hell.

I was quite disturbed by that. I know that minister Lensink of another place was also very concerned at that news. What had happened in that time frame that had in some way arrested or impeded the swift implementation of important recommendations of this parliament? It became abundantly clear, on the advice that we received, that there were more complications in being able to identify how this regulation was going to apply.

Let me give you an example because I think this is important to recognise. What do you do in respect of a CFS volunteer who goes into a school to rescue children from a fire in their classrooms? Is that a CFS officer who has volunteered, is undertaking his work in the CFS and is undertaking a duty that is going to reasonably bring him into contact with children? The answer to that is, yes, of course it is. He is going to go in and rescue, hopefully, a school full of children.

Was it ever intended that someone in the CFS, expecting to deal with their neighbour's bushfire or help the MFS with a local town issue or rescue children out of a school, needed to have a volunteer check, a working with children check? I do not think so. So as a new government, because of what I thought was already a shameful delay in administering this and implementing it, we had to act as quickly as we could to ensure that we consulted with a number of people who probably previously had not anticipated that they might be captured by the good intentions of legislation.

We needed to make it absolutely clear that we were not going to be prosecuting employers unreasonably or unfairly because, remember, the whole child safety legislation around working with children checks is actually a legal obligation on employers, and indeed there is a prohibition on them employing people or accepting a volunteer into an organisation without the qualification of a volunteer check. In the absence of that, they can not only be fined but it brings their organisation into disrepute and, of course, they are breaking the law. There are obviously obligations on the employee or the volunteer and penalties for them if they attempt to undertake employment or volunteer work without having had their lawful check.

Quite a bit of work had to be done, and I want to thank all those in the Attorney-General's office, the Department of Human Services and the Department for Child Protection, ably led by minister Sanderson, because it has taken a team effort to try to bring this to a landing. Overlapping that was the commitment at the national level that we bring into play the provisions to protect those who are vulnerable arising out of a disability.

The NDIS was going to come into effect. Those who are eligible largely in that area are a cohort of persons who may be vulnerable in the circumstances of sexual exploitation. Therefore, there was a need to set up a regime to ensure that that group of persons, where appropriate, would have equal protection through the application of screening checks. So we had a double job to do. The origins of the law in relation to the new National Disability Insurance Scheme, together with the origins and the development of the law in relation to screenings for children, had started from different sources. They had different journeys and different expectations, so even those had to be married.

It was a choice of the new government to say that we would leave all the disability issues aside and just try to deal with safety in relation to children and progress that, but we were committed to ensure that we did both. Both were needed, of course, especially with the NDIS expanding into the opportunity of a new regime to have the financial benefits that go with it for those people with a disability.

We needed posthaste to deal with that issue as well, so we made a commitment to try to bring that together and bring it to a landing and, I suppose to some degree, set the charge that, 'If you cannot get it done by June, and you say you cannot get it done by December 2018, we want this starting by 1 July 2019.' It is three years since the law passed here in relation to children, and another year since the expected commencement in relation to the disability service. Nevertheless, we cannot just sit on our hands with this. I have had a number of meetings in relation to this, but other people have been doing the heavy lifting and the work to try to bring this to a conclusion, and I want to thank all those in the various departments who have done that.

Overlapping that again was the question of how we implement the government's commitment to provide free screening checks for volunteers. Again, coming into office it was made very clear to us that that would be activated and was achievable, but to be mindful that some people might exploit this offer for volunteers by virtue of avoiding the payment to be made if they were in employment. That issue was explored and that has been the subject of some comment today and of long debates in the other place earlier this week. It is important that we understand what the history has been.

I move then to an indication by a couple of the speakers in respect of volunteers generally. The volunteer situation in South Australia overall is very strong. There are not too many organisations that would not suggest that they would like to have more, but some of our organisations—service clubs and the like—are still expanding, and that is terrific. I think that the level of volunteerism and commitment in our community is immense. We certainly on this side of the house value them. I note that the member for Cheltenham indicated some data from a 2006 inquiry as to the general—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Was it 2016? I had hoped it was 2016. In any event, it suggests again that there is a level of—

The Hon. T.J. Whetstone interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think his concern was that there had been a diminution in volunteer work. I have not experienced that. I think that, in the time I have been in the parliament and enjoyed access to and the invitation of many volunteer organisations, it has in fact been growing. There have been different forms that they have grown in—obviously the more contemporary organisations. In fact, I was down at the member for Lee's electorate the other night for a service club that had graciously invited me to speak at their meeting.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: You didn't call me and let me know.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thought about that on the way, but I was already near a hotel near the now dismantled stadium. I can talk about stadiums for a while, but I will not.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: Stadia.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Stadia—what is left of it. It is just a bit of grass now. It is a bit sad. In any event, they seemed to be a very healthy club, and of course I was pleased to be there. But I will just make this point: they are out there in our community not just at the mature age level but across the spectrum. We have a number of children, for example, who become active in local community volunteerism as part of their own social development and duties for school. All that is great.

The member for Lee suggested that it was such a good idea that they thought about doing it, too. I appreciate his compliments about how good a policy it was. They had even thought about it, but they did not progress it, he told us today, because they had had advice that it was going to be too difficult to implement.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: One of the reasons.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: One of the reasons. I do not know who he got his advice from. We have not had that advice since coming into government, that it is too difficult to implement. In fact, they have got on and done the job as it is necessary to do it. I would be very interested to know. I do not recall the former premier or ministers from the previous government in the lead-up to the last election ever saying, 'We think this is a really good idea, but we're not doing it because, frankly, it's unworkable.' I did not hear anyone say that—for the first time today I have actually heard that that is their excuse—not a word.

Of course, under their regime—as a consequence, remember—all the time we have had screening tests they have charged everybody. They have never given relief to the very people who are volunteering in our community—never. In fact, at that stage I think it was some $68 for three years. It started a bit lower and it certainly increased. As we know, it had the deficiency, I suppose, in that it was a point-in-time type process which, under recommendation, was to move to a continuous monitoring process, which took it to over $100, I think, for five years. Under a new model it was a bit extra but obviously for a longer time—a superior model.

But in all the time the previous government were in office, they did not give credence to what they now say today: 'Good policy. Great for volunteers. It's something that should be available to them.' They did not give them anything. This is the situation: under the previous Labor government, $68 for three years if you are a volunteer; under the current Liberal government, zero continuously, as long as you are a volunteer and not in paid employment. The difference is stark. The public understand this. Those who volunteer, whether they are six or 66, are making a contributing to our community, and we recognise them on our side of the house and we are proud of it.

Another matter I want to mention is the provision of a clawback, as it is claimed, or, as I read in a media release of the shadow minister, we are allegedly dumping our free volunteer screenings, which is a complete lie. It is going to be continuing. What we have highlighted is a model, on the advice that we received, to avoid those few who might try to exploit the system—that is, to use their volunteer work to avoid paying a legitimate employment application process fee. A model has been provided to us.

Unsurprisingly, and I think appropriately, Mr Ross Womersley of SACOSS has raised the question of how that is going to work. Is it going to affect people who might only have part-time employment? Is there a better model by which you can have a cut-off point to define when the employment commenced? As members will have read in the debates in the other place, there was much discussion about whether, on the Labor Party's proposal in another place—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I rise on a point of order and, in doing so, self-incriminate.

