Statutes Amendment (Screening) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 February 2019.)

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (16:02): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Screening) Bill and indicate that the opposition will be supporting this bill but has a number of questions regarding some of the detail. The Marshall Liberal government's bill seeks to standardise and streamline screening requirements throughout South Australia, which we believe to be a necessary step. These legislative changes are being put in place after three volunteer screening checks to South Australian volunteers were implemented from 1 November 2018.

This implementation date was brought forward, I might add, under sustained pressure from the volunteering sector and members of this side of the house. I congratulate them again on that victory late last year. Regardless, the reforms at the heart of the bill make sense. They tighten up South Australia's many tranches of screening checks and clearances and will likely lead to better outcomes for South Australian children and the vulnerable in our community.

Under the bill before us today, all South Australians working with children, supervising people working with children, or with access to data related to children, including volunteers, will be required to undertake a DHS (Department of Human Services) working with children check through the new child-related worker screening scheme. This is in response to and implementation of both the state Nyland royal commission and the commonwealth Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

Approved screenings will now last five years rather than three, with continuous monitoring through data sharing between DHS, the Department for Child Protection and South Australia Police, making it easier to identify and cancel screening approvals as required. DHS screenings will also supersede existing screening requirements for allied health professionals and educators, with a transition period from 1 July 2019 enabling the transition from one system to another. South Australians affected by these changes, including nurses and teachers, will be subject to the act the day their existing registration requires renewal.

The bill is in many ways a continuation of Labor's good work in office, continuing the reform agenda for screenings and working with children checks pursued by the member for Ramsay in the last parliament. A special mention must go to her and those involved in driving such positive change in this policy space. A major component of the bill is the 12-month grace period for all South Australians currently in possession of a volunteer organisation authority number (VOAN) or police check. Under existing legislation, South Australians employed or volunteering with children in possession of only a VOAN check will be in breach of the act and liable for serious criminal penalties.

The bill seeks to give 12 months leeway for employees and volunteers to transfer to an approved DHS working with children check, with a promise from the government of an information campaign as a priority, should the bill pass. Currently, more than 50,000 South Australians are anticipated to be affected by this 12-month migration from a VOAN check to a DHS working with children check. The opposition is concerned by the slow progress of these reforms and the risks involved with implementation, given the significant funding cuts to the Department of Human Services under the 2018-19 state budget.

The bill also introduces the NDIS worker screening national system. Full national implementation is still subject to the passage of commonwealth legislation, which is unlikely to pass until late 2019 at the earliest. However, the intergovernmental agreement requires South Australia to establish an appropriate legislative scheme to assist in upholding NDIS standards via the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. Under this system, the central assessment unit under the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act will be responsible for conducting NDIS worker checks in South Australia. This includes a national criminal history check and workplace misconduct information for the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission.

The bill seeks to facilitate information sharing between South Australia, the commonwealth and other jurisdictions when a person has been prohibited. These powers include the sharing of disciplinary, misconduct, child protection information or any other information that is relevant to the screening process or to risk assessment. It also inserts provisions that facilitate the sharing and receipt of information with the commonwealth and other jurisdictions when a person has been prohibited.

However, as I flagged at the start of my contribution, the opposition has important questions about some aspects of the bill. The bill imposes a requirement on those who obtain a free DHS check as a volunteer to pay back the cost of that check if they later require one for paid employment. I must add that the opposition is extraordinarily disappointed in the Marshall Liberal government's penny-pinching policy of clawing back the cost of a free volunteer screening check for an individual who gives up their time to volunteer for our community but then finds themselves in paid employment at a later date.

The bill appears to give scope to someone volunteering, for example, for 10 years at a local sports club with a DHS volunteer screening, then being offered casual work at that same sports club and being required to pay back the department for a free screening check that they had done years ago or otherwise commit an offence. The message Premier Marshall and the minister opposite will be sending to South Australians under the provisions of this bill as it stands is this: 'You've got yourself a job. Congratulations. Now pay the Minister for Human Services $107.80 for a screening check that you were using in good faith to serve your community.'

This clearly breaks the government's election promise to provide free screenings to volunteers. There was no mention of a heartless clawback of fees from young people, students and some of our lowest-paid workers. It is truly shameful. Only and out-of-touch government could punish hardworking South Australian's for getting a job.

But it is not really a surprise. Hansard from estimates last year shows the minister and her department floundering when asked about VOAN checks, DHS screenings and costings. It seems that the government has inserted this clawback provision in the bill just to try to make up for blowing out their own budget, released only six months ago. The opposition maintains its concerns with these provisions of the bill and would urge the government and the minister to re-evaluate their priorities. I foreshadow that the opposition intends to further examine these issues in the committee stage of this debate.

