HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-10-30 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (ASSESSMENT OF RELEVANT HISTORY) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 October 2013.)

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (15:55): It gives me great pleasure to thank everybody who participated in the debate.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

Mr PISONI: This is a fairly general clause that relates to the changes as specified, so I want to ask a fairly general question. If a teacher has been accused of child sex abuse and viewing child pornography during a child court proceeding, would this appear on the records for the purpose of this act if there was no finding of fact or conviction or charge?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I thank the honourable member for that question. I make this point: any of these questions I cannot answer properly now I am happy to deal with between the houses. I am not trying to dodge answering them, it is just that given our timelines I do not want to hold the thing up here. My understanding is that if a matter has gone to court, for example, and it has been dismissed or the individual has been acquitted—

Mr PISONI: This relates to the fact of allegations raised in the Family Court. That is what this refers to.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The Family Court is a bit more complicated, I think, for reasons that possibly the member for Bragg knows far better than me. We are dealing with a federal court and we are dealing with certain rules about what may or may not be disclosed, so I would have to take advice about that particular matter. If you are talking about any of the state courts, then my understanding of the provisions—and this is subject to correction between the houses—is that the fact of the matter having been in the court would itself be a matter that would attract some interest.

Mr PISONI: Would the teacher be required to inform their school or the department of these allegations?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, I will seek to clarify this: I believe that is not a matter that is answered fully within this legislation because a member of the teaching service does have certain responsibilities to their employer under the Public Service arrangements. I am not seeking to answer this question from that perspective; that is a separate matter. They may or may not have—because I am not an expert on that—an obligation pursuant to the fact of them being an officer of the teaching service. So far as I understand it, I do not understand there to be an obligation cast upon them by this, but I will check.

Mr PISONI: Would there be any mandatory reporting obligations if these accusations were raised in the Family Court?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, there is mandatory reporting. That is an established regime. The complexity of the question and the reason I hesitate to give a complete answer is that, as I mentioned before, the Family Court is a very particular federal court. It has certain rules attached to it and the state does not have legislative competence to, in effect, interfere with rules made by the federal parliament about one of its courts. I am in a position where, because of that, I will just have to take advice.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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