Mr DULUK: Point of order, Deputy Speaker.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Standing order—

The SPEAKER: No. Member for Lee, I am anticipating what the member for Waite's point of order is, that is, that the member for Lee is out of his place.

Mr DULUK: Indeed. It is completely unparliamentary to seek a point of order out of your place.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, thank you for that. I will accept the member for Lee's point of order from his place. The member for Lee has the call. So, Attorney, we still have a point of order.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Standing order 120 says:

A Member may not refer to any debate in the other House of Parliament or to any measure impending in that House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: So you are making a point of clarification on your own?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, I am raising the point of order because the Deputy Premier has grievously offended, so shortly after I did, and it is about time you yanked our chains.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I chastise you both. I am sure that now that we are aware of the standing order, the Attorney-General will be far more diligent in her contribution.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As has been repeated in the speeches from the opposition here today, they saw the proposed seven days within 12 months rule, if I can paraphrase it in that way, as being inappropriate, unfair in some way. The Australian Labor Party option, which is not translated into any amendment—we do not have anything before us; nevertheless, it seems to be that what they are pressing for is the basis upon which the proposal in this bill is in some way unfair—is that there be a 150 hours per year threshold. I think it is fair to say that, when considering whether that might be a better test, a lot of work was looked at regarding the application. In fact, a lot of concern has been raised about the time and resources needed to deal with an application.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Point of order: on the same point of order, the Deputy Premier relates to a debate in the other place. There is no amendment filed by the opposition here to give effect to that measure.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are correct. There is no amendment filed.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, there is no amendment filed, but each of the speakers today has highlighted the inequity, apparently, of the seven days in 12-month rule.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Attorney, I will just make a comment on the point of order. Attorney, you are quite right. The opposition has canvassed many criticisms of the legislation and, in closing the debate, the Attorney is within her rights to address those.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Just to seek your counsel further on a point of clarification, Deputy Speaker—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order: is the member dissenting from your ruling?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No. As I said, I seek a point of clarification, which many members have done previously and there is a long precedent in this place for doing so. I take no umbrage with the Deputy Premier referring generally to the remarks that have been made in this place; that is absolutely fine, as she just explained she was doing. The point of order I raised was about the reference to those same remarks which were made in the other place on which you previously ruled. So can I just be sure that that is what your ruling was on, Deputy Speaker?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lee, I have conferred with the Clerk, and I think my comment just a few moments ago, in that the Attorney-General is within order to address the comments and questions that were raised during the opposition's contribution—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: But not referring to it in the other place, as she did.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hear what you are saying, but let's get on with it. It is 5 o'clock.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Perhaps the member for Lee could more diligently listen to the contributions of his colleagues in the debate and he might understand the significance of it.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: I was listening to yours and raising a point of order about yours.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It was highly repetitive, but it was pretty clear, and the clarity with which this was put repeatedly was the very significant theme that in some way the formula that is being applied in this bill to identify the commencement of the period of employment, which would trigger the requirement to make a payment and apply for a paid working check, is one which had been criticised.

We have all received correspondence relating to the SACOSS submissions on this, and they quite reasonably put out their idea about what might work. We have considered that, other people have considered it and it seemed very clear, on the advice we had, that on the practical application of that it was not going to work. Yes, I have made comment that I have not seen that being presented in this parliament but, as to the criticism, I just maintain the position about why we are proceeding with a threshold (hopefully very infrequently used), which we need not only to deal with the potential ill of those who might exploit this situation but also to be able to advance the bill.

I thank the members for their contributions. I am pleased to note that the opposition have indicated their support for the bill. I am hoping that as of 1 July, some three years since the anniversary of the law that we started in this area, we will actually be able to progress and be able to ensure that the passage here today of this bill will enable that to happen.

Just one other matter was raised by one of the speakers (I think the member for Port Adelaide raised this) about the statements made by the Hon. Michelle Lensink in another place. She said that, in terms of the parents volunteering in schools, if you are a parent and you are teaching your own child you would not need to have a check, but if you were there to read to other children you would need a check, that is, a parent in that school. This was made clear later in the debate, so I would urge the member for Port Adelaide to have a look at that because that is not the complete story.

The rest of that is identified when she clarifies that the regulations then make the exemption. I am advised that the scoping of the legislation incorporates them all, but then it is the regulatory carve out, I suppose—if we use that theme—to ensure that we do not unfairly burden the people who go along to provide reading or any other assistance in the school where their children go and where they might be providing a direct service to other children in the school or class. I hope that that will reassure her in respect of that position. Otherwise, I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

The CHAIR: We have 25 clauses with no amendments on file. Do we have questions?

Clause 1.

Ms COOK: Will this bill abolish all fees payable by volunteers for screening?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Save and except for the discussion we had today in relation to these debates as to when there might be an obligation to make a payment upon obtaining employment, the bill itself applies to the protection of children and disability. In relation to aged care, vulnerable people and probity, which are three other areas in which volunteers may work, it is government policy, which has been effective since 1 November 2018, that they do not pay.

In answer to the question of whether this bill applies to all volunteers, no, it only applies to child protection and disability. The other areas are part of our government policy and have been applied since 1 November last year.

Ms COOK: Could I clarify something, and it really is the same question. The only question I am asking pertains to this bill, so that is children and people with a disability. Is that a yes?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes.

Ms COOK: Given that this abolishes all fees payable by volunteers for screening within the scope of this bill, which is about working with children or supporting children and people with a disability, is the government then saying that someone who is in paid employment is therefore unable to access a free check as a volunteer and unable to be a volunteer as such? They are considered a worker.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I hope I do this example justice. If you are an accountant and you are paid—presumably you are, or otherwise you are not a very good accountant—and you do volunteer work, in other words, you are not in an industry of employment that requires you to have a working with children check but you do volunteer work relating to children, you will get a free check. If you are working in an industry with children that requires you to have a check—you are paid and you have your employment check—your volunteer check is paid for in that sense. Did I make that clear?

Ms COOK: Yes. If someone who volunteers, for example, within the scope of this bill at the Red Cross or Guide Dogs SA/NT or anywhere else and they volunteer for 40 hours a week and get paid work for one hour a month, are they not to be considered a volunteer under these circumstances for screening purposes?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Once they have gone past the seven-day threshold and working with children.

The CHAIR: Member for Hurtle Vale—

Ms COOK: This will be my last one on this clause.

The CHAIR: Member for Kaurna, you might be interested to know that this is the fourth question.

Mr Picton: Precedent.

The CHAIR: Not at all. Member for Hurtle Vale.

Ms COOK: Thank you very much. You are very kind, Chair. We are very lucky to have you actually. Given that, does this breach the election commitment to provide free screenings to a volunteer?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have a couple of questions, and one is rudimentary. Does the government have any amendments on file to this bill, or is it just proceeding with the bill as it is?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As the Chair has already advised the committee, there are no amendments being proffered by either side that I am aware of.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: So I take it that this is the model that the government is happy to proceed with.

The CHAIR: Is that a question, member for Lee?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My last question is: when does the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act commence?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: 1 July 2019.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: What is the intended date of commencement?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: 1 July.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: This year? Well, I intend to be around for many more.

The CHAIR: So the answer, Attorney, is 1 July this year.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is proposed to commence with the commencement of the prohibited persons act, which is 1 July 2019.

Clause passed.

