HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-09-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES

Mr PISONI (Unley) (15:51): My question is to the Minister for Education. What action has the minister taken to follow through allegations of sexual abuse involving disabled schoolchildren who were using government-arranged transport to attend a southern Adelaide government school? The opposition was informed that the minister met with parents of children who were allegedly abused by a bus driver in the southern suburbs. The minister gave undertakings that he would provide monthly updates to the investigations and prosecution. Six months later, the parents have received nothing from the minister's office.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Minister for Education, Minister for Early Childhood Development, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (15:52): The principal response by the government has been to immediately take steps to prosecute the perpetrator. Those are the steps that were taken by the government. The particular teacher involved played an extraordinarily important role here, once becoming aware of the initial allegations.

Using her expertise, she carefully interviewed other students who were in the school and ascertained that there were a number of students who were potential victims of the abuse and, of course, took immediate steps to report them to the relevant authorities. The relevant authorities conducted their investigations and prosecutions have emerged.

Certainly, my office was first alerted to the matter by the Hon. Kelly Vincent, who communicated with us about the matter on behalf of the parents. We took representations from her and supplied information to her office. Certainly, the feedback we had from her is that they were satisfied with the information.

Then, of course, the prosecution, we understand, was withdrawn. Arising out of that, there was some considerable concern and associated publicity. Ms Vincent's office contacted me again to arrange for a meeting. At that meeting, we discussed a number of issues. Their principal concern was the withdrawal of the charges. They were, of course, greatly concerned that the perpetrator was not being held to account. I understand that there may be other matters associated with those proceedings, so I do not want to comment on that particular matter.

The other major topic of discussion at that meeting was some issues concerning the wellbeing of the students. The students, naturally enough, have been greatly traumatised by the abuse. There were some concerns about the level of support that was being provided—not by the teachers and the associated schools, but additional support by way of counselling, etc., to meet the needs of those particular students. Some students had gone to other schools, so there was a need for that support.

Also discussed at the meetings were some proposals that were initially raised with us by the Hon. Kelly Vincent's office about making sure that there was a staff member (an SSO member) allocated to every bus run. Late last year we communicated to Ms Vincent that that would not be a practical suggestion. We also discussed some of the challenges associated with employing technological solutions for these bus runs.

We indicated that our priorities were in relation to ensuring that the perpetrators, or predators, were not in these roles in the first place. We drew attention to the fact that from 1 July this year changes to the Child Protection Act, which I think I might have initiated when I was in that role and which were passed by this government, were to come into effect, which provided a much more extensive screening set of arrangements for people who work with children. They came into effect from 1 July this year, and they were going to be an important matter in terms of preventing the perpetrators from being on these runs.

Going to the question of the meeting on 5 July, we also discussed measures to improve safety for students on student runs. I repeated at that meeting that I thought that it was not practical to both employ extra staff members and install surveillance equipment for all of the 400 transport runs each day. It needs to be borne in mind that we keep these particular transport options as small as we possibly can. We tend to use taxis or very small buses where we can, because that reduces the length of time for the drop-offs, which is an important thing. However, what I did do is commit myself to looking at the question of the screening processes which appeared to, obviously in this case, not pick up this particular perpetrator.

I have no recollection of giving any undertakings about the process of the court proceedings. I understand that was a matter that was being attended to by the relevant justice agencies that were working with families. I understand they were receiving regular updates about the status of those proceedings and that they had been told, in fact, about the fate of the withdrawal of the proceedings, and that was the cause of their distress.

On 7 July, I met with departmental representatives—so, that is two days after the meeting—and requested that a proposal be developed to trial CCTV and GPS for school transport runs. The trial and associated expenditure were subsequently approved by me; 12 new buses have been fitted with CCTV and GPS technology. The trial has commenced and will run to the end of this year.

When the trial is complete and the results assessed it is intended that this technology will be rolled out to all DECS buses transporting children with disabilities, and arrangements will be made to roll that out to contracted buses as well. The trial is important because it will assess the effectiveness of monitoring the whole of the bus, the integration of GPS data on bus location, driver identification, individual student travel time, and odometer readings using web technology, and making sure that is integrated with existing DECS ICT systems.

The estimates of the cost of the fit-out is in the order of $5,000 per unit, together with monitoring costs. The importance of this trial is to make sure that the technology actually fits the purpose for which we want it, that is, to make sure that we can provide a contribution to making children safer on these buses.

The other thing that I have asked the department to do at about the same time—and that is under way—is to accelerate the process of rolling out the new enhanced screening. The new screening does come in from 1 July, but it is the practice, I think, of the authorities to require that to be renewed every three years. So, that means there is a backlog of people who will not be undertaking the new screening process.

The old screening process was just a criminal history check. The new screening is broader and takes into account charges and child protection notifications. So, from 1 July that is the new system, and there is a bit of a backlog of people whose accreditations will expire on a three-yearly basis. I have asked for all of them to be cleared up by 31 January 2012, and that work is presently underway.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT