2015-12-04
Ms SPRINGLE (South Eastern Metropolitan) — The Greens will be supporting the bill. As we heard from Ms Crozier, the bill will allow the Minister for Families and Children to introduce a set of child safe standards that will apply to organisations and groups of people who work with children, and this is a very good thing. The child safe standards are intended to ensure that entities working with children have appropriate processes and strategies in place to keep children safe and to deal with any allegations of child abuse that may arise.
The implementation of standards like these across the board, applying to all entities that deal with children and not just those that are registered with and funded by government departments, was among the recommendations of the inquiry into the handling of child abuse by religious and other organisations, which was held during the previous Parliament. That inquiry looked into the handling of child abuse by religious and other non-government organisations, and it reported in May 2014. The government has made a commitment to implement all of the Betrayal of Trust report's recommendations, and it is pleasing to see particular recommendations acted upon by this bill.
Recommendation 12.1 is that the Victorian government review its contracts with non-government organisations to ensure minimum standards, including zero tolerance for child sexual abuse, procedures for the employment of new personnel, proper risk management and proper processes for the handling and reporting of allegations of child sexual abuse. Clearly child safe standards go towards achieving this.
The proposed standards, which are on the Department of Health and Human Services website, will require applicable entities to have strategies to embed an organisational culture of child safety; a child safe policy of commitment to child safety; a code of conduct that establishes clear expectations for appropriate behaviour with children; screening, supervision, training and other human resources practices that reduce the risk of child abuse by new and existing personnel; processes for responding to and reporting suspected child abuse; strategies to identify and reduce, or remove, any risks of child abuse; and strategies to promote the participation and empowerment of children. We would have liked to have seen something slightly more prescriptive in terms of standards because these are worded very generally — and I will come back to this point — but I do not think it is possible to argue that the bill does not reflect the legislative intention to implement recommendation 12.1, so that is a good thing.
It is not just the Betrayal of Trust report that calls for proper procedures and strategies to be put in place by groups and people who work with children. The evidence that continues to pour out of the federal government's Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse confirms that too many institutions for too long have simply not had appropriate processes in place to deal with suspected child abuse. Instead of confronting a suspicion of child abuse head-on, too many organisations have done something very different: they have looked the other way or, worse, they have actively covered it up. The Betrayal of Trust report is just one of many reports that suggest that covering up abuse or looking the other way are much more likely to happen in the absence of policies, procedures and strategies, so this bill will hopefully make cover-ups less likely now that organisations and entities that work with children will be required to have in place policies and procedures that meet the child safe standards.
The bill lists two categories of entities that work with children. Category 1 entities appear to be organisations of the kind that are likely to already be funded by and registered with a government department, like schools, hospitals, healthcare centres, service providers and community service organisations. If the bill becomes law, those category 1 entities will have to comply with all child safe standards from 1 January 2016, which does not allow a lot of lead time. I understand, however, that most of these organisations are already required to comply with similar standards; for example, the Department of Health and Human Services service delivery standards. I understand that for funded and registered organisations there is a large degree of overlap between the proposed child safe standards and the range of existing standards that they must comply with. One would hope that it is not going to be too onerous for them to get up to speed if there are currently any gaps.
My understanding is that, unlike existing service standards, the child safe standards will apply to practically all entities that deal with children, or at least those that come within the bill's definition of 'applicable entity'. In practice this will mean that some entities that do not have funding relationships with the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education and Training or any other government department will be required to comply with the proposed standards. From January 2017, for instance, sporting clubs, which are category 2 entities, will be required to comply with the child safe standards. We in the Greens think this is a very good thing. However, we recognise that it might be difficult for some clubs to become compliant with the standards and that it may be very onerous for some of them.
I come from a background of having been involved in many community organisations. My son plays for a junior football club which I have been very involved with over the years; Mr Ondarchie would be very pleased to know that. The Noble Park Football Social Club is a fine club. I know from my time on its committee that it can be very difficult for clubs to get up to scratch with the compliance needed to make them good clubs. It can also be onerous for other organisations, for example, professional babysitting services, entertainment and party services, and other category 2 entities, to get themselves into a position where they are compliant with the child safe standards. In practice it means having appropriate policies, procedures and strategies in place to keep children safe and to deal with suspected child abuse.
We are supportive of the fact that category 2 entities, which may include a lot of unfunded entities that do not already have a relationship with the department, will have an additional year to become compliant with the standards. We are also very supportive of the fact that there is no penalty in the bill for entities that do not comply. We know what the consequences are likely to be for organisations that have a funding relationship with the department if they do not comply with the standards, but I would be most grateful if the minister in her contribution can explain what incentives there are in practice for unfunded entities, like sporting clubs, to comply with the child safe standards.
