HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-05-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Statutes Amendment (Screening) Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

Ms WORTLEY (Torrens) (20:22): I rise to speak in support of the Statutes Amendment (Screening) Bill; however, in doing so, I want to comment briefly on some of the issues it raises for volunteers, in particular in relation to clause 9. The bill aims to ensure that South Australians working with children or supervising people working with children or with access to data relating to children, including those volunteering, are required to undertake a new DHS working with children check. It also introduces the NDIS Worker Screening Check national system, pending the passage of the commonwealth legislation.

Volunteering is essential to building strong and resilient communities. We know that it encourages economic participation, mitigates isolation and loneliness and that it can increase social inclusion and community participation. Importantly, volunteering provides benefits to the recipients of the volunteer services, who are often children and the more vulnerable members of our community. Screening, of course, is important to ensure proper protection of these members of our community.

Today, people from many different workplaces and walks of life are required to undergo these screenings—teachers, police, childcare workers, nurses, and so on—as part of their employment. However, there are thousands of volunteers in our community who spend many hours delivering volunteer services who require a screening check and whose only contact with community members where a screening check is required is in relation to their volunteer roles. Across the state, we have sporting organisations, volunteer coaches, umpires, referees, parent committees, governing councils and parents who participate in weekend sporting activities.

So concerns have been raised in the community and by colleagues on this side of the chamber that go to the heart of volunteering. In the lead-up to the last state election, there was a commitment, a promise, by the Liberal Party that, if elected, it would provide free screening checks for people who volunteer in the community, and now we have before us a bill that goes some way to reneging on that promise through a provision that will require volunteers who have more than seven days of paid work to pay back the cost of their free screening. I know that many in my community would not be in a financial position to do so should this occur.

Of even greater concern is the lack of notice provided before an expiation notice of $315 is issued to the volunteer who fails to pay the fee within 28 days of commencing work with children, other than as a volunteer. We have already heard the example, provided by the member for Hurtle Vale, of someone who gets work as Santa's helper at one of the shopping centres in the lead-up to Christmas. It may be their only form of paid employment in the three years, but they still have to pay for their screening.

It is a concern that today in committee the Attorney-General could not guarantee that a person will receive a warning, a reminder from the department, that they are required to pay the department their screening fee because they have exceeded seven days of paid employment. If this is to be the case—that no reminder or account is sent to the volunteer notifying them—there will, without doubt, be volunteers who end up with the $315-plus expiation notice. It could also result in the community losing some of our valued volunteers.

For all the good the screening bill delivers, it is disappointing that some of the salt of the earth people, some of our much-needed and valued volunteers, will, if changes are not made, suffer personally, financially and emotionally by unintentionally breaking the law. Some of the more senior members of our community are not able to use computers to track any of the work they may have done. They may be using notebooks or scribbling it down on a bit of paper which, in the time frame, they would lose.

So being sent an expiation for $315, without being sent an account or a reminder that they have exceeded the seven days, is problematic, and I think it would be worthwhile the government considering how the issue of notifying volunteers could be addressed. I commend the bill.

Mr BOYER (Wright) (20:27): I must say that I think the intentions of the bill are somewhat puzzling. I think there is a belief among those opposite that people will somehow try to move heaven and earth to score themselves a free screening check, which I think is fanciful, to say the least, when we consider the people many of us would know in our roles as members of parliament. Some of us volunteer in organisations as well. To think that the people who volunteer in those organisations would really go out of their way to try to score themselves a free screening check, and somehow avoid having to repay the cost to the government, is nothing short of ridiculous.

What really alarms me is the lengths to which this government will go to actually recoup or claw back that money. Of course, the way this will work—and we uncovered this during the committee stage under questioning—is that somebody, somewhere, actually has to be the person who investigates a claim on the hotline, or whatever it might be, 'dob in a volunteer cheat'. Somebody will have to investigate the claim that somebody has crossed that seven-day, magical threshold and failed to repay the cost of the free check to the government. Cue dramatic music at that point—unbelievable, shock horror!

What will be the cost to the government of having someone sitting somewhere in, I presume, the Public Service, spending their time investigating an allegation of screening theft, clearance fraud, or whatever we might call it? What is the cost of that compared to the meagre amount that this government is going to recover by asking someone who has crossed that seven-day threshold of paid work to repay the cost of the screen that they received in the first place?

