Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 October 2016.)

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:34): I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to the government's Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Bill, introduced by the Attorney-General in the other place on 20 September 2016, and barely on the Notice Paper in this place. The Greens welcome the long overdue reform in this area.

We are especially pleased with regard to the objects and principles of this bill which state, in no uncertain terms, that the primary object of this act is to minimise the risk to children posed by persons who work with them and that the paramount consideration in respect of the administration, operation and enforcement of this act must always be the best interests of children, having regard to their safety and protection.

While the Greens support this law reform, we must see it come to a successful fruition. If this system is to work, it will require a great level of resourcing and the continued prioritisation of this matter that we have seen in recent weeks to extend to future years and, indeed, decades. The centralised assessment unit will be the sole agency responsible for conducting checks on individuals. This is certainly a great responsibility. We hope that much support and expertise goes into the creation of this unit and that their difficult job is recognised.

As the Attorney-General noted in his report, it is important not to be lulled into a false sense of security. These screens focus on defining the people who are prohibited rather than labelling people as safe.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Gentlemen, would you like to take it outside?

The PRESIDENT: Order! Please show a certain amount of respect for the Hon. Ms Franks while she is giving a speech.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It is crucial to acknowledge that none of this would have stopped Shannon McCoole or a great number of other offenders. People do and will offend for the first time. Indeed, we must ask if these reforms really can protect children in the way that is hoped. However, it does seem reasonable and fair for people and organisations who undertake child-related work to ensure that all employees have up-to-date, accurate, easily accessible and successful working with children checks.

It makes sense for this check to be portable across multiple workplaces. I know that members of the crossbenches, including myself and other members of this place, have long called for such a portable screening process to be in place, noting the current issues that we have with a system that is far more ad hoc. Likewise, it seems reasonable, if we are to herald these checks as vital for the protection of children, that a person not commence working with children until the check has been undertaken and they have not been prohibited. However, I note that—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Can members please desist from talking while the honourable member is on her feet? Thank you.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: They were not doing it right next to me where I actually could not hear myself think, Mr President, but I thank you for the reinstatement of order in this place. While it is a worthy ideal, which the Greens support, that these checks must be ensured before commencing work with children, in practice, where the state fails to ensure that these checks are done in a timely manner, this has led in the past to taxidrivers in particular and many other workers actually losing their jobs.

This is particularly so where the systems, as they currently stand, take an inordinate amount of time to process. While this seems reasonable, it underlines the importance of the efficient operation of the central assessment unit. We do not want people waiting weeks or months on end to be able to commence employment or continue employment in our state.

I refer to the submissions made by the Law Society of South Australia. While it appears that the bill tries to assist the theoretical parent who wants to help at the canteen or the bake sale or the school excursion, the bill specifies an arbitrary number of days—in this instance, seven days—and proposes that it is fair and lawful to sift the people who present a danger to children from those who do not by this seven-day marker. While it is a hard task to balance the protection of children with the practicality of parents wanting to volunteer, as just one example, if the government wants to navigate these waters, it must do so with clear and unambiguous language.

As it stands, if a parent were to volunteer at their child's school as part of an overnight trip or be in close contact with children with disabilities, they would require a check. This seems fair, and there have even been calls to extend this to any parent who has close contact with any child. Apart from those parents who volunteer for no more than seven days, every other instance will require a check. If this is not complied with, both the parent and the school will be liable to prosecution. While the line needs to be drawn somewhere, we fail to see why that seven-day period has been chosen.

Finally, the Greens raise two concerns with this particular bill. Firstly, the power of the central assessment unit to screen all applications, even those that are withdrawn, is quite wide reaching. While it may be an important step in making sure that prohibited people are placed on the system, we ask the government to explain why this provision has been included and to give some information to members of this council as to whether that will put a strain on a system which should rightly be prioritising what are termed here as 'live threats' as opposed to potential threats.

Secondly, the Greens have found particularly fascinating the exemption of any member of the South Australia Police or the Australian Federal Police from all responsibility to be screened. We know from past experiences that police officers in this state and elsewhere are just as capable as any other member of the public of being child sex offenders. Why have they been explicitly excluded? We certainly look forward to answers to that question. Indeed, there are historical cases in this state and some ongoing cases that involve members of the police force being charged with child sex offences. Given the government's own words in relation to the children's commissioner bill just two days ago (with reference to the ability of the commissioner to investigate the Office of the Guardian) that no group should be exempt, we query why in this case SAPOL and the AFP have been exempted from this legislation.

