Page 1878 - Week 05 - Thursday, 16 May 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MRS KIKKERT (Ginninderra) (5.33): The Canberra Liberals will be supporting this bill today in principle, though I will be raising a number of concerns to be noted by the Assembly. Most of the amendments in this bill update the Working with Vulnerable People (Background Checking) Act to align with principles found in the Intergovernmental Agreement on Nationally Consistent Worker Screening for the national disability insurance scheme, produced jointly by the commonwealth government and the government of each state and territory. Because each jurisdiction has its own background checking scheme, the intergovernmental agreement provides general principles that must be translated into specific legislative changes in each state or territory. This bill therefore includes amendments intended to make ACT law comply with agreed national harmonisation around the screening of NDIS workers.
This bill also includes a handful of amendments that are not NDIS related. The explanatory statement notes that we should expect two more amendment bills designed to implement changes arising from the review of the territory’s working with vulnerable people scheme undertaken during 2016 and from the report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. When I asked why some of these amendments had been brought into this otherwise NDIS-focused bill, I was told that the intention was to include some of the easier changes and to try to be prospective regarding what are understood to be future consequential amendments.
The Canberra Liberals of course support efforts to protect vulnerable people, including those enrolled in the national disability insurance scheme. We therefore support the intergovernmental agreement’s objective of reducing the potential for NDIS providers to employ or engage individuals who pose an unacceptable risk of harm to people with a disability. We also support the eight principles listed in the agreement. For these reasons, we will be supporting this bill as drafted. At the same time, I note the following concerns, in order.
First, clause 21 inserts a new requirement that all applications for registration must include “a written statement about whether an allegation has been made in relation to a regulated activity and, if so, the details of the allegation”. This is in addition to already requiring a written statement regarding whether the applicant has been convicted or found guilty of a relevant offence. Section 23 of the act then defines exactly what a relevant offence is. The problem is that “allegation” is never defined in the same way. It is not, for example, specified as an allegation of having committed a relevant offence.
When I sought clarity from the minister’s office on this point, I was advised that the definition of allegation in the proposed amendment is just its ordinary dictionary meaning—in other words, “a statement made, without giving proof, that someone has done something wrong or illegal”. This is an awfully broad definition. Without further clarification, some applicants might understand this new requirement to include providing a list of every occasion when someone has suggested they were doing something wrong in the course of their duties, regardless of whether it has any relevance. I wish to go on record suggesting that this point can and probably should be made clearer.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video