Aside from the very little economic sense that it makes to do this, what message does this actually send to current and prospective volunteers in our community? To use this bill and to use volunteers as a vehicle to make a budget saving is nothing short of reprehensible, particularly when the commitment before the 2018 state election from the then Liberal opposition was crystal clear. It was crystal clear that volunteers would not pay for their screening check. There were no ifs, there were no buts, there was no fine print or no asterisk at the bottom.

In my second reading contribution, I readily admitted, as someone who knocked on a lot of doors during that campaign, that there were people in our community whose vote was decided by this commitment. I spoke to them and I remember some of the people, and I have met them since. They said to me that, as volunteers, they did not think they should pay for their screening and that the state government should do more to encourage and incentivise people to be volunteers, and I have no doubt that they went to the ballot boxes on 17 March 2018 and cast their vote for a Marshall Liberal government on that basis.

What we see now is a failure by this government to meet the commitment they made to those people. I have no doubt that they are going to feel very let down, particularly when the seven-day rule, as we learnt when we asked questions during the committee stage on this, is a completely arbitrary rule. We asked whether or not the threshold of seven days of paid work might have been decided upon because the government thought that the volunteer had somehow reached a magical point where their capacity to repay the cost of the screen might have come to fruition—but, no, it has nothing to do with that.

My recollection of the answer we were given is that the seven-day time frame actually aligns with other time frames in that bill and other bills. So it is not about the volunteer who, as we have heard, might be doing a few hours as Santa during Christmas. It is not as though they suddenly have a pocketful of cash and we think, 'Right, you can easily pay back the cost of the screen, Santa. Come on down.' It has nothing to do with that. 'The seven days fits really nicely and snugly with other thresholds and other time frames in the bill so we will choose that.'

The great offence taken by the minister in the other place at the audacity of the opposition to ask questions about this bill was really something to behold. The imposing of arbitrary time lines upon us for when the bill should be passed could not at all be explained here under questioning, even when the member for Reynell tried in vain to ask what the ramifications might be if this bill was passed at 5.30 tomorrow instead of 5.30 today. No explanation was given.

All in all, holistically, this only goes to further disincentivise other people from volunteering. That will be the net effect of this bill. People who might be prevaricating or thinking about being a volunteer and who, if they are like everybody else in our community, have a very busy life and might be wondering whether or not they can fit in volunteering at the Country Fire Service, the State Emergency Service, or at Surf Life Saving South Australia, when it comes down to it will think, 'Well, this new government says that if I work seven days of paid work I'm going to have repay the cost of my screen.' I think that speaks volumes about the value this government places on volunteers. It is very disappointing that a bill with such noble intentions is now being used to save a bit of money.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (20:33): I rise to make a very brief third reading contribution. As others have so rightly spoken about, every single aspect of South Australian community life in every corner of South Australia is enriched by volunteers: their generosity of spirit absolutely makes South Australia a stronger, kinder and more connected place. Their efforts often inspire and pave the way for others to follow similarly in providing community service. Certainly, I and all members on this side of the house commend every single one of those volunteers for making a very personal decision to give their time, their energy, their heart and their passion in the service of others.

Yesterday, when I was thinking about this bill coming on today, I reflected on the three preceding days and what I had done on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. I reflected on the fact that every single event that I attended was made possible, was made stronger and was made better by the generosity of spirit of volunteers in our community.

Just last Friday, with the Speaker I attended the Italian Community Volunteer Awards, where we recognised and rightly awarded dozens of volunteers. These are people who have given their time and their energy to so many different causes and to so many different people in our community. We recognised and awarded people from Italian pensioners' associations, Radio Italiana, aged care, community organisations and multiple others.

On Friday night, I had the pleasure of attending the Athletics SA awards together with the member for Colton, who I must say spoke very well. It was a pleasure to see him standing in for the Minister for Recreation and Sport and hear him speak so well and from the heart about his experience in sport. It really was a lovely speech. As I said, I was pleasantly surprised not only that he spoke so well but that he stood in for the Minister for Recreation and Sport. I hope that I see him at many other functions in that capacity in the future.

As the member would know, many people were recognised that night for decades of service as coaches, as starters and as officials. So many people were recognised for running athletics clubs right across our state. It really was a very inspiring event to attend, and again I say to the member for Colton well done on what he contributed to that evening.