We have asked for further briefings for our party, the crossbench and the sector in the next few weeks, prior to returning to parliament in May. For that reason, we have negotiated an adjournment at clause 8 today, and we indicate that the opposition may be moving amendments, depending on the information provided in those briefings.

We believe the overall intent and scope of the bill is positive and builds on the good work done by the former state Labor government. The bill is also an important step towards streamlining the volunteer screening process and bringing the South Australian system in line with the national framework. Bringing South Australia in line with national agreements for NDIS worker checks is an important step on the road to a properly functioning NDIS whose workers are properly equipped for their important task.

In addition, bringing South Australia in line with national standards for working with children checks is an important streamlining of the process many South Australians undertake in order to work with children. Nationally consistent standards and a nationally consistent system are important for both volunteers and the children they work with. We look forward to working with all in this chamber over the break on this bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:10): I want to make a few brief comments or observations in relation to the bill, which we know in effect, based on the information we have been provided with, creates two classes of working with children screenings, one for volunteers and one for persons with paid employment. The scheme that applies to volunteers is intended to ensure that those volunteers are not subject to fees in obtaining their screening checks.

The government has said that it has taken this approach for a couple of reasons: firstly, to ensure volunteers do not need to pay a fee for screening services conducted by the relevant DHS unit and, secondly, to ensure that free screening is limited to those individuals who are genuine volunteers; that is to say, it is not accessed by someone on the basis that they are a volunteer but in fact that person is intending to enter the workforce and paid employment in the near future.

I can appreciate those points made by the government, but it is this area of the law, I think, that has given rise to a number of questions regarding when someone who was, or is, a volunteer will be required to undertake an employment check rather than a volunteer screening check. It is fair to say that the bill, as currently drafted, is not entirely clear in this regard, because the underlying scheme, as we know, will be contained in the regulations.

The advice I have received—and I have asked several questions on this front, and I will be asking the minister to confirm this—is that we will end up with two classes of screening, as I have said. In order to work with children in paid employment, it will not be sufficient for any individual to rely on any previous class a person may have held as a volunteer; that is, they will not be able to rely on their volunteer check in terms of their paid employment if they subsequently enter into paid employment within the parameters set out in the legislation. Therefore, those volunteers will need to apply to fall within the appropriate class, that is to say, the paid person's employment class.

That screening check will then, as I understand it—and I hope the minister will correct me if I am wrong—override any other check that may have applied previously, i.e. the volunteer screening check. For example, someone who volunteers with the Scouts will need a volunteer clearance. If that same person then gets a job with, say, DHS, they will not be allowed to rely on that same volunteer check. Their employer, in fact, will not be able to rely on that same check. Even though the test is the same, they will need to be reclassified. I understand they will have their own unique identification number, but they will need to be reclassified to fall under the appropriate class. If I am incorrect, then I hope the minister will correct me.

The insertion of section 33A, therefore, has given rise to concerns for good reason. The shadow minister has highlighted, for instance, that as it stands a volunteer who works one shift a year as Father Christmas would be required to undergo paid employment screenings. Ideally, we should be dealing with this in legislation, but I am sure that this is one instance of many that we are going to have questions about.

In relation to the specific example I have just given, I am now advised that there is actually a seven-day grace period, if I can call it that, that currently applies. That would mean that Santa working the one shift actually would not be required to get a clearance. If the minister can provide further clarification in relation to that seven-day grace period—I will call it that for want of better words—I think that is going to be very useful for all of us.

The other issue is the government has left the underlying scheme to regulation. I think I speak for all of us when I say this is an important piece of legislation and I, along with other members, do not want to stand in the way of its passage. That said, I am mindful of the sort of issues that I have referred to and others that, no doubt, will arise. I am certainly hopeful the government will be open to some undertakings in terms of possible solutions to ensure we do not unintentionally capture individuals, perhaps like the Father Christmas who does eight shifts or over seven shifts, or whatever the case may be, especially in the context of the hefty penalties that are to apply otherwise.

I think it is a fine balancing act, though, and I appreciate that, because we want to ensure that anybody who is working in this environment has the appropriate checks. Ultimately, that will benefit the group of people we are trying to protect. With those words, on behalf of SA-Best, I support the second reading of the bill and look forward to some further clarification from the minister in relation to the points that I have raised.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (Minister for Human Services) (16:17): I will sum up. I just want to clarify, too: I understand this area of legislation is quite complex now that the federal parliament has a role in this space. To try to unpick the whole issue is quite complicated, hence I have a very large folder that has lots of different pieces of legislation in it.

