Page 1550 - Week 06 - Thursday, 2 July 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
aware of the person’s ineligibility. When I asked how exactly the commissioner would stay on top of such things, I was reminded that applicants must provide this information when applying for a renewal. But, of course, registration now lasts for five years between renewals. That means a good bit of time could pass before a registration holder might need to legally disclose that information as part of a renewal process. I was further assured that “Access Canberra is developing automated processes to monitor registrations”. This is something that we will need to know more about as it progresses.
Thirdly, I note that, contrary to what is stated in the national standards, this bill maintains the category of “conditional registration”. The explanation for this is that the territory’s working with vulnerable people scheme has a broader remit than just working with children. Maintaining conditional registration will allow people who are disqualified from working with children to work or volunteer in other very specific contexts where it is deemed appropriate. This determination will be made by the commissioner after a risk assessment and could include, for example, a recovering addict volunteering to assist others in the recovery process. Personally, I support this decision. It acknowledges the human dignity of those with lived experience while also protecting children from potential risk.
At the same time, I am a bit confused and would be grateful if the minister would provide some clarity. When I pointed out that Tasmania is listed as the sole jurisdiction that had declined to endorse standard 28’s rejection of conditional registration, I was told that the previous minister, Mr Steel, had written to the national body that the ACT was committed to moving away from conditional registration. I would like to know whether or not that remains the position of this government. I have asked that question in writing but have yet to receive a response from the minister. I would be happy to hear her response as part of today’s debate.
Fourthly, several amendments in this bill allow for the reasons behind a decision to be shared with a person’s listed employer, with the applicant’s consent, but no mechanism for consent is mentioned. In a briefing I was informed that the option of giving consent will be included on the application form. I then asked why this option exists. The answer I was given was that providing the reasons for a denied registration to one’s employer could allow for access to a different kind of job. This may be true, but I worry that the government may be asking applicants to consent to share very private information with their employers before an assessment has even been made.
I would expect that the potential impacts of this would need to be explained to applicants very carefully before asking them to consent, as part of filling in an application form. I will be monitoring the implementation of this change carefully. Finally, I commend this bill to the Assembly.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (5.17): I stand today in support of this important amendment bill which will strengthen safeguards for vulnerable people in the community, particularly children and people with disability. The absolute priority here is the need for children, young people and vulnerable adults to be safe from harm, and I acknowledge that this bill continues to strengthen protections in ensuring that, as much as possible, vulnerable people, regardless of their age, get safe care.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video