On Saturday morning, I unfortunately had to miss my usual parkrun at Christies Beach, which again is staffed by volunteers in our community. I had to miss that parkrun because I had the opportunity to support the Edge Church in their Run to RED and did my kind of walk, kind of run (mostly walking) with them. Again, that entire event was attended by thousands of people in our community and was entirely run by volunteers. It was a spectacular event that raised lots of funds, again through the efforts of volunteers, which will go back into our community.

On Saturday afternoon, I had the pleasure of attending the Port Noarlunga and Christies Beach Southern Football League match. I had the opportunity to be part of a commentary team that broadcast through Tribe FM 91.1. The other members of that commentary team, who are there week in, week out, as well as on their Friday night siren-to-siren show, are also volunteers who give hours, weeks, months, years and decades of service to the Southern Football League. Of course, we were commentating a game that would not have been possible without the service of volunteers at both the Port Noarlunga and Christies Beach football clubs.

That night, I attended a local surf lifesaving club where volunteers were recognised for their generosity throughout the surf lifesaving season. Some people were recognised for reaching the milestone of having contributed thousands of patrol hours, keeping our beautiful beaches on the Mid Coast safe for our local southern community and also for people who visit our beautiful Mid Coast.

Others were recognised for long-term service supporting our young people's pathway into surf lifesaving and, in turn, supporting their volunteering efforts. Surf lifesaving is a wonderful institution that has been a very strong part of my life. It not only enables competition but also focuses on providing a vital community service to other people in our community. Others were rightly recognised for running the club bar, for serving food, for doing all the things that make that club run week after week during the summer season and beyond.

On Sunday, together with thousands of South Australians, including the member for Bragg and many people on this side of the house, I attended the Mother's Day Classic. Multiple volunteers who are members of the Women in Super organisation and who are members of cancer support organisations were there, making sure that that incredible event, that has grown so much over the past couple of decades, was again a huge success. Without the support of those volunteers running that event, the funds would not have been raised and awareness about the terrible circumstances that people find themselves in due to this terrible illness would not have been raised. All those things were made possible through the service of volunteers.

Those events are literally just a few stories of volunteers that I encountered over the course of just a few days. I certainly could go on, and I know every single member in this house could speak at length about the volunteers that they encounter day in and day out in our community. As were many people in this house, as were many members of this house, I was really pleased when I heard the news about the implementation of free screenings for volunteers, given all that contact I have with volunteers, as do so many others. I was intrigued about that particular initiative, but then I found that this measure had a number of problems when it was presented in this bill.

First of all, it does not necessarily deliver free screenings for volunteers at all. It lacks clarity, as we found through questions this afternoon, about the line between the service of volunteers who are providing services like those I have just spoken about—those providing voluntary service without expectation of monetary reward—and those who are doing paid work. Certainly, through the questioning this afternoon it was very clear that there is a very worrying lack of clarity about where that line lies.

We also found out, again through questions today, that the nexus between the NDIS commission—and its role in safeguarding people, screening people and overseeing that screening—and the central screening unit contemplated in this bill is really unclear, which again, given the incredible change that is upon us as a result of the NDIS, is really very worrying.

We also found through looking at the bill and through questions today that, absolutely shockingly, these generous volunteers so many people and I have spoken about and all of us encounter in the course of what we get to do with and for our communities, could be subject to $5000 penalties under new section 33A(4) and that, even more worryingly, there is no communication plan about why and when you might be liable for those penalties. There is no clear communication plan, leaving those generous volunteers, whom we should absolutely be rewarding for their service, vulnerable to exorbitant penalties rather than the rewards they so richly deserve for what they do with and for our community.

We should be celebrating our volunteers, not penalising them. Our volunteers deserve so much better than what is in this bill, and our volunteers certainly deserve so much better than an attempt that was made by a member in the other place to actually stymie our ability to interrogate some of those concerns that have rightly been raised today and when we commenced debating this bill a couple of weeks ago.

It was alarming to think that a minister would send a message to somehow curtail those absolutely appropriate questions that we all have about the operation of this bill, how it actually could deliver what it purports to deliver and how those generous volunteers would be protected from those exorbitant penalties that we explored in our questions today and a couple of weeks ago.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (20:45): I indicate again my appreciation that the opposition have confirmed their support of the bill. It is taken effectively some three years to culminate legislation to conclude what has been the passage of the 2016 bill in relation to children and then, more recently in 2018, the Disability Inclusion Act, traversing a population of children and vulnerable people and the protections afforded them as a result of the screening procedure.