This particular bill does three things: it amends the prohibited persons act to allow for free screening and differentiate that from worker-based screening, it has transitional arrangements for people with a clearance via a national police certificate, and it enables the NDIS worker screening. If we can go back a few steps, in 2016, the parliament passed the prohibited persons act, which has not yet commenced. There are a number of provisions in there that I think, it might be fair to say, may be assumed to be in this particular bill. That is not the case; it has already been passed by the parliament.

It gets difficult when we start talking about classes. There is currently a child-related screening you can obtain via a national police certificate or you can obtain a DHS check. Those will become one and will become valid for five years across multiple roles. We also have continuous monitoring, as well, and then there are a range of offences that are already in the prohibited persons act, uncommenced, for people who work or volunteer with children without a working with children check.

It is also the piece of legislation that brings in a whole range of other employees: teachers, healthcare workers, emergency services, current police check holders, children's party entertainers and ministers of religion. We have transitional provisions in this piece of legislation before us that will assist teachers, for instance, once their registration comes up; they will not require a working with children check until their registration expires. That has already been passed by the parliament so this allows for transitional provisions. In 2017, there was also a transition act. There are also regulations. My understanding is that, under the former government, the consultation on the prohibited persons regulations commenced in late 2017, so we have been working as fast as we can to implement those.

I thank honourable members for their contributions on this important piece of legislation. As I have said, the purpose of the bill is to implement our election commitment to abolish fees payable for volunteer screenings and to meet nationally agreed obligations regarding the screening of workers who work with children and NDIS recipients. This government values the incredible dedication and hard work of volunteers and the selfless work they do helping in our community and that is why we have made a commitment to abolish all screening fees for volunteers, which we were able to implement on 1 November.

The amendment bill amends both the prohibited persons act and the Disability Inclusion Act, which I have not mentioned as yet. The Disability Inclusion Act anticipates that there will be a screening regime, which was awaiting further detail from the Australian parliament. Those two acts are being amended by the bill to enable free screenings to continue. The amendment bill also ensures that a person and an organisation can only use a free volunteer screening for a volunteering role and not for paid employment. This is necessary to ensure that this commitment directly benefits the volunteering sector.

In terms of the national standards for the working with children check and the NDIS intergovernmental agreement, the bill will enable South Australia to meet its obligations under the national standards for working with children checks and the NDIS intergovernmental agreement by bringing South Australian child-related screenings in line with the national standards and implementing NDIS worker screening checks.

In terms of the transitional provisions for the prohibited persons act, which passed through the parliament in 2016, the bill provides essential transition arrangements to the new working with children check under the prohibited persons act by, firstly, recognising the assessment of relevant history and national police checks conducted by individual organisations as a working with children check and assessments of national police checks conducted for emergency services for 12 months and recognises organisations that have adhered to existing legislation and rules and provides time for their workforces, comprising mainly volunteers, to transition to the new working with children check.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have a number of questions at clause 1. Could the minister advise who was consulted on the development of the bill, and is she able to provide copies of any submissions made during the development of the bill?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: In relation to the consultation for the bill, essentially, because it does these three things, the volunteer screening was something, effectively, which Volunteering SA had lobbied for and which the Liberal Party was happy to commit to during the election campaign, so that was a very public process.

If we go back a bit to the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016, which in effect changes a number of the provisions for working with children, which will come in on 1 July, that consultation started under the former attorney-general. In relation to the parts of the legislation that relate to complying with the outcomes of royal commissions into child abuse, and the NDIS IGA, those consultations have taken place through those processes.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So the only approach that you have received was prior to the election, up until the introduction of the bill. Is that my correct understanding of your answer?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: This bill is a culmination of a range of processes, both national and some which commenced under the former government, so those consultations have taken place through those means.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Have there been submissions made since the introduction of the bill and, if so, are you able to provide copies of such submissions?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We have been contacted by Volunteering SA. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to provide all of that correspondence because their position has changed on that, but we have received information from them this morning that they support the bill in its current form.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Were any concerns raised by stakeholders during the consultation period?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The advice I have received is we are not aware that there have been any other submissions on this.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Have any concerns been raised either with yourself as minister or with the department about any aspect of the bill?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Several by members of parliament, which I think we have been canvassing. Those outstanding concerns are matters which we have committed to have further consultation on with members as soon as possible so that we can expedite the bill.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Just to clarify, members of parliament are the only people who have raised concerns about the bill? Is that correct?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I do not think I am able to elaborate any further on the particular concerns that have been raised.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am a little confused. If there have been concerns raised by people other than MPs, can you not elaborate on those concerns for the sake of consideration by the chamber?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am not aware of any other concerns.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I will not pursue that, but it does seem to be contradictory in the answers. Assuming the bill passes through the parliament, can the minister commit to her department conducting face-to-face information sessions in the community about the changes?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for the question. The advice is that we have a very comprehensive communication plan that will include face-to-face meetings, particularly through the volunteering sector, and also social media. I am assuming we will send emails to all of the organisations, and we will be producing packs for members of parliament in order to assist them with any queries they might have as well.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As the minister knows, I am from a regional area. There is a lot of confusion in regional areas about the changes and the impacts they will have. Can she commit that some of those face-to-face sessions will be in regional areas?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes. The advice is that we do intend to visit some regional areas as well.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Is the minister able to provide the timing and locations—not specifically, '7pm on Monday the whatever date'—in a general sense? Will it be within weeks? What locations will be included? What sort of timing are we looking at?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The advice I have received is that there will be targeting of where the volunteer sector numbers are the highest. At this stage, we think there will be a session for Mount Gambier, and perhaps Port Augusta and other regional area as well. The timing is difficult because, I think out of an abundance of caution, the communication relies on this bill passing the parliament. Obviously, the sooner we can get that out, the sooner we can let people know about the changes.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Sure, and I guess that comes back to the general sense of the question. Once this has passed, would you expect to roll that out within days, within weeks, or over a long period?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Anticipating that this legislation will hopefully pass through the Legislative Council in the next sitting week, I will seek that the bill goes through the House of Assembly, in fairness to the volunteer sector, in that sitting week. Within a matter of days, we will be able to publish where those sessions will be and we will run the campaign, particularly through social media, very quickly.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: For 2018-19 so far, how many volunteers have applied for screening, and can you provide that information broken down by child-related, disability services, vulnerable person-related, aged-care and general employment probity? I have a number of questions along those lines, so if the minister does not have that data available, I will be if happy if she commits to bring that back before the next consideration of the bill.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We do have the information. I think it might actually be physically located in my office at the moment, in one of my other folders. Aha, that looks like something. Could the honourable member perhaps repeat her question? If she has other questions about data, we might be able to resolve them quickly for her.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Would the minister like me to read out all the questions I have on data?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We have plenty of time.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The first one, which I have already asked, is: for 2018-19 so far, how many volunteers applied for screening, broken down into the categories of child related, disability services, vulnerable person related, aged care and general employment probity? The second one is: for 2018-19 so far, what is the total number of screening applications? How many of these were volunteer screening applications? What is the percentage of volunteer applications against the total number of screening applications? The third question is: what is the current average waiting period for all screening applications from time of application through to approval or rejection?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I will attempt to respond to these. If I have not given you the right statistics we will go away and get them. The volunteer applications received for 2018-19 (this is from July 2018 until now) is 131,209. Of those, the number that were received from volunteers is 36,199 (28 per cent). We do not have those numbers broken down into child related, disability, aged care and so forth, so we will undertake to get those.

We do have an additional figure that might be useful. It talks to the total number of people who have screenings, but they are all people who have current screenings. In total, there are 430,401. Of those, 294,420 are child related; 34,334 are disability related; 48,210 are vulnerable person related; and for the aged-care sector there are 53,437 but, again, we do not have those broken down into disability, work related or student. In relation to your question about the average waiting time, I will answer it this way—

