Page 1880 - Week 05 - Thursday, 16 May 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
it is not the intention for an interim condition to be applied for activities involving working with children. This intention, however, is not present in the proposed legislation. When I queried the minister’s office as to why, I was told that the risk assessment process itself may make this clear, but I have not received any clarification that this is the case. Again, I wish that this concern be noted.
Finally, clause 60 of the bill greatly expands the list of designated entities that the commissioner may give protected information to, roughly doubling the number. I understand that this information-sharing is always to be on reasonable grounds that the information is relevant to preventing harm or risk of harm to a vulnerable person or class of vulnerable people. I do not wish to argue against the importance of sharing relevant information. When I asked what guidelines were used in determining which new designated entities should be included, however, I was told that some of it arose from national harmonisation. But the intergovernmental agreement itself does not provide a recommended list of designated entities that should be receiving protected information. When this was pointed out, I was told that the guidelines used are not publicly available.
I note here that the scrutiny committee also raised concerns about the right to privacy and reputation in relation to this clause and asked that the minister consider revising the explanatory statement to provide justification for these changes, using the framework set out in section 28 of the Human Rights Act. No such justification appears in the updated explanatory statement, however, and I ask the Assembly to note my concern about this fact. As I have stated, no-one wants there to be obstacles to the sharing of information necessary for protected or vulnerable people, but this proposed amendment raises concerns that have not been satisfactorily addressed. The Canberra Liberals will certainly keep an eye on how this section of the act operates once updated. If necessary, we will return to this place with any resultant issues.
The Canberra Liberals will be supporting this bill in principle, despite these five concerns or five unanswered questions. We want the ACT to be able to perform its agreed role when it comes to the background screening of NDIS workers. We want our working with vulnerable people scheme to function at its very best. I hope that the issues I have raised today will be resolved, going forward, in the best possible way. I look forward to hopefully having fewer unanswered questions about the two more amendment bills we have been told to expect in relation to the Working with Vulnerable People Act.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (5.44): I support the Working with Vulnerable People (Background Checking) Amendment Bill. It is my understanding that, in essence, this bill seeks to include specific provisions to allow background checking of people who intend to work or volunteer in NDIS activities in which the contact with people with a disability is more than incidental. These provisions include the need for an applicant to provide additional information, including employer details and their NDIS registration number, when they are seeking a working with vulnerable people background check for the purposes of working for or as NDIS providers. Proposed schedule 3 makes it very clear what types of offences will disqualify a person from receiving registration and those for which exceptional circumstances may allow registration.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video