It is disappointing to note some of the commentary, but I will conclude by saying a number of things. We spent 16 years under the previous government, during which they gave no relief to the volunteers about whom I have just heard repeated glowing speeches—no relief whatsoever. They charged them full tote odds throughout the time we have had screening, which has been for a decade or so, and yet, coming into the parliament in the course of this debate, somehow they see these people as having deserved much better.

We are not going to resolve the clear and different view that the opposition have relative to the government's position as to both the appropriateness and applicability of the provisions that are to apply in the event of a volunteer obtaining work relating to children and, after a threshold of seven days, having the obligation to pay the fee. Clearly, we are not going to agree on that. The opposition have indicated that they see this as some kind of carnivorous clawback that is unfair and inappropriate for the purpose of volunteers. We see responsible government as having to deal with what we would hope to be only very few people who might try to exploit this circumstance.

The commentary that has been made in the final conclusion of this bill, and the repeated claims that the minister imposed on this house an obligation to curtail debate and restrict questioning, I think is blatantly unfair and inaccurate. I maintain that the minister, together with the Minister for Child Protection, and personnel in the Attorney-General's office have worked diligently, certainly in the 14 months or so of the new government, to try to bring this matter to a successful conclusion so that we can get on and implement the new obligations.

I do not know, but I suspect that those same people were also working during the time of the previous government. They were meeting challenges as to the applicability of the new screening provisions. That was evident from when the change of government occurred, when we found that they were nowhere near being able to complete this exercise by the end of last year, and efforts were then made to bring it to fruition by June this year.

I will specifically address the matters that have been raised. One was the assertion by the member for Lee that somehow or other somebody like Shannon McCoole might be able to get access to data that would be totally inappropriate. I do not know where the member for Lee was during the debates on this matter or where he was during the development of much legislation subsequent to the finding of Mr McCoole's conduct while he was in the employ of the department under the previous government.

The reality is that we on this side of the house do not take responsibility for Mr McCoole. That was a shabby exercise. It was totally unsatisfactory supervision of the protection of children under a previous regime, and we take no responsibility for him. Nor do I take responsibility for the former premier in the way he made press statements upon the arrest of Mr McCoole and the subsequent announcement of a royal commission. The whole exercise was a shabby and, I think, tawdry passage in the history of the previous government.

There is nothing that has been outlined in the course of the committee that suggests that someone like Mr McCoole would be able to get access to data under the regime of the operation of the assessment unit and accessibility to data for the purposes of a worker having real-time information about their history, together with the rights of an employer to, obviously, make the inquiry and be kept informed as to whether their employee had become a prohibited person for the purposes of the act.

In my view, that is nothing short of a disgraceful attack on those people who are already working in this unit, already doing this work and already protecting that data for the purposes of the registry and the accessibility arrangements for it. It is a shameful attack on them, without one scintilla of evidence that a breach has occurred. I remind members that if circumstances are brought to their attention where there may be some breach then, for goodness sake, report it. Do not come in here and try to raise the threshold that there is in some way a risk to a service that diligent public servants are currently undertaking with not one shred of evidence to suggest the contrary.

Another matter that was raised in the third reading was the suggestion that the police had not been consulted, that we are not sure about the police data in respect of confidence of their capacity to support the obligations that they will have, already have and will continue to have under this legislation. Again, there is not one scintilla of evidence to suggest that, not one complaint presented to us and no approach by the Commissioner of Police to say, 'Hang on a minute. We can't manage to comply with the obligations that we are currently doing,' etc.

As members may be aware—which should have been known to members of the opposition, particularly those in government—late last year new IT infrastructure was in place for the reportability and transferability of data in relation to prosecutions and convictions within the Courts Administration Authority and obviously assisting in the compilation of material. Again, please do not come into the house and try to use the committee process as some kind of arena to throw allegations around without presenting any evidence to support that.