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Sorry, minister. I do not think you indicated the number for general probity in that set.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The advice I have received is that we do not keep the data about general employment probity because they are a once off for a specific purpose. If I could just continue in relation to average times, if I could put it this way: we now have the screening unit processing 80 per cent of screenings within five business days, which I think is very impressive. That is down from—I cannot remember what was the figure—April last year, when it was significantly higher. Furthermore, within 30 business days or less 98.5 per cent are processed within that time.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can I just clarify in relation to those two figures: the 80 per cent within five days and 98.5 per cent within 30—do those screening rates apply equally to volunteers and paid individuals? There no distinction between the two?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: No, we do not distinguish in terms of breaking down those numbers.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you for that information, minister. I assume that you do not have the data on the current average waiting period for all screening applications from application through to approval or rejection? If you do not have it with you, will you take it on notice and bring it back before the next sitting week?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The advice I have received is that we do not keep an average wait time. Generally speaking, I will get poked in the leg if this is not correct, but a lot of applications are pretty straightforward, and those we manage to process very quickly. There are some that do take longer, which relates to either identifying that the person is who they say they are and also checking any other potential names they may go by, and also the assessment process for what information has come up through the databases that needs to be assessed.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you. I appreciate that it may not be information that you keep and have to hand, but is there any reason why that could not be calculated?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The advice I have received is that the data we keep is about the number of applications processed within a specific time frame. There are some that may take some months, which are very much the outlier issue, but what I have referred to is the way the data is kept, and I think what the member is seeking is not available.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Is the minister saying that the only data that is kept in terms of time frames are those processed within five business days and those within 30 business days, and that there is no other time frame kept by the department?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The table that I have before me is in relation to the applications determined. The statistics that are kept that are regularly reported to me, through the screening unit, are: in the period nought to five days, six to 10 days, 11 to 15, 16 to 20, 21 to 25, 26 to 30 and 31 days plus. It is also possible to determine, say, for a six-month period or over six months what those numbers would be, but that is the way the data is collected.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Would the minister be able to table the document that she is reading from?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am more than happy to table the table that provides the data with those percentages that I have just read out. We will get that information and table it.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Given my question was about all screening applications, are you able to provide that information for all volunteer screening applications and, if so, with it broken down by child-related disability services, vulnerable person-related aged care and general employment probity? Although, noting your answer to the previous one, I take it that you will not be able to do general employment probity.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes; we can do all that.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So far in 2018-19, how many screening applications have been approved?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We have a figure for the 2018-19 year. At 27 March 2019, there were 121,160 applications received and determined. That includes those who were approved and those who were not approved. We will get back to you with a breakdown of those that were approved versus those that were not approved.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Could you also get back with the same breakdown, specifically in regard to volunteer screening applications, so both of those? How many have been approved and how many have been rejected?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes; that is fine.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I apologise in advance, again, if the minister already answered this. Did the minister indicate whether Volunteering SA&NT has been consulted and whether any concerns were raised by that group?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We have had several conversations, both through the department and through my office, with Volunteering SA&NT. We have clarified the provisions in the bill. We received advice today from them that they support the bill in its current form.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Could the minister also elaborate on what I call the seven-day grace period, or exemption, that applies regarding casual or one-off employment arrangements?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: This relates to the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016, which was passed in 2016 by the parliament but has not yet commenced, but it will commence on 1 July. Section 9—Meaning of excluded person, subsection (3), which I will call 'the Santa Claus clause', refers to an excluded person as somebody who does not need a check. It provides:

(3) This subsection applies to the following persons:

(a) a person who believes on reasonable grounds that they will not work with children on more than 7 days (whether consecutive or not) in a calendar year;

(b) a person who, at the time of engaging in particular child related work on a particular day in a calendar year, had worked with children on less than 7 days (whether consecutive or not) in that year,

however, this subsection will cease to apply to a person referred to in a preceding subsection if they work with children on more than 7 days…

That does not apply because that is the previous subsection. Hopefully that clarifies that one.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: During my contribution I referred to the shadow minister's press release in relation to Father Christmas. Can I take it from your answer, then, that the claim that Father Christmas working one shift will not be able to rely on their volunteer screening—is that incorrect, based on the advice you just provided?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We will be working with parliamentary counsel to make sure that that is the intent.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can I clarify again for the record. Have the regulations relating to this bill already been drafted, or have circumstances already been identified that will be included in those regulations or indeed any amendment?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: There are some prohibited persons regulations which were gazetted earlier this year in January. In relation to this specific legislation, we will be needing to promulgate some regulations that relate to fees, but we are also, as I said, going to look at clarifying that Santa Claus clause.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Thank you for clarifying. I am aware of the regulations in relation to the prohibited persons legislation and regime, but the ones in relation to this bill have not yet been drafted; is that correct?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: No, they have not as yet.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Has the government identified other working arrangements—other than the ones that we have already addressed—that need to be addressed as part of that process? If so, do we know what they are?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: No, we have not identified any that fit in this kind of area that people have concerns about.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: In relation to ensuring the speedy passage of this bill, the minister has given an undertaking to work with the opposition and the crossbench in terms of clarifying which arrangements may need to be covered. In relation to the smooth passage of this bill through parliament, you are undertaking to work with the crossbench and the opposition to perhaps identify some of those arrangements and ensure that they are dealt with either by way of amendment or regulation, whatever the case may be.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, I think we probably need to do some additional briefings to ensure that the provisions that are in the legislation are well understood, and if members have any outstanding concerns after that we will take those on board.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am pleased that the minister has raised the issue of prohibited persons. I wonder if she can confirm, for the record, that this bill that we are currently considering does not in any way undermine the prohibited persons regulatory regime and the register that is intended to come into effect on 1 July.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I can confirm that that is the case.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: To come back to the Santa Claus clause, is there a similar Santa Claus clause in other legislation, for example, applying to someone being Santa Claus in a facility that is not for children, for those under 18? My question is, potentially are there other pieces of legislation in existence where there would need to be a similar excluded persons clause to ensure that someone who was working less than seven days in a year, but not with children, would not be caught by the provision that we were discussing?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Can I ask the honourable member, is she asking in relation to particular screening matters?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: In terms of having to pay back if one gains paid employment.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: My understanding is that there is not any other legislation that relates to this type of matter.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can I just go back to a point that I made during my second reading contribution. I think it is important to clarify this. Can the minister confirm that my understanding of the bill is correct, based on the advice received, in that volunteers will not be able to rely on a volunteer screening if they gain employment—within the relevant meaning of employment—and that paid employment checks will then override any existing volunteer check?