The Greens have filed an amendment today to exclude those two groups from the excluded persons to ensure that this new law, when it comes into operation, does indeed apply to police officers as it would apply to any other person seeking to work with children. Overall, of course, this bill is a welcome step forward in prioritising the protection and welfare of children. However, due to the penalties it imposes on those who contravene it, it requires this important clarification on those who will be required to comply because they are deemed to be providing a service to children and on what services will be considered incidental in terms of contact with children.

With those few words, I look forward to the debate on this bill. The Greens will be supporting the second reading, and we do look forward to answers to those questions, particularly with regard to the role and the reasons for the exclusion of police from the definition of those who will be covered by this bill and why the figure of seven days has been chosen. Is it an arbitrary line? Is it based on something on which we have not been provided information prior to this? If the government will bring back a second reading response that illuminates those two issues, the Greens will certainly appreciate that.

We do appreciate that this government has taken seriously the Nyland royal commission recommendations. We are willing to work cooperatively, but we want to get these bills right, not just get these bills rushed through. We cannot afford to make further mistakes in the areas of child protection in this state. With those words, I indicate that we will be scrutinising each and every bill, including this one, as they come through.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:44): This bill aims to overhaul the method by which people who work or volunteer with children are screened before commencing their employment in a voluntary position. It will establish a new central assessment unit which will screen all applicants and determine whether or not they are prohibited from working with children. I understand this is in response to recommendations made by Justice Nyland, and the bill incorporates a number of recommendations she made in her royal commission report. This bill allows for screenings to be conducted every five years, rather than having a three-year expiry, which is currently the case for DCSI screenings. The system will also be dynamic, which will allow for prohibition notices to be issued as information about a person's ineligibility to work with children becomes available.

Given that the system will be dynamic, I would like to know from the minister why it is necessary to conduct another screening after five years. Surely a person's suitability to work with children would only change if they were accused or convicted of a prescribed offence. If this is the case, my understanding of the bill is that it would mandate for this information to be passed on and a notice of prohibition would be issued immediately.

With regard to who will be required to undertake a screening, I have a number of questions and would be grateful if the minister could clarify. I understand that, if a person does not intend to work with children for more than seven days in a calendar year, they are exempt from requiring a screening. Can the minister clarify that this would mean that businesses or individuals who host a work experience student would not have to be screened as long as the work experience period does not exceed seven days? Similarly, if a high school student elects to undertake work experience at a primary school, will they be required to have screening undertaken? Will the screening be required, even if the work experience is only five days?

Will a person working in Pumpkin Patch, a clothing retailer that sells exclusively kids' clothes, require screening? Would a person working in the toy section at Target be required to undertake a screening? Will employees of bowling alleys and gaming arcades require screenings? Further to this, the bill excludes people from requiring a screening if they work in child-related work in the same capacity as the child to whom the work relates, and for persons who employ or supervise a child where the work undertaken is not child-related work. Can the minister clarify whether a supervisor working at Hungry Jack's, McDonald's, etc., would need to be screened?

I have been contacted by a number of constituents who had been refused DCSI clearances but, however, had not been provided with a reason. This seems unfair as many felt that they had been branded for a matter of which they had no knowledge. I have been advised that a new framework for the act will include provision for the applicant to receive reasons why a prohibition notice was issued.

I also have concerns regarding clause 44(1), which allows a person who is responsible for a child, in respect of whom child-related work is or is to be performed by that person, and which requires the person to provide their full name, date of birth and unique identifier. This is so they are able to check via the online system whether the person has undertaken a screening. I understand that currently the act allows a similar request in that a parent or similar is able to request to see a person's clearance.

However, I believe there is a significant difference between showing someone a clearance which contains the details that can be requested in the bill, as opposed to requesting that information from someone in order to take it away. For example, a person who is volunteering at the zoo is required to undertake a screening. Currently, a parent can approach a volunteer in the children's zoo and ask to sight a copy of the person's clearance, which will have the volunteer's name, date of birth and unique identifier on it.

In contrast, the bill will enable parents to approach a volunteer and ask them to provide their name, date of birth and unique identifier. The parent will then have to take down these details, take them away with them and input them into the system to verify that the volunteer has undertaken a screening. In the first instance, a person is merely sighting the information and does not take it away with them. It could be argued that a parent could copy the information from the screening they sight. However, I would respond by saying that this behaviour would be questioned and escalated.

In the second instance, a person is provided the information to take away with them. I believe being required to hand over your full name and date of birth to a virtual stranger is a gross invasion of privacy, especially in this day and age of identity theft. I have raised this matter with the government and hope to come to a resolution before the committee stage.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.T. Ngo.