Commission for Children and Young People Amendment Bill 2005
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I speak to the Commission for Children and Young People Amendment Bill. The bill implements the statutory review of the legislation for the Commission for Children and Young People and I commend the spirit and intention of this bill. Last Saturday I had the annual privilege of meeting with the Dalmar old boys and old girls group, people who have been within the Wesley Mission Dalmar Child and Family Care Homes during their upbringing. For 90 years, beginning in 1894, Wesley Mission’s Dalmar cared for 10,000 children. In the years from 1984 to 2000 Dalmar cared for another 10,000 children. Currently every 2½ years Wesley Mission cares for 10,000 children. Professor of Australian History at the University of Newcastle, Professor Don Wright, was invited to bring a team of senior students, those doing masters degrees, to visit as many of those children still living who could be traced. We have excellent tracing practices, because many children want to access their records and are part of the Dalmar old boys and old girls group.
Professor Wright reported, after the follow-up of about 10,000 children who had been brought up in care, that there were very few cases of abuse. Today, Wesley Mission conducts child care facilities on 37 sites in New South Wales. Based on that background I now address some of our concerns with the bill. Within the hearts and souls of our children and young people lies the future of our nation. As legislators, we act as vanguards for protecting the interests, wellbeing and safety of our children. Having said that, we must do all within our power to protect our children and young people as our children are one of the most vulnerable segments of our society. Jesus spoke about the vulnerability of children and young people and laid down a principle for their treatment. Jesus said, in Matthew 18:10, “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”
In Greek the word “offend” denotes causing a child to stumble, violating a child’s innocence, or putting a stumbling block or impediment in the way of a child’s growth. A child’s development can be severely hindered and deviated when a child is mistreated physically or verbally. Anyone who contributes to a child being emotionally or physically downtrodden must be brought to account by the relevant authorities. In my time I have had to deal with abusers, including some who have been on my staff. My approach has always been instant dismissal for any person who has been accused, the charging of that person by police and allowing the courts to determine his or her innocence or guilt.
We follow a policy of believing what the child says and not the adult. In caring for so many thousands of children every year we also have a policy where every person working with a child in any of our youth programs, camping programs, child care programs and the like, is checked for background referencing. Very rarely have we found people who have got through that kind of screening process. This bill seeks to make amendments to the legislation that regulates the Commission for Children and Young People, an independent entity charged with the responsibility of representing and advocating for the interests of children and youth.
I congratulate the commission and Gillian Calvert, its leader, on the vital work that has been done for our children and young people to date. Their work must be encouraged and never undervalued. In 1979 I was guardian ad litem—guardian in the eyes of the law—for 134 children. In 1979 I thought that was an awesome responsibility. The legal niceties about guardians ad litem have changed somewhat over the years, but for the year 2004 the number exceeded 3,000 children who came to Wesley Mission in need of protection and care, and usually also accommodation and everything else that went with that. That is a great responsibility. I honour those people who go out of their way to care for other people’s children.
The commission reports directly to the New South Wales Parliament and the parliamentary Committee on Children and Young People oversees the work of the commission. The commission is responsible for implementing and monitoring laws that affect all people working with children and young people in New South Wales to make workplaces safe for them. The commission also runs a voluntary accreditation scheme for counsellors who work with people who have committed sexual offences against children. I have reason to be indebted to the Commission for Children and Young People. In 2004 the legislation underpinning the commission was reviewed by Ms Helen L’Orange, drawing on recent research findings and oral and written submissions from a wide range of interested parties including, as was mentioned earlier, 384 organisations and individuals, 255 of whom were children and young people.
The justification for the review of the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998 and the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998 is that the statutory period for review, being five years, needed to be met. However, the 95-page report enumerates a number of findings. Ms L’Orange found that the policy objectives of the legislation generally remain valid and that the terms of the Acts generally remain appropriate for securing those objectives. The report contains a balanced set of suggested strategies responding to feedback from stakeholders, development in similar schemes outside New South Wales, contemporary research, recent judgments, Operation Auxin and other emerging issues. There were 26 recommendations for amendments to legislation and 24 general conclusions not requiring legislative implementation.