Therefore, if somebody effectively moves from a volunteer screening check to a paid employment screening check, and that is required under the regime that is being proposed because if you are an employee, irrespective of whether you were a volunteer, you have now gained employment and therefore you are effectively falling under—I know I called them a class—a different class and that is one that applies to people in paid employment.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, I think the honourable member is correct in that if you have an employment working with children check then that enables you to volunteer using that screening.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: So on from that then, it follows that, irrespective of whether you had a free volunteer screening, that does not carry any weight when you gain paid employment. If you have been entitled to a free volunteer screening because of the volunteer work that you do, you are in one basket, but the minute you gain employment it is a condition that your employer must meet that you have a paid person's employment screening?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The advice that I have received is that, in that scenario, someone who is a volunteer and then needs a worker screening has 28 days' grace and will then receive a new screening check, which will be valid for five years.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Irrespective of whether they were a volunteer or not, by virtue of the fact that they have entered into paid employment, they require that screening. I suppose that is the point I am trying to make. So it does not matter. We are not undermining the volunteer screening scheme, but are saying the minute you become a paid employee, you need to comply or your employer needs to comply with those arrangements that stipulate that you need a paid employment screening check. I think they are two very different issues. This is what I want to understand. We are not saying to a volunteer, 'You have to pay back that money within 28 days.' We are saying, 'You are now in paid employment and your employer is required to provide a paid employment screening.'

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, my advice is that that is the case because of the provisions in the prohibited persons legislation following on from Nyland. That is not the scenario you outlined before where I said there is a 28-day grace period. That is in this legislation, but the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act means that if you are an employee, you have to have a working with children check.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I just think that is an important distinction we need to make. The criticism that is being levelled against the government or anyone else in this instance is that we are effectively making volunteers pay for their screening check, but that is not actually the case. We are not saying to volunteers, 'You have to pay back the money that you did not pay and were exempt from paying in the first instance.'

The fact of the matter is, they are now a paid employee and, as such, employers of those individuals are required to ensure that anyone who is in paid employment has a different level of check. I understand that it is effectively the same, but they are bound by different rules insofar as they have to have an employment check. If we can confirm that as the reason for the distinction, if you like, I think that will go a long way towards alleviating the concerns that have been raised around this notion that volunteers are going to have to pay back money for an exemption that they were granted.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, the honourable member is correct in her assessment and it is the case at the moment that people need, if in employment, to have a child-related screening and pay the relevant fee, as it has been for some time.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Just for clarity, the minister has referred to the current situation. If the passage of this bill is successful, can the minister explain, then, how the insertion of section 33A will operate? The minister's response to the Hon. Ms Bonaros's question seems to be contradicting what it says in there, which is that the working with children check is conducted and the central assessment unit is satisfied the person is a volunteer and so pays no fee in relation to the working with children check. Subsequently, if the person uses that check to work other than as a volunteer, so in paid employment, then the person must repay their fee that had been waived. Can you just clarify how that will work and how there is not a contradiction in terms of your answer to the Hon. Ms Bonaros?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I will get some advice on part of this question, but if I can just clarify out of an abundance of trying to outline the time frame in terms of how we have got to where we are, it is the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016 that was passed by this parliament, obviously in 2016, that requires that employees have a working with children check. It is not in operation yet, because we have had to continue the consultation in terms of the regulations, but we have determined that it should start in operation on 1 July. There are a lot of things happening on 1 July, but some of them have been in train for some time. But I will seek some advice about the operational aspects for the honourable member.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I think, just by way of clarification—because words here are particularly important—that subclause that we are referring to actually states:

A payment under subsection (1) must be made as soon as is reasonably practicable (and in any case within 28 days) after the person commences work with children other than as a volunteer.

