STATUTES AMENDMENT (ASSESSMENT OF RELEVANT HISTORY) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 12 November 2013.)

The Hon. J.S. LEE (12:41): I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition on the Statutes Amendment (Assessment of Relevant History) Bill. This bill (introduced by the Attorney-General) is to amend the Children's Protection Act 1993, the Disability Services Act 1993 and the Spent Convictions Act 2009.

Firstly, I refer to the amendment to the Children's Protection Act 1993. The bill introduces an obligation to assess 'relevant history' for screening those who work or volunteer with children, which amends the Children's Protection Act 1993. Therefore, rather than just 'criminal history' as it currently stands, it is amended to 'relevant history'. 'Relevant history' is broadly defined in the act for the purpose of an assessment undertaken by a person or body authorised to do so under the regulations made under the act. Presently, only the screening unit in the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion is so authorised. This amendment will explicitly permit a broad range of information to be taken into account by this screening unit, including information held by government agencies.

In terms of amendment to the Disability Services Act 1993, the screening provisions relating to those that work or volunteer in the disability services sector introduced in the Disability Services Act 1993 closely mirror the screening provisions in the Children's Protection Act. This includes introductions of an obligation to assess 'relevant history'.

In terms of amendment to the Spent Convictions Act 2009, the government recently signed the intergovernmental agreement for a national exchange of criminal history Information for people working with children (IGA) which seeks to facilitate the exchange of information with other jurisdictions for the purpose of screening those who work or volunteer with children. The bill amends this act to facilitate the operation of the IGA.

The IGA supersedes and replaces the memorandum of understanding signed by the states, territories and the commonwealth and the Council of Australian Governments. South Australia is a party to the IGA and the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion screening unit has also been accepted for inclusion as an authorised screening unit under the IGA.

The premise for introducing the Statutes Amendment (Assessment of Relevant History) Bill is presented by the Attorney-General as seeking to strengthen the legislative framework for screening individuals who work or volunteer with children, and to put similar measures in place for those who work or volunteer with vulnerable adults through amendments to those acts, and also for those who work in the public sector more generally.

It is, of course, important to all of us that we should be doing everything possible to promote safety and wellbeing of the most vulnerable in our community. Children, young people, frail senior citizens, adults with physical disabilities or mental impairment are among the most vulnerable. These people definitely need more protection. Parents, caregivers and family members should be confident that organisations providing services and activities to their children, young people and vulnerable adults are taking all reasonable steps to safeguard their safety and wellbeing. There is no doubt that proper screening of people who work or volunteer with them is a significant preventative measure that contributes to safety and wellbeing of our most vulnerable.

The Attorney-General wrote to each member of parliament, and his letter informed members that the government has established a cross-reference working group which arose out of the state government signing an intergovernmental agreement for the National Exchange of Criminal History Information for People Working with Children, which sought to facilitate the exchange of information with other jurisdictions, specifically for the purpose of screening those who work and volunteer with children.

The member for Bragg, Vickie Chapman, in the other place, expressed her disappointment in her second reading speech in which she rightly pointed out that on the face of it, the purpose of advancing this legislation and going through this rather unusual process where the bill is tabled and introduced and having a review process (which all has to quickly come together before December for cabinet to consider things) made her, as well as the opposition team, very suspicious about the bona fides of the government on this bill and its intention regarding the protection of children.

Of course we cannot blame ministers or government departments for people in the community behaving badly to hurt others or take advantage of those who are vulnerable. However, people in those powerful positions have the responsibility to protect children and vulnerable adults so they do not become victims of the sometimes obscene conduct of nasty people in the community. What ministers and government departments are responsible for, and need to be held to account on, is when they know about such conduct or know about the risk to a child or vulnerable person—they know the risks, they know the problems and, yet, they do not do anything about it. That is the real issue here.

No doubt all honourable members are aware of some of the most horrible incidents of abuse and cover-ups that have taken place in South Australia. Indeed, in the last year we have had almost daily exposure to circumstances in which children have been ill treated, sometimes on the premises of government-run entities, and there have been a variety of failures on the part of the government not only to properly protect a child from further inappropriate conduct but also leaving other children at risk.

Parents with children and families with vulnerable adults in care are feeling uneasy about the current situation and some are living in fear. As the member for Unley and the member for Bragg have pointed out in their contribution to this bill, we have had circumstances where inappropriate conduct and abuse has occurred on school grounds and in private facilities. Children are left at risk in circumstances known to the authorities responsible for them in Housing Trust accommodation, for example, in school environments, sometimes in institutional care and sometimes on buses.

Even more shocking was that we have had circumstances where children on school grounds were accused falsely of committing offences such as accessing pornography, then money was paid as some kind of compensation and expected to execute contracts with a confidentiality clause to keep things covered up and hush-hush.