Clause 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Could the Deputy Premier, for my benefit, explain the rationale of the changes that clause 4 countenances?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: New section 6(1a), which is what the effect of this clause does, provides that a person does not need a working with children check if the person is engaged in work in the same capacity as a child unless the work is child-related work—for example, if an adult works alongside a child at McDonald's, a supermarket or a bakery. The person does not need a working with children check if the person is an employer or a supervisor of children in a workplace, again, unless the work is child-related work—for example, if an adult employs a child to work at McDonald's.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I appreciate that explanation and more particularly the examples the Deputy Premier gave because they shed some light on this matter for me. In the example of McDonald's, which she gave, I then read the amendment as the service will not mean to be child-related work merely because an adult is working next to a child at McDonald's. Does that mean that the obligations of that employee are not the same as the other obligations conferred by this act on other adults working in child-related services?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It simply means they will not need a working with children check.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Despite the fact that they will be working with children.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Next to children.

The CHAIR: Before we go on, Attorney, could you stand and give your answer again, please, so that we can capture it, your answer to that question.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It simply means they will not need a working with children check.

Mr PICTON: On the same section and similar thought, the Attorney is saying that if you work at McDonald's, for example, and there are children who also work there, this means that you will no longer need to get a working with children check. Does that mean that the Department of Human Services has been applying a standard where, if you worked at McDonald's up until the passage of this, you did need a working with children check?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It was already operating in the previous legislation; it has just simply been moved into this part of the act.

Mr PICTON: What was the rationale to move it to this section of the act?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It was on the advice of parliamentary counsel.

Mr PICTON: Is the Attorney advising the committee that therefore there is actually no real impact from this change and it is merely moving it from something that was already in place in one part of the act to another?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Correct.

Clause passed.

Clauses 5 and 6 passed.

Clause 7.

Ms COOK: What work was undertaken during the passage through the parliament of the Disability Inclusion Act 2018 concerning the reallocation of screening to the functions of the central assessment unit?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Do you mean what determines the anticipation of it being passed? The entity as a unit still exists; this aspect renames it. The name is as was identified for the prohibited persons act.

Ms COOK: That act is about 10 months old. Why was that amendment not pursued then? Why did that not occur at the time?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Because the prohibited persons act does not start until 1 July 2019. It cannot operate until then; therefore, we have to do this now to ensure that marries up.

Ms COOK: How many volunteers does the minister anticipate will be applying annually for free screenings and what is the budget for this?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that the parliament has already been provided with this information, but I will repeat it. The budget for the initiative starting 1 November last year for this financial year is $1.4 million per annum, and I understand that is on track. We will all have to wait for any changes in the announcement of the budget on 18 June.

Ms COOK: Sorry, what were the numbers of volunteers for that?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Sorry, you also asked for the number of volunteers. We do not know the exact number, but all I am indicating is that the estimate that was done on what was coming in for a part year is apparently on track.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The clause inserts a line allowing for this Disability Inclusion Act to apply to perform such other functions as may be assigned to this central assessment unit under that act. Could the Deputy Premier please detail what those other functions may be?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Apparently none so far, of identified functions, other than screening but, of course, it states:

to conduct screenings for the purposes of the…Act…and to perform such other functions as…assigned…under that Act.

That is all it has there so far.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Without asking any hypothetical questions—which would be grossly out of order, sir—is the Deputy Premier telling the house that we are preparing an act of parliament for further amendments that could have consequential outcomes for this central assessment unit? Otherwise, why would you need that redundant clause in there?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I know the member has been here a long time, but that is a normal course. There is no suggestion of it being a drafted amendment; in fact, this avoids drafting further amendments by ensuring that—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The principal purpose of the Disability Inclusion Act coming into this area of screening is to do just that—screen people in that area of vulnerable persons. There may be some ancillary function that goes with it. It may be, for example, that the unit may need to transfer information to another state or something of that nature. There is nothing anticipated at this point, there is no other identified function at this point, and there is nothing I am aware of where that would be utilised, but it will accommodate that if there are some other functions that go with that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If I could just expand on that latest answer the Deputy Premier just gave, am I correct in assuming that the Deputy Premier just said that this clause will enable private information to be shared with other jurisdictions?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: A national scheme is about to be implemented and there is already sharing of data law. The member might recall that it was law that his government actually introduced to ensure that we share certain information. I imagine that would be one of the things that would be covered in relation to this.

It does require publication of any data from South Australia under the legislation that was passed under Mr Rau's sponsorship, which required his permission if it were to be provided outside of government. That is the type of situation I would envisage could occur. There are a lot of laws relating to what you can tell the tax department, too, which we are probably not so happy about anymore.

Mr BROWN: The Deputy Premier gave a budgetary figure earlier. Was that figure net of any increased revenue that the government will receive now that checks will no longer be totally free and that those who have now gained employment will have to pay?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There is no change to that. The money that has been allocated in the budget, in answer to the question by the former member, was the $1.4 million per annum for free volunteer checks, and notice is clear to those who employ people what their obligations are that have to be undertaken.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My question is also in relation to clause 7. Can the Deputy Premier explain why the clause is necessary?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is necessary for the reasons I have previously outlined.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That causes me to ask a subsequent question. Clause 7 amends section 21(1) of the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act and includes a new paragraph (da). Subsection (1) of that act provides: 'The functions of the central assessment unit are,' and then proceeds (a) through to (d). Paragraph (e) provides:

(e) such other functions as may be assigned to the central assessment unit by the Minister under this or any other Act.

If there is already the provision for the central assessment unit to perform other tasks as directed by the minister, why do we need this clause at all?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We need it because this clause actually introduces the screenings for the purposes of the disability act. It adds to it other functions in respect of that act in its assignment. The rest of it relates to the child screenings, so the central assessment unit is there. It has a purpose; it operates. We are adding in the provision for the obligations that are currently being done, but they are under the Disability Inclusion Act. There is no change of actual function. It is happening already, but we are adding it into the legislation to incorporate the obligations under the new disability provisions.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: In that context, it is doubly unusual because we already have a provision in the existing act that enables the central assessment unit to provide the very function that this clause seeks to empower it to do. All it would require is for the minister to instruct the central assessment unit to start conducting screenings for the purposes of the Disability Inclusion Act 2018. In that respect, the clause seems to me to be redundant. Following on from the member for West Torrens' line of questioning, I would say that the second part of new paragraph (da) to be inserted by this clause, which provides:

…to perform such other functions as may be assigned to the central assessment unit under that Act;

is already provided in 21(1)(e). However, there is an important difference. The existing act provides:

…such other functions as may be assigned to the central assessment unit by the Minister...

It is appropriate, as I am sure this parliament has already canvassed, for a minister who is responsible to this place to confer additional and new tasks on a central assessment unit. However, the way in which clause 7 is worded contains no specificity about how the central assessment unit may be directed to perform such other functions. Under new paragraph (da), to whom is it open to direct the central assessment unit to perform such other functions as may be assigned to it?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That would be any minister who is responsible for the Disability Inclusion Act.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: On my reading, there is no reference to the need for a minister. In fact, there is no reference to any level of officer in paragraph (da). It seems that in paragraph (da)—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I know the member wants to make a speech, but I can answer that question.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, but perhaps you can do it at the conclusion of my speech.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to answer that part of the question, which was—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You can do it after I have finished.