So if they do commence paid employment, they are no longer deemed to be a volunteer for the purposes of the legislation that we are talking about. That is an important distinction that I think needs to be made, because we are talking about someone who is in effect no longer a volunteer and insofar as they have entered paid employment. So then the different rules apply about what level of screening they need.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I have a couple of responses to that. Yes, the honourable member's assessment is quite correct that if somebody does become a paid employee, then the legislation will, I guess, trigger their requirement that they need to have a working with children check as an employee. They can then use that once they have been approved. They can then use that in a voluntary capacity as well, which I think we have already explored. Does that sort of answer the question?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: That absolutely answers my question and what it clarifies for me—and I hope I am right—is that we are no longer talking about someone in their volunteer capacity. So those individuals who are entitled to an exemption in their volunteer capacities will continue to be granted those exemptions and those individuals who are paid employees will be required to pay for their screening as paid employees. That is my understanding.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That is correct. The intent of this legislation, in addition to the transitional provisions for the prohibited persons check implementation of the NDIS worker screening check and all those other federal matters, is that we do, through law, want to enshrine that volunteer screenings are free, so I reject any other portrayal of this clause. To delete this clause will mean that we will not be able to make volunteer screening free.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I appreciate that there have been a number of different questions and that we do have an undertaking from the minister that there will be further briefings in the break. In particular, I think it is clear, but just for the record what the opposition wants to know is: if someone has been a volunteer and then does undertake some paid employment, perhaps with that same organisation, (1) whether they have to repay the cost of the original volunteer screening; or (2) based on what the Hon. Ms Bonaros has asked and the minister has responded, is the minister then saying that she needs to then go and get another screening that they are paying for and they are just keeping the volunteer one in the back pocket, if you like, if they are going to be a volunteer again; and (3) coming back to the Santa Claus clause, what happens for someone who works for two weeks as Santa leading up to Christmas? We want to know whether that person will be caught and will need to either repay or pay an extra fee.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can I just confirm for the record that I was not suggesting that we will be able to keep the other one in the back pocket as a volunteer. What I was suggesting is that, the moment you become a paid employee, you are subject to the screening that applies to a paid employee, and that in effect overrides any other screening, and the only other screening you have is as a volunteer. So the volunteer one becomes redundant and any work that you do in a volunteer field will be covered equally by your paid employment screening check.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, that is my understanding. We will clearly examine all this in this committee stage, go through it chapter and verse and make sure that everything I have said is correct.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I look forward to that clarification, thank you. Minister, you and your department have told members of parliament, as well as stakeholders, that clause 9 and clause 20, page 35, paragraph 10 are essential to ensuring that free volunteer screenings can continue. Quoting from your own explanation of clauses, clause 9:

…inserts new section 33A into the principal Act, requiring persons who did not pay a fee for the conduct of their working with children check on the basis that they are a volunteer to pay a fee should they commence working with children other than as a volunteer. It is an offence to fail to comply with the requirement.

The same is found in clause 20, page 35, paragraph 10, in regard to the NDIS screenings. If clause 9 and clause 20, page 35, paragraph 10, are integral to free volunteer screenings, why is it that the explanation of clauses completely omits that fact?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Can you repeat that last sentence?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Sure, and perhaps the first sentence as well. You have said to stakeholders that clause 9 and clause 20 are essential to ensuring that free volunteer screenings can continue. If clauses 9 and 20 are integral to the continuation of free volunteer screenings, why does the explanation of clauses not mention that fact?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The advice I have received is that the way the explanatory clauses are drafted relate to technical matters, rather than the political rationale behind them.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that this was not at all raised in briefings with the opposition either.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: What aspect, sorry?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The apparent necessity of clause 9 and clause 20 to ensure that free volunteering can continue. Apparently that was never raised in the briefings with the opposition.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The way that I always conducted briefings as a member of the opposition was to read the legislation and pull out the things, on the face of it, that I was concerned about to consult with stakeholders and the like. I not think it is necessarily appropriate that every clause is spelled out in every manner for the opposition. That is your job.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would simply put on the record that if this particular clause is integral to the bill and to ensuring that volunteer screenings continue, that should have been mentioned.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We have checked in with members on a number of occasions to discuss their concerns, so we have tried to be as available as possible for any concerns they might have had. We have done our best to make our officers available to MPs to raise matters of concern.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Perhaps if I can flip the question of the Hon. Ms Scriven: if clauses 9 and 20 were left out of the bill in their entirety, how would that affect volunteers?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The advice I have received is that without those two clauses, we are unable to differentiate between the two types of screenings—that is, volunteers versus workers—which means that there will only be one fee applicable.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Before I give you the call, the Hon. Ms Bonaros, if I may, I remind the committee that clause 1 is of course for general questions about the bill. If we are questioning specific clauses, it is best that we wait for those clauses and deal with them then. As the Acting Chair, I will give you some latitude, but I will just make that general point. Did you have another question, the Hon. Ms Bonaros?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am happy to proceed on the basis that you have just indicated.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Thank you. The Hon. Ms Scriven?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am certainly happy to proceed, on the understanding that in answer to questions raised at later clauses, even on another day, we will not be told, 'Well, you should have asked that earlier on.'