I thank the member for Cheltenham for his contribution. Although he is puzzled, it seems, by the differing definitions in relation to employment, work and the matters that are relevant to this legislation, they do differ from other legislation and that is for good reason. He will learn in the course of time that there are circumstances that apply in which those definitions will change. Whether it is in the Fair Work Act, as he suggested, the Fair Work Commission, under WorkCover or ReturnToWork obligations in the industrial law, there are lots of different circumstances where this is raised.

He also seemed to be puzzled and concerned about the definition of those who are in services such as the CFS and MFS to the exclusion of others. Again, this is a policy decision determined by the government that a high number of them are not in the high-risk area and that group has been accorded the longest period of time to transition—a three-year transition—because they present the minimum risk.

That does not mean we are ignoring other people completely. They have a transition, but we have identified a particular cohort that is larger in number and that will assist in the transition. That should not seen as some reflection of inconsistency, of exclusion of other groups that might have a smaller amount in them.

The question was raised about a marine rescue squad—I cannot remember the full title of it now—that basically provides services when they are trying to find or rescue, hopefully alive but sometimes not—

Mr Cowdrey: Sea Rescue Squadron.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The Sea Rescue Squadron, which assists the SES from time to time. Are these people included? We would expect so, if they are under contract, but we do not know that for sure. I make this point: it is a transition clause to try to ensure that we have an orderly transfer of what are tens of thousands of people who will be requiring checks or upgrades.

In relation to the committee itself, it is disappointing that when the member for Hurtle Vale came into the house and presented her argument on aspects of this bill, and we do not agree with it all but she presented her argument, and asked genuine questions about concerns of constituents—I think there were other members, too, the member for Reynell, with particular concerns in relation to the disability area and how things were going to apply, and it is reasonable that that inquiry is made—what is rude to the committee is when it appears that other members who come in to make a contribution about the matter are clearly not, for whatever reason, listening to the questions being asked by their colleagues.

They come in and either repeat them or dress them up in speeches that make it almost impossible to understand. The member for West Torrens is an expert at that. After his contributions I am struggling, at times, to even understand what he is asking. M adviser was certainly looking very puzzled. I make this point: if a valuable contribution is made to committee work for the purposes of eliciting the practical application of a proposed piece of legislation, please have the courtesy, wherever you may be seated, of listening carefully to your colleagues' contributions. Coming in with some repetition or repetitive argument is clearly unhelpful in progressing the case.

I can sit here day in and day out—I have done it for 17 years, and I am happy to be here to answer questions on these matters—but it is disrespectful to other colleagues in the opposition who have presented or asked reasonable questions (and the member for Torrens is one) about the administration when the Three Stooges come in and give us this contribution that is completely unproductive and unhelpful. I ask them to address the circumstances and seriousness of this legislation.

Finally, again, it seems that for whatever reason the opposition has seen some mischief in the Minister for Human Services' indication to all members, right across the parliament and not just to the opposition, of the circumstances in which this would place the capacity for the implementation of law if we did not conclude the debate today to deal with executive council approval, etc., and undertake what I see is being begged for by this parliament, that is, a comprehensive communication strategy to go out to the community before we get to 30 June. The capacity to affect that has been made very clear.

That is not my assessment. That is the assessment of the advisers who have been working on this for three years. They made this clear: if you pass this bill in June and you have a few days left, then clearly people have no clue to be able to prepare for this. We are talking about tens of thousands of people who would need to be alerted to the change of the rules and what their obligations would be.

We can have our differences of opinion on these things but, please, members who want to come in here and just grandstand about this matter, this serious matter, listen carefully to what your colleagues have already contributed. There have been helpful contributions, and I think they have outlined that, but some have been both obstructive and unhelpful. With that, I commend the bill to the house and look forward to its now swift passage.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (20:59): I rise to exercise my right under standing order 116 to clarify a matter that the Deputy Premier has unfortunately misunderstood about a contribution I made previously. It has just been asserted to this place by the Deputy Premier that asserting that someone potentially of the ilk of a Shannon McCoole may have access to the database the bill seeks to establish is somehow a disgraceful attack on the public servants who are currently administering the database.

As I was at pains to explain, I made those comments because the response we received from the Deputy Premier was that we have no protocols around the operation of this database to be established. We have no regulations that set out those protocols, and so as far as we know, according to the bill it is open to anyone. It is not a disgraceful attack. It is a reasonable comment about a reasonable assertion made on the back of the responses that the Deputy Premier has made.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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