The CHAIR: Attorney, the member for Lee is entitled to speak to his question. I am happy for him to do that, but he will get to the question.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you. So, without any specificity about who may direct the unit to perform such other functions as may be assigned to it, the way in which I read this clause is that anyone may direct it to perform these functions. As I previously mentioned, paragraph (da) of course precedes paragraph (e), and indeed it is only (e), which succeeds (da), that makes any reference to the need for the minister to direct the performance of an additional function or duty of the unit. So am I right in reading that it is open to an individual other than the minister responsible for the act at the time to direct the unit to perform another function?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No.

The CHAIR: The member for Kaurna has a question. You have the call.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Lee, you have had your question. Attorney and member for Lee, can you desist, please. The member for Kaurna has the call.

Mr PICTON: I move:

Delete 'and to perform such other functions as may assigned to the central assessment unit under that Act'

As has just been discussed in relation to this clause, clearly the minister and the government do not know why this has been included in the act. They do not have a clear idea of what they are seeking to do here. Clearly, as the member for Lee has pointed out, there are already provisions in the act that could allow for other functions to be assigned, but they would require the approval of the minister, which would be appropriate.

This section, as it has been drafted by the government, does not do that. I think it is appropriate to delete that and keep to the section already in the act that allows things to be assigned with the approval of the minister, rather than use the form the government has proposed here where, presumably, anybody could do it.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Do you have a seconder?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, me. There are more than two of us here.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, do you want to speak to the amendment?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, please, sir. I rise in support of an eminently sensible amendment. I think that what the member for Kaurna has acted upon is the deficiency in the government's drafting uncovered by the member for Lee. The draft legislation is poor and sloppy.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Exactly. Legislation is drafted on the basis of a cabinet instruction. Obviously, the instruction from the cabinet was flawed. That goes again to the leadership of the Premier, but that is another matter altogether. Again, this brings into question the confidence that this house has in the Attorney-General in having carriage of this bill. As the member for Kaurna rightly pointed out, removing the remainder of that sentence from proposed paragraph (da) makes eminent sense. There needs to be reference to a minister.

If there is no reference to a minister, who are we allowing to decide these functions? Who is this nameless person or persons sitting somewhere in a building deciding the fate? The whole point of representative democracy is that someone is accountable, and this legislation needs to make sure that someone is accountable for the decisions that are made. This parliament is entitled to know who the decision-maker is. Unfortunately, it has been left wanting.

I have to say that the government is very light on with legislation, so there is no reason to think that the government could not have spent a bit more time getting this right the first time. Nevertheless, we are here to help remedy the situation and make sure that the legislation that ultimately passes the House of Assembly is fit and proper for purpose. I implore all members of the house to support the member for Kaurna's amendment. I commend it for support.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The government opposes the amendment. I will try to make this crystal clear: it is necessary, for the purposes of the work to be done by the central assessment unit, that we insert into its list of functions the obligations to do screenings in the manner that is identified in the Disability Inclusion Act 2018.

That piece of work, which is now in the list to conduct the screenings by this unit, is coupled with other obligations under that act—that is, the Disability Inclusion Act 2018—as distinct from the other functions that might come in under paragraph (e). Therefore, one of those, I am advised, which is necessary to protect by virtue of this inclusion, is the obligation under that act to enable the sharing into other jurisdictions of other units—that is, assessment units around the country—to comply with the other provisions under that act. That matter was advised to the government to be necessarily included and that is why it was put there by parliamentary counsel, to include that for that purpose.

If this clause is objected to by the parliament and deleted, then it will be wanting in the application of the Disability Inclusion Act of 2018. I ask that members be reassured because, if they read the Disability Inclusion Act 2018, they can see that it is correct. As one of the members said, we are inserting this into a provision to amend the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act because that act lists all the functions of what this unit does, and we are adding to it.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I rise in support of the amendment. As I pointed out, on reading the bill, and the act the bill seeks to amend, it is perfectly clear that the existing act allows the central assessment unit to perform such other functions as may be assigned to the unit by the minister under this or any other act. That would include the Disability Inclusion Act 2018. It would include any function—for example, conducting screenings for the purposes of satisfying the requirements of the Disability Inclusion Act.

The important difference between the bill that has been put by the government and the pre-existing clause is the role of the minister in determining what, if any, other additional functions may be required of the central assessment unit. The Deputy Premier directed my attention and the attention of the opposition to the Disability Inclusion Act 2018, claiming that it was clear in the act that it was the minister who had a central role in determining what extra, if anything, could be done by that act.

Part 6 of the Disability Inclusion Act 2018 deals with the screening of persons working with people with disability, and there is no reference under part 6 to the minister or indeed to any other person. There is a reference to the fact that regulations may set out a scheme for screening checks under the Disability Inclusion Act, which raises a further point of interest of course: if this issue could be resolved by regulation then, again, why are we talking about it here?

I am happy to be corrected by the Deputy Premier if she can identify the particular role of the minister in part 6 of the Disability Inclusion Act 2018, or indeed even if she can furnish me with a copy of the regulations which may or may not exist with regard to screening checks under the Disability Inclusion Act 2018 that specify that role that the minister has directed my attention to.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think the member is firstly—

An honourable member: Does she get another opportunity to—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: You asked me the question.

An honourable member: No, we are debating an amendment.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: My understanding is that the Attorney does have three opportunities to speak to the amendment.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Thank you. We went through this a few weeks ago.

The CHAIR: And the member for Kaurna will also have the opportunity to close debate on the amendment.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The indication of the government remains that we oppose the amendment, having heard the submission of the member in support of the motion, and the question is to try to identify where else the minister would have direction. What I had clearly indicated is that the only person who has a capacity to give direction is the minister who is responsible for the act. That was in relation to the commentary on 'other persons might have that power to do that'. That should not be confused with the now assertion that section 6 of the Disability Inclusion Act—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Part 6, section 19.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Part 6, yes, has a reference and it does have a sharing of responsibility of information but it does not need a minister to do that, it is an obligation under the act.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: So the act can direct the unit, can it?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think if you read here 'functions as may be assigned to the central assessment unit…under this Act'. It has a minister who is responsible for that act, but it also has certain roles under that act that are being referred for implementation by the central assessment unit. I do not think I can make it any clearer. I can see the point of the member to suggest that if we need a catch-all paragraph in (da) why do we need it in (e), or should (e) cover (da) and therefore obviate the need for it? The advice of parliamentary counsel is that that is not the case. We are introducing the obligations in respect of a different act. It has a different reference, and I am advised again today that it is necessary for the purposes of ensuring that that is captured for the work that is undertaken by the central assessment unit.

Mr PICTON: I sum up the debate—unless the Attorney wants to make further contributions—and support the comments of the members for Lee and West Torrens and in particular disagree with some of the comments from the Attorney-General that this is basically absolutely needed. When you look at 21(1)(e) that does have a different drafting to what the government has proposed in 21(1)(da). It is a very different drafting. It does not include the minister. I think that is absolutely the reason why this amendment is necessary. Anything that could be assigned under the Disability Inclusion Act 2018 could be done under the existing 21(1)(e) and that provision already in the act includes specific reference to the minister.

