Child Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 2003
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: The content of the Child Protection Legislation Amendment Bill is quite different from much of the speech that was made by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, who managed to have recorded in Hansard what I understand was rejected by the Legislative Assembly. That was quite a remarkable little card trick, if I may say so. In contrast, I wish to address my remarks to child protection legislation. The object of this bill is to improve the operation of child protection legislation by clarifying the reportable conduct of employees under that legislation.
Part 3A of the Ombudsman Act 1974 relates to notification and monitoring by the Ombudsman of disciplinary proceedings against employees of government and certain non-government agencies, and part 7 of the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998 relates to employment screening for child-related employment. The bill gives effect to recommendations of a government review into the impact of those Acts, particularly in connection with the work of teachers. The Christian Democratic Party supports this legislation but notes that teachers and teacher unions have expressed concerns that the current legislation creates confusion about acceptable conduct in the context of teaching and undermines teachers’ abilities to exercise effective classroom management and discipline as well as the development of professional and positive teacher-student relationships.
Obviously teachers need to look to their skills, but they should not be hampered by legislation that could encourage the misinformation that is sometimes bandied around under the term “abuse”. In May 2003, the Premier requested the Director-General of the Cabinet Office to conduct a review into the impact of child protection and employment screening legislation on teachers. The review made the following findings: the term “child abuse” raises strong emotions in the community, which in turn inhibits the effective implementation of the legislation; the current definition of “child abuse” does not clearly enough describe the type of behaviour that warrants investigation in a child protection context; and that current legislation captures conduct, such as low-level physical contact by teachers. While that conduct may be inappropriate, even unprofessional, it should be dealt with by employers and does not warrant consideration in an employment-screening context.
When the Minister for Education and Training, Dr Andrew Refshauge, urged State Parliament to give teachers more scope to do their jobs without fear of vexatious or malicious complaints of abuse, he called for a more commonsense approach to the law. The Government is now doing that through this bill. Unfortunately, commonsense was in shorter supply four years ago when, to much fanfare, a complaint and investigation model was implemented to test accusations of child abuse against teachers and others who work with children. Obviously that was a total overreaction to the problem. The result has been a stream of complaints against an estimated 2,000 teachers. Not a few of those cases were well justified. Teachers who sexually assault, harm, bash or victimise children in their care, deserve to feel the full force of the law. No reasonable person would argue that true interests of children should not be paramount.
I am not a very good member of the Australian Council of Education, but I attend local chapter meetings. For members and fellows of the Australian Council of Education this has been a matter of real concern. In some cases, students have conspired to concoct allegations against teachers simply because they did not like the teacher, or sometimes just for fun. The consequences of such actions can devastate a teacher’s career prospects, self-esteem and community standing. Further, the allegations have a habit of sticking, particularly when written into personal records, even when found to be unsubstantiated. They may also remain as unproven charges on a teacher’s job file and thus prejudice future promotion. On 4 September the Sydney Morning Herald editorial stated:
A big part of the problem has been that the law was written around the ill-defined concept of “child abuse”, a term which evokes assumptions of the worst excesses—including paedophilia, that has allowed frivolous complaints to be brought. Such a clumsy complaints process was bound to attract the malicious as well. Instead of giving due weight to the likelihood of unwanted consequences, the Government pressed on with a system that would ambush the innocent as readily as it would catch the predators and bullies.
I understand that the bill will work in conjunction with the revised Working With Children Check Guidelines to enable the changes to be appropriately applied. The guidelines, which apply to all employees, provide special measures for the education sector. As the Hon. John Ryan said, the guidelines would also have some application to those who provide other forms of care for children. The guidelines allow for minor matters not be notified to the Commission for Children and Young People for consideration in any future risk assessments for employment screening. It is important that in those cases normal reporting measurers, such as to a school principal, be followed.
The definition of “reportable conduct” has been debated. I will not go through that, except to underline that any sexual offence, or sexual misconduct, committed against, with, or in the presence of a child, including child pornography or any assault, ill-treatment or neglect of a child, or any behaviour that causes psychological harm to a child, whether or not with the consent of the child, is reportable conduct. On the other hand, reportable conduct does not extend to conduct that is reasonable for the discipline, management or care of children, having regard to the age, maturity, health or other characteristics of the children and to any relevant codes of conduct or professional standards, or conduct of a class or kind exempted from being reportable conduct by the Ombudsman under section 25CA.
The Christian Democratic Party commends the Minister for ensuring a more equitable and just proposal for those engaged in the important task of teaching. We support the teachers within our public and private sectors. We support also the retention of the definition of “hostile acts” and will support the Government’s amendments.