Clearly there is an after-the-fact incentive. If there is an incident of child abuse in a sporting club and a subsequent investigation finds that the sporting club did not have appropriate processes in place because it was not compliant with the child safety standards, I assume that sporting club or other entity and its committee would come under intense criticism. I also understand that the Department of Health and Human Services is working on a reportable conduct scheme that aims to ensure that applicable entities are aware of their obligations to report particular conduct or allegations.
The concern we have, however, is whether more can be done to encourage unfunded entities in particular to become compliant with the child safety standards. It would be a great shame to put in place something that does not prevent some of these potential negative incidents. We do not want to be looking back and vilifying people for bad things they have done. We would like to put incentives in place so that bad things do not happen in the first place, particularly when we are dealing with children. Children, as we know, are some of the most vulnerable citizens in society.
I am quite pleased to have yesterday received correspondence from the minister saying that there will be legislation introduced next year to establish appropriate oversight and monitoring mechanisms, particularly for unfunded organisations. In today's debate I would like to hear what assurance the minister can offer the house as to what that structure will be.
Beyond that we have a number of other issues and queries about the bill as it stands. On the face of the bill, the child safety standards will apply to the Department of Health and Human Services. I understand that this is not the case with respect to the existing service standards. While the department often claims it is compliant with its own standards, there is plenty of evidence that it is not. The Commission for Children and Young People, for instance, in its recent report entitled “… as a good parent would …”, found that the department too often falls short of its own standards. I am told that more than 40 per cent of children in out-of-home care are at present under the direct care of the department. I am also told that the department is talking about future changes that would require it to comply with its own service standards. Although it is slightly outside the direct scope of this bill, perhaps the minister might inform the chamber about any intentions the government has in that direction and in what sort of time line we can expect the department to be required to comply with its own service standards.
It is a very good thing that the child safe standards will apply to the department. The issue, as I see it, is one of what happens in practice. Perhaps the minister could inform the chamber as to how the department's compliance with the child safe standards will be monitored in practice. I understand that residential care providers are now subject to a spot audit system, which is apparently underway, but I am particularly interested in any plans the minister might have to improve the systemic practice of compliance monitoring.
This bill purports to implement only three recommendations from a single report, but of course there are many other recommendations in other recent reports which call for similar reforms. For instance,“… as a good parent would …”, which admittedly focuses on residential care only, also recommends the development of rigorous and ongoing child safe standards. But there is so much more that must be done. What the current service standards do not do and what the proposed child safe standards will not do is focus on actual outcomes for children, especially children in care.
If we are talking about service standards, we could demand that the funding and accreditation of community organisations be based on tangible and positive outcomes for children in care. For instance, it is possible to imagine standards which would demand basic minimums of specially funded organisations and the department itself, cultural connectedness for Aboriginal children, regular school attendance, home-like environments, and minimum qualifications for staff who work with children in particular settings, such as residential care units. We might demand that the Department of Health and Human Services' quality of care investigations be delegated to an independent body, in line with one of the recommendations of the commissioner for children and young people's “… as a good parent would …” report. We might also demand that the regulation and oversight of registered organisations' performance be improved by way of comprehensive annual reporting by the department against specific service standards.
Since I have taken on this portfolio for the Greens, I have been surprised, if not a little shocked, to learn of the extent of information that the department does not collect from the community organisations it has contact with. For instance, the department has absolutely no idea how many hours of work are being performed in community organisations by staff who do not have any qualifications or by temporary labour hire agency staff. The department has no idea how many children are in the various forms of out-of-home care more than 10 kilometres from their parents. The department has absolutely no idea what proportion of the current workforce in residential care units have completed youth mental health first aid training. The department has absolutely no idea about what proportion of the children and young people in its care are seeing a counsellor or other mental health professional. I could go on and on — but I will not, you will be pleased to know. The department has no idea about any of this and much more because the department does not collect any data about any of this.
If we are going to be serious about making organisations safe for children, this bill only addresses part of one half of the issue. It is one thing to ensure that organisations have appropriate processes and strategies in place to ensure child safety and to deal with issues if and when they arise. That is what this bill seeks to do, if a little vaguely, and while we would have preferred that the proposed standards were a little more prescriptive, especially for organisations that are funded and registered, the Greens will be voting for this bill. I understand that the wording of the standards in very general terms is deliberate and reflects consultation with the sector, but what this bill does not address at all is the other side of the child safe equation. It does not seek to generate direct accountability — the kind of accountability that is based on knowledge of what is actually going on; rather, it merely hopes that having some procedures in place will keep children safe.
That said, we do support this bill because even though it is very limited in its scope it will hopefully drive some further cultural change within entities that work with children.