The government, for whatever reason, has decided not to include that in what I see as a duplication in their 21(da), a duplication except in the form that it does not include the minister. I think it is appropriate that parliament should keep the existing paragraph (e) that could allow things to be assigned with the approval of the minister and not support what the government has proposed, which is that when it comes to the Disability Inclusion Act the minister be explicitly not included in that.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 16

Noes 22

Majority 6

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Regarding the insertion of new section 26A—not to steal the member for Lee's thunder—having read section 26, can I ask the Attorney-General what type of offence is not covered in the existing section 26 of the act?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The question is: which ones are not covered by the statute and are proposed to be incorporated in the regulations? They are murder and attempted murder of an adult, manslaughter of an adult, assault or sexual offences not captured by the prescribed offences (that is generally offences against an adult), abduction or kidnapping offences not captured as prescribed offences (again, generally, offences against an adult), animal cruelty offences, drug trafficking offences, fraud and deception offences against a child, national security offences and pending charges for prescribed offences.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I do not have a problem with any of that. I think that seems all very sensible. However, if I look at the existing section 26, which is not being replaced but just being added to with new section 26A in the amendment clause, there is already broad scope to do these checks. Indeed, section 26(3) of the act provides:

(3) In conducting a working with children check, the central assessment unit—

(a) is not bound by the rules of evidence; and

(b) may adopt, as in its discretion it considers appropriate, any findings, decision or judgment of a court or other tribunal;

What I cannot reconcile is what the Attorney just told us, which is that this clause does not capture those convictions when section 26(3)(b) states 'may adopt, as in its discretion it considers appropriate, any findings'. My concern is that whenever you prescribe an offence to be captured you may miss one out.

I would have thought the broader net would be wiser for the parliament to adopt—that is, allow the discretion for any offence, any judgement against any individual, to perhaps rule them out of working with children, rather than having a narrow prescription of offences—unless there is some valid explanation by the Attorney that could differ from that.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The provision here is to ensure that it is made absolutely clear what is to apply for a presumptive disqualification offence, which is defined on page 6 as part of the new section 26A, namely:

Presumptive disqualification offence means an offence, or class of offences, declared by the regulations to be a presumptive disqualification offence (but does not include an offence that is a prescribed offence).

The list I just read out to you is what is going to be covered by the presumptive disqualification offence under the regulations. It is set out, crystal clear, how that is to apply. It is not the most common scenario to have a situation where there is a presumptive test; that is, you have to prove back rather than be proved against. Really, it is a reverse circumstance.

The only other similar arrangement I can think of is when your government introduced a new set of rules on the capacity to suspend a teacher from teaching work when they were charged with an offence and not actually convicted. They might still be awaiting trial, but there is a capacity to deal with it. It certainly makes some assumptions about the matter. In this case, we have special rules that are to include circumstances where an unacceptable risk to children might prevail as a result of that second lot of category of offences.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That makes perfect sense. However, the part I am grappling with again is why it requires an amendment and simply not just an additional regulation. Section 26(4) of the existing act provides:

(4) A working with children check must be conducted in accordance with any other requirements set out in the regulations and the guidelines (however, a failure to comply with this subsection does not, of itself, invalidate a working with children check).

However, if you included or deleted the paragraph parts of subsection (4), I assume you get the same outcome. The only thing I am concerned about is that whenever you prescribe an offence you are bound to miss something out, whereas the broader discretion you give those charged with child protection include not being bound by the rules of evidence, and that is fair enough. It has a discretion to consider appropriate any findings, any decision or judgement. That could include, I imagine, a decision by the DPP to charge someone, but not necessarily be prosecuted.

I would have thought the broader the scope the better rather than narrower, but I think the Attorney-General has answered it in the way she is going to answer it again, which is that they want to make it crystal clear. My only concern comes down to whether the regulations can add further offences without requiring a legislative remedy? That is, if something comes to the attention of the Attorney or the relevant minister, an offence that has not been prescribed in the act or in the current regulations, can it be added and still have the same effect at a later date, or do we leave it as broad as possible to start with so that we can capture everyone?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that there is an intergovernmental NDIS agreement which requires us to make provision for this circumstance of unacceptable risk in certain circumstances where there is a presumptive disqualification offence to apply. I think it is important that we do identify and have it very prescriptive.

Another thing is that it is not the usual type of law to, I suppose, deal with things before there have been final conclusions. In that regard it is, I think, very important that it is crystal clear to whoever is reading this legislation for the purpose of identifying their obligations under the act. It is possible—the member might be right—that we could just add on a subclause to section 26. That is a possibility.

But we are advised that this is important for the purposes of dealing with two different sets of cohorts, that is, a whole list of presumptive offences that relate to children (I did not read those out, but you get the gist of them—they are the same: murder/manslaughter of a child, etc.), and there is this other group that relates to those circumstances that can be dealt with by regulation as per new section 26A.

So I think it is important that we accept the advice on this. We certainly do not want to be in default of our obligation under the NDIS obligations, but equally it is very important—and I have maintained this the entire time I have been here in the parliament—that we are crystal clear in the statute and not just say that down the track you can go off and check with the regulations. They are obviously designed for flexibility and those opportunities, but we are dealing with an unusual principle in the law, and I think it is even more important that we be absolutely prescriptive in this provision.

Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. V.A. Chapman.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My question relates to the initial advice that the Deputy Premier provided in response to questioning on this clause about the list of offences to which this clause refers. Can I ask how that list was compiled? What assessment was undertaken for which offences should form part of that list?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It was part of an intergovernmental agreement in relation to the NDIS screening.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Was it subject to any of the consultations conducted for the purposes of bringing this bill to the parliament?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I should add that it is designed of course to have consistency in relation to the application of the act, presumably, in the other jurisdictions. Could you just repeat the question?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sorry, I missed that last part.

The CHAIR: From the Attorney, could you repeat the question, please?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sorry. It is confusing of me to ask the Deputy Premier to repeat the question that she was seeking. Anyway, we will move on.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Ask me again.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, I will. I am just trying to ensure I have the same wording that I had previously.

The CHAIR: This is not an additional question.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Indeed. Yes, it is the same one. I keep my third in reserve.

The CHAIR: As you should.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My second question for the Deputy Premier on clause 8 is perhaps preceded with a brief comment. I note that, unlike what we have seen in clause 7, where there is an element of discretion for the purposes of the central screening unit being able to undertake such other functions, there does not appear to be any room in the wording of clause 8 for someone—a minister or someone else—to provide any discretion to add or subtract offences as may be needed from time to time.

I raise that, firstly, in light of the Deputy Premier's first response in which she advised that the list of offences replicates the list of offences that have been agreed between jurisdictions in an intergovernmental agreement. If a need was identified by jurisdictions to amend that intergovernmental agreement, I presume then that we would have to come back and amend the act. Should there be an incident or a type of offending that emerges in the South Australian community that turns the public's and the parliament's mind to needing to place some further restrictions around what somebody who is charged with or guilty of a particular offence that is not countenanced in the lists that the Deputy Premier has raised, do I understand that for both of those two scenarios we would need to come back and amend the legislation?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, and again I direct the attention of the member to new subsection (4), which sets out very clearly that the 'presumptive disqualification offence' means offences, etc., declared by regulation. It has the flexibility within it, as I had advised the member for West Torrens.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My next question—I will not be so bold as to call it a third in case you forget it is—is: have regulations been drafted to give effect to this list of offences? When is it envisaged that such regulations may come into effect?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The regulations in relation to this operation have not yet been drafted, but I am advised that it is expected that they would be ready for operation to commence on 1 July 2019, assuming of course we ever get this regulation through. I will say there is a significant other body of work in relation to regulations which is currently before the Legislative Review Committee, I think. The large body of work has already been done, I think it is fair to say, in relation to working with children checks, and is over for their consideration at the moment.