It was envisaged by Ms L’Orange that a significant reduction in level of risk to children and young people would result from the proposed changes, which we welcome. As part of its analysis the review sought to minimise the impact on large and small organisations. At least for the next three or four weeks I still remain in charge of one of the largest organisations caring for children in New South Wales. It also reviews the behaviour and background of employees, employers, self-employed persons and, unlike what was said earlier by Ms Sylvia Hale, it includes volunteers, who can be banned. An education program will be undertaken to remind all those people of their responsibilities. Applicants for prohibited employment exemptions must also be examined.
The review was mindful of the needs of rural and regional communities. I have filled in my forms and I have been passed, even though I am a member of a board. I might explain that not just people working with children have to undergo such scrutiny; even board members of organisations have to do so. In view of the recommendations and conclusions of the review the bill has sought to do a number of things. I will not try exhaustively to cover all aspects in the bill but I wish to draw the attention of honourable members to some salient aspects.
The bill strengthens the prohibited employment regime. It will require self-employed persons working with children to display a certificate that they are not prohibited persons—something that Wesley Mission has been urging for some time. In spite of what an earlier speaker said, we believe it will be of great benefit to parents to establish that self-employed people such as teachers, coaches or mentors are not prohibited persons. Obviously, that will reassure parents that the prospective or current workplaces in which their children are involved or exposed to are safe. Self-employed persons include private tutors, music teachers, coaches and the like.
Significantly, the bill will prevent those who have been convicted as adults of intentionally causing grievous bodily harm from working in any child-related employment. It is only sensible that that requirement is entrenched in law. Children should not in any way be exposed to adults who have committed intentional acts of harm against children. Currently, serious sex offenders, kidnappers and child murderers are banned from working with children. This bill will extend the net of prohibition to those who intentionally cause grievous bodily harm to children. Some areas within our community unfortunately have a large number of persons who may be paedophiles or may have had the full thrust of the law against them because of their guilt in harming children.
When I was in the relatively small suburb of Lurnea in the south-west of Sydney recently I spoke to a senior police officer. I have an interest in helping to rehabilitate people in that area. Lurnea is the area in which a young girl was taken from her home overnight. She is still missing, which is a matter of deep concern for many people. The senior police officer told me that in the Lurnea community alone there are in excess of 60 convicted paedophiles. That is a real concern for any person in that community. I make no apologies for supporting this bill as its provisions ensure that persons who have been convicted of the most serious crimes against children cannot apply for a review of their prohibited status.
I heard Ms Sylvia Hale refer earlier to how serious it was when convicted criminals—people convicted of the most serious crimes against children—were not allowed to have a review of their prohibited status. From my experience of working with some paedophiles this review and the law have it right. It is difficult to rehabilitate people who have been convicted of the most serious crimes against children. Such people should not be given a chance or an opportunity to be around children in future. In the rehabilitation work for which I have been responsible we never allow any such persons to be around other children.
Serious crimes include murdering a child under the age of 18, producing child pornography, sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 16, or a crime against a child under 18 where the adult is in a special role, such as a sports coach. Those people’s future contact with children should be limited. There are certain exceptions, for example, where there was sexual intercourse between two young people who are both of a young age. The bill amalgamates the two current Acts that form the basis for the establishment, and define the function, of the commission. Part and parcel of this change is laying down a single set of commission guidelines that effectively will cover background checking and prohibition on employment.
The commission and other agencies carry out some 200,000 checks per year on behalf of employers. It is worth noting that background checking is not restricted to an applicant’s criminal record but includes looking at other aspects of the applicant’s background and checking the nature of the job and the workplace, as poor work design and inadequate supervision can also place children at risk.
One salient point is that the bill introduces a single and more exact definition of child-related employment. The bill also makes explicit the commission’s function of promoting child-safe and child-friendly organisations. The bill will give the commission audit powers to strengthen background checking. For example, employers will be asked to provide documentary evidence that they are meeting their child protection obligations. Employers who are found not to be complying will be issued with a notice to comply. If they still refuse to comply they may be prosecuted. Importantly, the Government has said that it intends to do further reform in this area following the introduction of the bill. Consultation will take place with those groups impacted by the review’s recommendations for extending background checking to further improve the New South Wales system. Nothing is more important than the children for whom we care, and we commend the Government for introducing this bill.