Page 974 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 29 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
apply a consistent risk assessment framework and decision-making process to all applicants.
In doing this though, the ACT Greens believe we also need to understand the nature of people who have lived experience. We need to maintain their inclusion, where appropriate, in the workforce and regulated activities as defined within this bill. There is a balance to be found about how this is assessed in the risk management framework and the types of safeguards we put in place to ensure that we strive to maintain safe and healthy environments for children, young people and vulnerable adults.
In briefings I have received from the Office of Regulatory Services, I have been encouraged about how they propose to work through the newly established processes with applicants and their intent to guide potential employees through the new system. We understand that extending this beyond a checking system for children and young people is the first of its kind in Australia, as I have said. Tasmania released their discussion paper back in January with the expansion and the scope of the background checking system, and there will be a range of difficulties incurred and a lot of learning, no doubt, for the Office of Regulatory Services.
The territory will need to make a serious commitment to seeking feedback that allows and supports an agenda of continuous improvement. We also need to ensure that no-one is disadvantaged or discriminated against while trying to access employment within the regulated activities as defined in the bill.
Having worked in the community sector and, as part of that, the youth sector over more than 25 years, I am keenly aware that there are many service providers who already have in place rigorous policies that require background checking of employees and their volunteers. However, I have also long held concerns about the fact that our current background checking system is only valid for the day that it is conducted. The police check currently in place is, of course, really only valid for a day. Some employees move around the sector and receive checks at each new position, and we have a certain amount of surveillance on their police record. However, for someone who is a long-serving employee, there is one check and no real understanding of any offences that may have been committed since that may be defined as inappropriate to the work they perform.
Current checking systems in the ACT place the final decision about suitability in the hands of a range of managers of services or organisations who may or may not have experience or knowledge about whether a potential employee is actually suitable for a position. There is also no real system of appeal or recourse for someone who may be subject to a negative checking decision. It is envisaged that this new system will provide increased consistencies in this area.
The bill establishes that registrations must be for no longer than three years, and I am pleased to note that registrations cannot be indefinite, because risk assessments are conducted as a point-in-time exercise that must be periodically updated. However, I would also highlight that we are not in a position to believe that this system will or can be the only protection provided to children, young people and vulnerable adults.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video