Mr PICTON: My understanding of this clause, from reading it and also from listening to the Attorney's contribution, is that essentially there is going to be a list of offences where usually there would have been some assessment made as to whether that person could get a check or not get a check, but now, by nature of this and the resultant regulations, there is going to be an automatic determination that they will not be able to get a check because of those offences.

Given that the Attorney and the government presumably know what the list of offences are, and that they also know what working with children checks are out there and the number of people who would have had one of those offences and still been able to get through the net to get a working with children check, does the government have an estimate of how many fewer approvals there would be once this section is in operation for working with children checks?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In answer to the first question, yes. I qualify that simply by saying that, as per the presumptive process, they can put their case to try to turn that around. In relation to the second question, we do not have any estimate of that at this stage, but it is expected to be a similar number to those that we revoke, which is less than 1 per cent.

Mr PICTON: I presume therefore that there is a percentage of checks, even if it is less than 1 per cent, that will now have a very quick process, whereas before they would have had a lengthy process. I presume that, given the complexity of these cases, it would have involved quite a lot of staff time. Does the government have any estimation as to what the impact of resourcing is going to be? Is this going to free up resources by enabling less time to assess those applications that presumably might have been quite tricky beforehand because it will now be a much quicker process, as we have outlined in the first question?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In short, there may be some cases that are dealt with expeditiously, but work still has to be done to get the information for the police check and undertake the work to do it. Secondly, remember that we are not saying that there is an automatic rejection. There is a rejection, but with a right to be able to argue, in which case there may well be those that come forward. Regarding the estimate, though, my advice is that there will be no net saving in relation to the application of this.

Clause passed.

Clause 9.

Mr BOYER: The bill contains an amendment to make volunteer screenings free for people working less than seven days. Could the Attorney perhaps explain how the government actually came up with seven days as the figure?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Largely for ease of application. It would be consistent with already a seven-day rule, if I can put it in that regard, in the act in relation to the application of obligation to have a screening check within a seven-day working period. It is consistent with a threshold and time period that is already in the act; this would be consistent with it.

Mr BOYER: Can I take from that answer from the Attorney that the decision to choose seven days is more around aligning that with another part of the act than about the volunteer's capacity to pay whatever fee they will be asked to pay once they have worked what could potentially be one hour per day for seven days?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, ultimately those who thrashed this out in the other place took that view, and we agree with it.

Mr BOYER: I wonder if the Attorney could tell us what consultation, if any, was done with groups other than those who are represented in this place about coming to that seven-day figure?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think the list has been made, but I do not know how many people were consulted in 2016. I can hardly remember the detail of those debates. When the previous government introduced the legislation which set the first seven-day rule, I cannot answer who was consulted in that regard. I know that in relation to the regulations which we have been working on—I know the previous government for two years and us for about 14 months—there has been very extensive consultation because we had to deal with such issues as volunteers in the CFS and whether they are required to have checks. So there has been very extensive consultation, but as to why that first seven-day rule was set by the previous government I do not know. You will have to ask some of these people sitting down the front here.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Perhaps I could add that it must have been such a good idea from the previous government that we accepted it.

Ms COOK: Under the government's bill as it stands, someone could receive a free volunteer screening, then volunteer, say, for three years, then they could work at a school canteen for half an hour a day for eight days, and the minister would then be insisting that they pay their $107.40, or whatever the fee is at the time, which will obviously change, even if that person after working those eight shifts at a canteen has to then go back and do full-time volunteering?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is correct, save and except that it is not the minister who will do that; the consequence of that is that there a legal obligation on the part of the person you refer to, under the act, and they may be subject to a conviction penalty if that is to apply.

Ms COOK: Again, to be clear, somebody who is able to secure work on a minimum wage could be forced to pay the government's prescribed fee of whatever it is—$107.40—for a new screening, and that new screening is exactly the same as the current screening that they have as a volunteer in everything but name. So they might have the opportunity to only earn $150.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The obligation is to have the next check which will then run for the next five years.

Ms COOK: Basically, based on the figures I gave before on their earnings, it is ostensibly a 70 per cent tax on their earnings, because that is what they have to pay out.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I cannot advise on tax matters, but the person, if they do undertake employment within the terms of this qualification, has an obligation to have a paid check and, once they have graduated from that or passed it as such, it will apply for five years.

The CHAIR: This will be your last question, member for Hurtle Vale.

Ms COOK: In respect to some of the language we have heard—we have heard talk about rorting, extortion and references to what potentially people might do—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

Ms COOK: Yes, you did.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

Ms COOK: Exploitation, yes; anyway, the way it has been described, is it your testimony that a person, a volunteer, could plan to get employed in three months, so take all the bother to get a free volunteer check so they can avoid paying a hundred bucks in three or four months' time as a paid worker?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, I do not proffer to identify who might be motivated to exploit an advantage that is put out for volunteers. The clear intention of the legislation is there. There is an opportunity that has been brought to our attention where it may be exploited—in other words, taken advantage of—when they have an obligation like everyone else who is in paid employment to have a check.

I think the member used an example of a surf lifesaving volunteer who might do their learn-to-swim work for a couple of weeks a year and get paid. Under the current regime, under the previous government's regime, they would have to pay for their check for those two weeks, and it would have its applicability for less time and so on; it is a bit of a lower standard of check. I do not mean that detrimentally or rudely; I mean it in the sense that we have now expanded it so that it is real-time rather than fixed in time, etc.—continuous monitoring.

There is nothing new about that; that is exactly what they had to do under the previous regime. But there is the concern that has been brought to our attention about those who might circumvent their obligations in respect of seeking paid employment working with children, and that is exactly what this is designed to attend to.

Mr SZAKACS: Attorney, the bill contemplates a scenario where the fee remission under new section 33A(1) ceases in the event that the person works with children in a capacity other than as a volunteer. Could you please advise what circumstances or arrangements that may be considered to be, other than volunteering?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Paid employment.

Mr SZAKACS: In your answer, Attorney, and in various other contributions, both in debate and answers, the words and definitions interchangeably have been used between employment, as paid employment, work and remuneration. To what statutory definition does the Attorney point for the clarification of employment?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think remuneration is clear. Remuneration is the benefit received for the purposes of undertaking an act, usually work. As to the definitions of worker employment, I will see whether there are some in the primary act. But if there has been any interchange of the terms 'paid work' or 'remunerated work' or 'paid employment' or 'remunerated employment', we will check the definition, but the act specifically in this area defines it in relation to work, and that is the word used here.

Mr SZAKACS: In your response, you referred to work and also remuneration. Are there any circumstances where somebody could be undertaking work—for the purposes of your response—that does not involve paid monetary remuneration?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In short, the volunteers act defines honorarium and specifically makes provision for that not to be treated as remuneration for the purposes of disqualifying as an employment, as a remuneration. I refer you to section 6 of the principal act, that is, the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016, which sets out: 'For the purposes of this Act, a person will be taken to work with children if,' and it lists three circumstances.

Mr SZAKACS: Section 6 refers to employment, and you have just referred to honorarium. Would you please clarify any examples that you gave where there would be an interchange between employment and honoraria?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will repeat what I said. Honoraria are defined in relation to the volunteers act, which sets out the distinction between honorarium and remuneration for the purpose of employment or paid work.