The Liberal Party has supported a screening process. We have even supported the expansion of that to volunteers because, on this side of politics, we have understood the significance of access to children and the examples that have been exposed, whether they are volunteers in care organisations for children, foster carers or people who are in positions of trust in organisations that include children, such as sporting clubs or a community activity.

Screening processes for people who work or volunteer with children and young people, the aged and other vulnerable adults, are currently in operation in South Australia. A scan of those arrangements suggest that they are ad hoc and inconsistent in their operation and application. We recognise that having screening processes is important, and the core objective of this is to provide that additional safeguard and protection.

However, we can have all the screening processes, all the detection processes and all the reporting processes in the world, but they are not going to help much unless we also ensure that there are resources for properly trained people to follow things through. Otherwise, it defeats the purpose because of the deficiencies in the detection and prosecution of matters without actually achieving the protection we are trying to achieve.

While I would like to indicate that the opposition is not opposing this bill, I would like to refer to the concerns raised by the Law Society. The Law Society acknowledged the importance of the protection of children; however, they would like members of parliament to consider the point that people are not inappropriately denied the right to work in particular environments. The submission by the Law Society emphasises the need to look at the width of the definition of 'relevant history', the use of the information and the procedural fairness of what is to apply.

The Law Society takes the view that it would be inappropriate for uncontested or unproven information to be used against an individual. It is not simply adequate to say that it has been lawfully obtained—that is, there has not been any breach of the law for the party who has received or recorded that information; it has to have some level of integrity in its reliability for it to be depended on.

The Law Society acknowledges that not everyone who is acquitted or has had charges withdrawn is innocent; however, the problem is that not all information gathered in the process of an investigation or by any other means is accurate or reliable. They go on to say:

Of course, we want our children protected. At the same time, an innocent individual should not suffer a life industrial ban because someone lied about him or her.

The Law Society's remedy at least to be considered in this process is that if legislation is introduced the bill should include a review or an appeal process in addition to the important provisions for procedural fairness. How that is to be done is obviously a matter that can be considered as to whether we use our current administrative legal processes or not. We believe the Law Society has raised some important aspects, and the importance of that needs to be seriously considered by the Attorney-General. I believe honourable members recognise that we should be doing everything possible to promote the safety and wellbeing of the most vulnerable in our community.

If this bill is intended to strengthen the legislative framework to restore trust and confidence in parents, caregivers and family members about organisations and government entities providing services and activities for their children, young people and vulnerable adults, and if this bill is to ensure that we are taking all reasonable steps to safeguard the safety and wellbeing of those most vulnerable in our community by amending the Children's Protection Act, the Disability Services Act, and the Spent Convictions Act, if that is the intent and purpose of the bill, then I am pleased to indicate that the opposition supports the passage of this bill.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (12:54): I believe there are no further second reading contributions and I thank the opposition for the indication of its support for this bill. The bill introduces for the first time in this state a legislative framework to screen people who work or volunteer in the disability sector, by amending the Disability Services Act, and further enhances the existing arrangement of the Children's Protection Act 1993 for screening those who work or volunteer with children. It makes a number of other amendments as well. It is a bill that obviously helps improve the protection of our most vulnerable, and I look forward to dealing with it expeditiously through committee.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Amendment No 1 [AgriFoodFish–1]—

Page 3, lines 20 and 21 [clause 5(6)]—Delete subclause (6) and substitute:

(6) Section 8B(7)—delete 'Regulations made for the purposes of this section' and substitute:

The regulations

This amendment is a straightforward drafting issue, recommended by the Attorney-General's Department. It simplifies the regulation-making power under section 8B of the act.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Amendment No 2 [AgriFoodFish–1]—

Page 4, line 30 [clause 5(15), inserted definition of relevant history, (a)(ii)]—Delete 'information relating to'

Amendment No 3 [AgriFoodFish–1]—

Page 5, line 15 [clause 5(15), inserted definition of relevant history, (b)(ii)]—Delete 'information relating to'

The words 'information relating to' are unnecessary because that information relating to changes is released under subsection (a)(iv) of the definition of 'relevant history', and the second amendment is consequential.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 6 and 7 passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Amendment No 4 [AgriFoodFish–1]—

Page 8, line 10 [clause 8, inserted section 5B(4)]—Delete 'Regulations made for the purposes of this section and section 5C' and substitute 'The regulations'

Amendment No 5 [AgriFoodFish–1]—

Page 10, line 1 [clause 8, inserted section 5B(6), definition of relevant history, (a)(ii)]—Delete 'information relating to'

Amendment No 6 [AgriFoodFish–1]—

Page 10, line 30 [clause 8, inserted section 5B(6), definition of relevant history, (b)(ii)]—Delete 'information relating to'

My understanding is that these amendments are consequential on my amendment No.1.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (9 to 12) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (12:59): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.