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Are you able to give that assurance, minister?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I undertake that I will not behave like some of the Labor ministers in the previous government, and I will respond to any questions as they come up.

The Hon. C.M. Scriven: Or minister Wade recently, with the CIPB bill.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Thank you, minister.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Could the minister advise what work concerning the reallocation of screening to the functions of the central assessment unit was undertaken during the passage of the Disability Inclusion Act 2018 through the parliament?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: In relation to the change in the terminology, the advice I have received is that the title 'central assessment unit' is a creature, if you like, of the prohibited persons act of 2016. Now that we are having a regime similar to that for NDIS worker screening in the drafting of the disability inclusion bill (now act), that same title was adopted. Going forward, we will have a central assessment unit that is very much part of the screening changes that have come through to us from the child abuse royal commission and which will be part of the national arrangements.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: How many volunteers does the minister anticipate will be applying annually for free screening? What is the budget for this?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Can we take that on notice and get back to the honourable member?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes, certainly. Thank you. What modelling has the minister drawn these numbers from?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We will endeavour to get back to the honourable member on the number of anticipated additional screenings to be undertaken by the unit. In terms of how we have arrived at those numbers, we have had to consult with other agencies, for instance, with teachers and the Teachers Registration Board, health, emergency services and the like. We have had to consult with them in order to obtain data from them. We are a bit reliant on them providing us with accurate information.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: How many additional FTEs have been placed in the screening unit to meet the volunteer demand over the 12-month transition period from 1 July? If they have not as yet been placed in the screening unit, when will they begin?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The advice I have received is that we have adequate resources for the current financial year, and any ongoing additional demand through the screening unit is subject to the budget.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Does the minister anticipate that the existing resources will be sufficient, or will she be seeking additional resources?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I think it is inherent in my response that we will be seeking additional resources.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: What additional FTEs do you anticipate will be needed to meet the demand?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: We are anticipating that we may require up to 20 additional FTEs.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: And what additional budget do you anticipate will be needed to cover the FTEs and any other additional related costs?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Far be it from me to breach convention, but I am unable to comment on budget negotiations.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My question was not about budget negotiations, simply how much is anticipated will be the additional cost required to ensure that this transition is effective?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: It was pretty much asking me how much is in our budget bid, to which I am unable, by convention, to provide an answer.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: How long would additional FTEs be in place, based on your anticipated demand?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The advice I have received is that we anticipate having the additional FTEs for a period of 12 months, and we will review it after that.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: New section 26A, which is on page 5 at around line 10, provides:

(ii) such exceptional circumstances exist in relation to the person that the person does not appear, or no longer appears, to pose an unacceptable risk to children.

Can you give me some examples of what would constitute 'exceptional circumstances'?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: What we are talking about in this clause is a presumption to exclude people, which means that people who have been charged or found guilty of a range of offences are prohibited unless proved otherwise. There is a range of presumptive disqualifications. An example includes murder, or attempted murder, of an adult. It may well be that someone applies or has as their defence that the murder took place, through a domestic violence situation, in self-defence. That is an example of one case that may enable that judgement to be revisited.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I am not sure whether that particularly answers the question. Is this clause trying to say that it will not apply to people, where there are exceptional circumstances, who no longer appear to pose an unacceptable risk?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: If I can explain: the presumption is against the individual. The presumption means that you are excluded unless you can prove, through circumstances, otherwise.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: What happens if a person, who perhaps would have fallen into the category of presumptive disqualification, is then found not guilty of a particular offence? Would that information have to be disclosed?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Can I make two separate observations. In the hypothetical that the honourable member has raised, if somebody is subsequently found not guilty, then they can put in a fresh application and they will be assisted accordingly. What the clause does is make it less likely than under the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act, which previously has passed. In the 2016 legislation, which is due to come into effect on 1 July, everyone is out. If you are on the list, you are automatically excluded. What this clause says is that there are circumstances in which you may be reconsidered. It actually makes it slightly more flexible.

Clause passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.