Mr SZAKACS: There are multiple acts that talk about work.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I understand that. I am pointing out to you that, for the purpose of definitional guidance, the volunteers act sets out some of that important background. It obviously—and I think helpfully—deals with the question of honorarium. I am advised that honorarium is not treated for the purposes of this legislation as introducing the threshold of undertaking paid employment. In other words, honorarium is not taken into account for that purpose because it is in the volunteers act and that is very clear. In relation to section 6, we are talking about the 2016 act.

Mr BROWN: Attorney, if a person who has a reasonable expectation that they will only work for a period of seven days over a coming 12-month period takes on employment and then they are subsequently engaged for an additional period of a few days after they have worked for seven days for the same employer, when are they required to apply for an additional check?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If they are a volunteer and they undertake work, once they get to the seven days they have to apply and pay and they have 28 days to make that application. Alternatively, if they have not already had a check done or it is not current, then they have to apply within seven days.

Mr BROWN: I might just clarify the first part of my first question. I am talking about someone who has paid employment for a period of seven days over a 12-month period. They expect to only work for seven days. They only work for seven days and it is paid employment, not as a volunteer. They subsequently get further employment with the same employer, so they expect to only work for seven days, but it turns out to be longer than seven days. When do they need to pay the fee for an employment check?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: They have done their seven days. They have to apply and pay. If they are not intending to do other work but they then do, of course they are covered because they are covered for five years. If they do not want to run the risk of that, I suppose they only work 6½ days, but that is up to them. The threshold is set at seven days. It is consistent with what was put in the act in 2016.

Mr BROWN: Employees having a reasonable expectation that they will only work a seven-day period in the coming 12 months enables them to actually begin paid employment with an employer and not have to pay the full fee. They can still get it for free as a volunteer as long as they have a reasonable expectation that it will be less than seven days; is that correct?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes.

Mr BROWN: My third question relates to the obligation of employers to keep records. Will an employer need to keep records of the number of days that people have worked specifically for this purpose to make sure they do not fall foul of the act? I note that it says here 'a person who fails to comply'. I assume that means the employer as well as the employee. Is that correct?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No. In relation to the eligibility for free volunteer service, which is the parameter of what we are talking about, all the obligation is on the employee in relation to the fee payable where a volunteer undertakes paid employment. The employer is already under all sorts of other obligations. They are not allowed to let people in the door of their organisation, paid or unpaid, until they have had a proper lawful check, otherwise they are severely penalised, and that is as it should be and that is clearly the law. That does not change at all. This is a situation where we are giving a person, who is a volunteer, a special arrangement. If they work for seven days, they move out of that special arrangement and they have an obligation to apply and pay.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Can the Deputy Premier explain how the department will assess whether work has indeed occurred?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think it is going to be a question here of establishing if there is to be an allegation made to support that a person has failed to comply with the section, because it is an offence here. The obligation is to establish just that. That is a matter for them.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: What, if any, compliance activity will be undertaken by the unit in assessing whether unreported work has occurred? What resources are being provided for that compliance and follow-up activity?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Firstly, it is expected that it would be a complaint-based arrangement, presumably someone who is a work colleague who says, 'Have you got your check?' It could be an employer who says, 'It is a working with children industry. You have been here for seven days, you are staying on and we want to see your working with children check.' Obviously, they have a liability if they do not. But if it is complaint based, then there would be an investigation, and potentially prosecution of the matter would be raised.

It is an expiable fee, of course, in the first instance, which I would anticipate to be the most likely matter, unless someone had worked for years, for example, and had not obtained their check. I imagine there would be all sorts of people being prosecuted including the employer. But in relation to the benefit here for a failure to pay, there would be an investigation and then a non-compliance process undertaken. There has not been any proposed extra funding allocated for it.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I appreciate the Deputy Premier's advice that essentially this clause relies on an honesty system from volunteers. For those who are thought to be dishonest, it requires a complaint to be lodged by someone alerting the unit to the fact of that person having conducted work above the prescribed amount in the new section 33A.

My third question, though, relates back to the issues that the member for Cheltenham was canvassing in trying to nail down a definition of what constitutes work. Of course, the term 'work' does not imply remunerated employment. Indeed, we have a definition here which is not defined by the bill. It is not defined by the act that the bill is seeking to amend. As the Attorney has advised, the only guidance we seem to have is from a third act, the volunteers act, which talks about honoraria, which if I am correct usually apply to some payment made by an organisation for somebody, for example, conducting the duties of an office bearer of that organisation.

If you are the secretary of a surf lifesaving club, to use the Deputy Premier's own example, you may be entitled to a small honorarium for the effort you put into maintaining the paperwork of that organisation for the term of service. Without wanting to put words in the member for Cheltenham's mouth, the reason why this issue of what constitutes 'work' is so important is because it is commonly held that work is not exclusively remunerated employment.

Work can be exertion for a desired outcome; for example, I worked all day over a hot barbecue at the local footy club or I put a lot of effort in—I worked—all day pulling up the tiles at my local surf lifesaving club so that we can lay down some more contemporary and fit-for-purpose flooring solution. That is what most people would consider to be work, not necessarily remunerated employment.

The problem we have is we do not have a definition here of what legally constitutes work, as far as I can gather from the responses that have been provided. We have many hundreds of thousands of situations where volunteers are engaged in 'work' that may or may not be remunerated in the context of providing that work and, in doing so, are seen legally to be 'working' with children.

I am sorry that is a long preamble, but I hope it identifies some of the infelicities in the drafting of this particular part of the clause relying on the term 'work' rather than 'remunerated employment'. I am hoping that the Attorney can perhaps provide some further and better particulars about how work would be defined by the unit in making a claim against somebody who had received a screening check, who had not paid for that screening check, who had someone at the local surf lifesaving club conduct some effort—or 'work'—of dobbing in to make sure that person had to pay the $100-odd back.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I can confidently say the example of exertion that has been presented by the member has nothing to do with work or employment. To the questions that were raised by the member relating to the use of the words work, employment and remuneration, I hope I helped him understand that, in relation to remuneration, the volunteers act is a helpful guide. It specifically deals with honoraria, so that is not captured. In relation to work and employment, I am a little surprised the member does not remember the quite extensive debates about this in the principal act, which we are now amending and which was introduced by his government back in 2016, when we finalised it.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I was probably working.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, you would have been listening attentively to your colleagues in the parliament, no doubt. Regarding the provisions in the principal act, I invite you to have a look at sections 6 and 7, which relate to the definitional clauses, and identify what I thought a rather curious description at the time, that is, a definition of work with children, which is defined in subsection (3). The meanings of employed, employee and employer are explicitly set out in section 7. I hope that clarifies that for the member.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It does not, because 'employed' and 'work' are separate concepts.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It was your act.

Mr PICTON: I just have a question initially on the same lines in terms of what this definition of work is, particularly relating to volunteer work as well. I am aware that there are particular volunteers who may be with the CFS or SES, for example, and who, if they become injured at work, would receive payments under workers compensation. If they are doing so, my reading of that would be that they have moved from volunteering to being remunerated. Would a person in that situation have to then apply to get a new screening check? If they did not do that because they were off from their volunteering and being remunerated, would they be subject to the potential $5,000 maximum penalty under this section?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Just so I am clear about this, are you inquiring in relation to a person who is in employment and currently in receipt of return to work payments or are you dealing with a volunteer?

