Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Crimes Amendment (Working With Children—Criminal History) Bill 2009. I do not think there is a member in this House who would disagree with the notion that the safety of our children is of paramount concern to the national community. The object of these amendments is to help protect children from sexual, physical and emotional harm, by permitting criminal history information to be disclosed and taken into account in assessing the suitability of persons to work with children. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, unofficial estimates are that approximately one in four girls and between one in seven and one in 12 boys are victims of some form of sexual abuse alone. The effects of abuse and neglect on children are tragic. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reports that there are established links between abuse or neglect as a child and poor social, behavioural and health outcomes, as well as a higher likelihood of criminal offending and mental health issues. I do not think we need an institute or a study to tell us this; it is almost self-evident. Most Australians would already understand and acknowledge these links.

This bill will amend the Crimes Act 1914 to enable the disclosure and use of criminal history information about a person’s pardoned, quashed and spent convictions, but only for the purpose of child related employment screening. The bill implements the COAG agreement to facilitate the interjurisdictional exchange of criminal history information for people working with children. At its meeting on 29 November 2008 the Council of Australian Governments endorsed recommendations for the interjurisdictional exchange of criminal history information for people working with children, including pardoned, quashed and spent convictions. Jurisdictions agreed to prepare, introduce and seek passage of legislative amendments within nine months of the COAG agreement. Jurisdictions also agreed to remove any legislative or administrative barriers to formally supplying criminal history information, including information on spent convictions and quashed and pardoned convictions, to other jurisdictions for the purpose of child related employment screening.

At the Commonwealth level, the legislative barriers to the exchange of criminal history information under the COAG implementation plan are contained in part VIIC of the Crimes Act 1914. This bill provides for new exclusions which allow the disclosure of information about a person’s spent, quashed and pardoned convictions to or by a prescribed person or body permitted or required by or under a prescribed law to obtain or deal with information about a person who works, or seeks to work, with children and for the purpose of obtaining or dealing with such information in accordance with prescribed law. At the moment there is national inconsistency with regard to the screening of those who seek to work with children. The differences in laws and approach over different jurisdictions are sparse.

In the ACT, there is no formal act or screening program. However, individual employees may require police checks at their discretion. In August 2009 the ACT government released a community discussion paper and a proposed system of background checking of people working with vulnerable people, including children. In New South Wales, the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1988 underpins the New South Wales working with children check. This is an employer-driven point in time system entailing background checks of employees and the permanent exclusion of prohibited persons from child related occupations. In the Northern Territory, the Care and Protection of Children Act 2007 requires individuals to apply for a working with children check, known as a clearance notice. A clearance notice is valid for two years. This applies to employers and volunteers in child related employment settings.

In Queensland, the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000 requires individuals to apply for a working with children check, known as a blue card. This is valid for two years, and blue cards entitle individuals to engage in child related occupations and volunteering. In South Australia, the Children’s Protection Act 1993 underpins an employer-driven point in time system requiring employers and responsible authorities to obtain criminal history checks for those engaged in child related occupations or volunteering. In Tasmania, there is no formal act or screening program. However, individual employers may require police checks at their discretion. In 2005 the Commissioner for Children Tasmania released a consultation paper discussing proposals for the government to introduce screening procedures for Tasmanian organisations which want to employ people to work with children. In Victoria, the Working With Children Act 2005 requires individuals to apply for a working with children check. This is valid for five years. The check entitles individuals to engage in child related occupations and volunteering. Finally, in Western Australia, the Working With Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act 2004 requires individuals to apply for a working with children check. This is valid for three years. Again, the check entitles individuals to engage in child related occupations and volunteering.

One safeguard included in this bill is that the criminal history information received may only be used for the limited purposes of assessing the risk that a person may pose in working with children. The information may not be used for the purpose of a general probity or employment suitability check. Another important safeguard under the COAG agreement is that certain participation requirements must be met before a person or body can receive the information. In accordance with the COAG agreement, a person or body will only be prescribed for the purpose of enabling them to receive conviction information if the person or body: is authorised by the government of the state or territory in which it operates; has a legislative basis for screening that prohibits further release or use of the information, except for legislated child protection functions in exceptional circumstances; complies with applicable privacy, human rights and records management legislation; reflects principles of natural justice; and has risk assessment frameworks and appropriately skilled staff to assess risks to children’s safety. To reinforce the importance of these safeguards, before a person or body in a state or territory can be prescribed in regulations to allow them to obtain and deal with the Commonwealth criminal history information, the Minister for Home Affairs must first be satisfied they meet all of these safeguards in their own jurisdiction. The bill also requires the Minister for Home Affairs to cause a review of the operation of the new provisions to be conducted after an initial trial period. The review is to commence not later than 30 June 2011 and must be completed within three months.

In the second reading speech on this bill, the Minister for Home Affairs, the Hon Brendan O’Connor, noted two main reasons for COAG’s agreement on a framework that allowed for consideration of a person’s full criminal history, including non-conviction information—that is, evidence that incarcerated sexual offenders are more likely to have previous convictions for nonsexual offences than for sexual offences and indications from law-enforcement agencies that charges relating to offences against children are often withdrawn, as a decision is made to protect the child victim from the stress and trauma of giving evidence, cross-examination and simply waiting for committal and trial.

There is broad acceptance of the necessity for some form of working with children checking and for ensuring the safety of children. It is appropriate that we are debating this during this sitting, when the plight of the forgotten Australians is very much a topic of the national conversation. The Prime Minister will give a national apology next week to recognise the ongoing hurt suffered by Australians held in care as children. As Minister Jenny Macklin said in parliament:

For the most part, these were cold, loveless, authoritarian places, with no time at all for the exuberance and innocence of childhood; no time for the love or laughter and warmth of family life; no time to play, to eat healthy food or to get a decent education.

Around half a million Australians are believed to be in the group known as the forgotten Australians. Many of these children were subject to emotional, physical and sexual abuse at the hands of those who had the responsibility to care for them. It makes you wonder whether, if governments of the past had been more stringent in their hiring practices and less cold and more humane in nature, this apology from the Prime Minister would have been be necessary. Today, many of the forgotten Australians continue to struggle as a result of their experiences, grappling with mental illness, homelessness and substance abuse.

I have spoken in this parliament about my personal experience as an adopted child in the sixties and seventies. Similarly, I have heard in this place the experiences as an adoptee of the member for Forde and the experiences as a foster child of the member for Swan. I can speak only for myself as to how fortunate I was to have two very loving adoptive parents, who continue to support me, but hundreds of thousands of children in similar circumstances were not as lucky. I was part of a loving family environment.

An inquiry by the Senate Community Affairs References Committee began in 2004 and allowed many of those affected by the institutional care system of times past to pour out their stories of immense pain and hurt. This committee received over 440 public submissions and 174 confidential submissions. The first recommendation from that report was:

That the Commonwealth Government issue a formal statement acknowledging, on behalf of the nation, the hurt and distress suffered by many children in institutional care, particularly the children who were victims of abuse and assault; and apologising for the harm caused to these children.

Thankfully, the Rudd government is acknowledging the suffering of the forgotten Australians. An apology will at least acknowledge the hurt of these once-innocent children and make the forgotten Australians forgotten no more.

In closing, I wish again to endorse the spirit of this bill. There is a role for government to play to help protect children from sexual, physical and emotional harm. Criminal history information should and must be disclosed and taken into account in assessing the suitability of persons working with children. I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context