Mr Picton: A volunteer.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In those circumstances, if they were a volunteer, I do not see that there would be eligibility for a return to work payment. They can be volunteering separately, but if they are actually an employed person who has a return to work entitlement because of the nature of their injury within the entitlement under that act—

Mr Picton: I think you might want to check that.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is why I am asking whether we are talking about someone who is actually employed at the time or whether they are a volunteer.

Mr Picton: Volunteers can get return to work payments from the CFS.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I appreciate that. Is that what you are referring to, in relation to someone who is a volunteer who is receiving a workers compensation payment via the Return To Work Act because they are volunteer the CFS; is that the question?

Mr Picton: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The advice I am receiving is that they are still treated as a volunteer. If they are a volunteer who does not receive remuneration in paid employment in that process then they are only working as a volunteer.

Mr PICTON: In my remaining two questions I want to focus on new section 33A(4), in which the penalty that is going to be applied to volunteers who do not comply with this is a maximum penalty of $5,000 for the volunteer. That is a bit of a sting in the tail under this legislation, particularly when it comes to appropriately doing paperwork: 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.'

What this is setting forth is a very complex set of arrangements where you have to clearly be appropriately counting the number of days you are working, and then you have a set number of days—which I understand is 28 days—to therefore apply and pay for an employee check rather than a volunteer check. If you do not do that, bang, we can prosecute you for $5,000 or will expiate you for $315.

Given that, and given that we are actually trying to help volunteers—I thought that was the whole objective of this act—what are the provisions that the Attorney and the government are considering for what the leniency would be in those circumstances? How lenient is the department going to be with people who have forgotten to do this, or with people who may not have realised they have done seven days, who may not have realised they have done this in total?

I guess I am thinking of someone, say, who is down at my Moana Surf Life Saving Club who has had a volunteer check and then starts in an area of employment that may relate to children. I think that is a particularly vague proposition as well. They may not necessarily know that they have been caught under this section. What is the leniency that is going to be applied by the department to that person before they start issuing fines and before they start prosecutions?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I suppose we will take some guidance from the other jurisdictions around Australia that have already applied this. I am advised that works quite well in the sense of people understanding what their obligation is. If there is anything that is very clear, it is about the principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Of course, imagine the departments that employed Shannon McCoole, for example, that failed to properly screen him.

There is a clear statutory obligation that has been operating for many years, that if you work with children you have to have a paid test. We have offered a relief of that payment for the purposes of volunteer work, but that obligation is out there. I have not so far heard an excuse from employees or employers, 'I just didn't know I had to do this and therefore I don't think I should be punished.' Try telling that to the tax department.

Mr PICTON: In relation to this, given that the Attorney has outlined that she thinks that there are similar provisions in place in other states whereby volunteers could be fined if they do not seek a separate payment for an employee check if they start paid employment, can the Attorney outline what research she has done into the provisions in other jurisdictions that apply in terms of how many people have been charged in other states?

Also, how many expiation notices have been issued and what has the quantum of those charges and findings been, both for prosecutions that have been laid and for expiation notices that have been issued against volunteers in the same manner that the Attorney and the government want to issue them against volunteers in this state?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: To be clear in relation to the other jurisdictions—that is, those that have the obligation to have continuous monitoring services under the five-year arrangement that now operates in a number of jurisdictions around Australia—people know what their obligations are and employers have a very steep penalty if they employ anybody, paid or unpaid, without getting that. I think there is a very clear understanding in the community about that. As to the question of the provisions that are to apply, we are talking here about volunteers who engage in work and who have an obligation to pay the fee if they get to the seven-day mark. They then have another 28 days to apply to pay that. That is the obligation.

Mr PICTON: How many have been done in other states? How many people have been charged in other states?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In relation to people who have proceeded to work without getting their check, I do not know. I am not even sure what we have here already. We do not have a number here for people who have been charged for failing to get a working with child check.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The Volunteers Protection Act defines a volunteer as someone who receives no remuneration for work. However, a person who carries out community work under a court order or a condition of a bond is not regarded as working on a voluntary basis. I wonder if that applies to welfare benefits such as Work for the Dole.

If someone is receiving a commonwealth benefit under Work for the Dole and to receive that benefit they are instructed to work in the location or vicinity of children, are they in breach of the act because they receive remuneration? The volunteers act specifically rules them out as being volunteers. However, to receive their benefit they must carry out the work issued by the relevant commonwealth department that issues those payments. Could the Deputy Premier inform the house whether those people who are on those allowances will be asked to either pay a fee or expiate a notice?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In relation to a community service order, the advice I have received is that would be treated as a volunteer in non-paid employment. So, for the purposes of this issue in clause 9, doing seven days of a community service order would not accrue the responsibility of paying the fee. If it helps, in relation to other jurisdictions that provide a fee-free benefit to volunteers, I am advised that New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland all offer a fee-free check for volunteers.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order: relevance. The question was about people receiving welfare benefits.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: And community service.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes. I said 'bonds'—people undertaking community service or receiving welfare benefits, such as Work for the Dole. Obviously, Work for the Dole programs stipulate where that work is done.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Work for the Dole is a commonwealth benefit. Just because it directs that a person has to undertake work at a particular venue does not elevate it to the state of being employment.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is Work for the Dole—to work for the dole.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am just putting the position in the way I would read it. In discussing this, with the advice that I have in relation to this matter, the expectation is that it would not attract 'employment' for the purposes of commencing the seven-day rule that refers to this section.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The Deputy Premier has made it clear to the committee that someone in a Work for the Dole program, who is directed to work and receives a benefit, a payment, for that work for a period of longer than seven days, would not be required to pay the fee. My second question goes to the expiation notice. Who issues the expiation notice?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: My understanding is that it would be referred to the prosecution unit. I do not have the particulars of that, other than the fact that the expectation is that it would go to the prosecution unit.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The prosecution unit of SAPOL?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes. There is only one.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So police would be charged with issuing expiation notices on the basis of someone having worked in paid employment for more than seven days who had been volunteering in the prescribed areas with children.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: And who failed to pay.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: And who failed to pay for the clearance. Given that the burden is on the volunteer, what is the reporting mechanism that these organisations have to put in place? I am trying to understand exactly how this is even workable. If you volunteer, you are not in paid employment. As others have raised, if you conduct your work and 11 months later you gain employment, you are in breach of the act. Obviously, there is a burden on the individual to report that immediately and pay a fee.

If you volunteer in January and you get paid employment in November, the government is passing legislation that requires you—even though you have not volunteered again—to front up somewhere and pay a fee. If you do not pay that fee, there is a $5,000 fine, or you can expiate it, plead guilty and pay $315 to the Crown. What is the mechanism in place for investigating those breaches? Is it a criminal investigation? Is it a civil inquiry? Who conducts those investigations? Who enforces this?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thought I had made this quite clear earlier in the questioning on this. Our understanding is that it is expected to be on a complaints basis; that is, a work colleague or an employer might tell the person to report or say to them, 'You have done your seven days. Have you paid your fee?' A complaint would go in, as frequently occurs now.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: To who?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: To the department, the screening unit. 'Does this person have their screening assessment? I have reason to believe that they are staying in my volunteer arrangement, but they have started working and they have not made that application.' They check with the employee; there might have been some misunderstanding. If it appears to be a breach, it goes to the compliance unit.

They might report the matter and say, 'Here's the evidence,' and the person who has not presented any argument to the contrary is issued the notice. It is an expiation notice, so it is an on-the-spot fine type of situation, and they either pay or they do not. If they do not, then of course they go through a court process like anything else.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.