A parliamentary question addresses a case where a convicted sex offender appealed a decision preventing them from coaching children's athletics. The Minister's response clarifies the current status and potential legislative changes.

AnsweredQoN 1064Legislative Council
Asked
14 November 2007
Portfolio
Child Protection

QuestionView source ↗

WORKING WITH CHILDREN CARD - STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DECISION
I refer to the State Administrative Tribunal decision to overturn the Department for Child Protection’s recommendation that a convicted sex offender not be able to coach children’s athletics. The athletics coach has a history of masturbating in public, peeking at and stealing women’s underwear. (1) Does or did this man continue to teach children’s athletics while the department appealed the SAT decision? (2) Has the department looked at the SAT legislation and enacted changes that would take appeals for cases in which sex offenders want to work with children out of the State Administrative Tribunal? (3) Has the decision been upheld on appeal? Hon SUE ELLERY

AnswerView source ↗

I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) This person, referred to by SAT as “S”, appealed the decision by the department to not grant that person a working with children card. SAT upheld that appeal; however, upon my direction as minister, the department, in collaboration with the State Solicitor’s Office, successfully applied to the Court of Appeal for a stay of the SAT decision. This means that the negative notice issued to “S” remains in effect and that person continues to be prohibited from working with children. (2) The Attorney General is responsible for legislation relating to SAT; however, I am confident that the Attorney General and I agree that decisions by public servants should be the subject of independent review. The principle of natural justice is important. If the appeal court makes decisions that fail to adequately protect children, I will look at strengthening the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act 2004. (3) The appeal has not been heard and a date for the hearing of the appeal has not been received by the department.
(1) Does or did this man continue to teach children’s athletics while the department appealed the SAT decision? (2) Has the department looked at the SAT legislation and enacted changes that would take appeals for cases in which sex offenders want to work with children out of the State Administrative Tribunal? (3) Has the decision been upheld on appeal? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) This person, referred to by SAT as “S”, appealed the decision by the department to not grant that person a working with children card. SAT upheld that appeal; however, upon my direction as minister, the department, in collaboration with the State Solicitor’s Office, successfully applied to the Court of Appeal for a stay of the SAT decision. This means that the negative notice issued to “S” remains in effect and that person continues to be prohibited from working with children. (2) The Attorney General is responsible for legislation relating to SAT; however, I am confident that the Attorney General and I agree that decisions by public servants should be the subject of independent review. The principle of natural justice is important. If the appeal court makes decisions that fail to adequately protect children, I will look at strengthening the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act 2004. (3) The appeal has not been heard and a date for the hearing of the appeal has not been received by the department.
(2) Has the department looked at the SAT legislation and enacted changes that would take appeals for cases in which sex offenders want to work with children out of the State Administrative Tribunal? (3) Has the decision been upheld on appeal? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) This person, referred to by SAT as “S”, appealed the decision by the department to not grant that person a working with children card. SAT upheld that appeal; however, upon my direction as minister, the department, in collaboration with the State Solicitor’s Office, successfully applied to the Court of Appeal for a stay of the SAT decision. This means that the negative notice issued to “S” remains in effect and that person continues to be prohibited from working with children. (2) The Attorney General is responsible for legislation relating to SAT; however, I am confident that the Attorney General and I agree that decisions by public servants should be the subject of independent review. The principle of natural justice is important. If the appeal court makes decisions that fail to adequately protect children, I will look at strengthening the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act 2004. (3) The appeal has not been heard and a date for the hearing of the appeal has not been received by the department.
(3) Has the decision been upheld on appeal? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) This person, referred to by SAT as “S”, appealed the decision by the department to not grant that person a working with children card. SAT upheld that appeal; however, upon my direction as minister, the department, in collaboration with the State Solicitor’s Office, successfully applied to the Court of Appeal for a stay of the SAT decision. This means that the negative notice issued to “S” remains in effect and that person continues to be prohibited from working with children. (2) The Attorney General is responsible for legislation relating to SAT; however, I am confident that the Attorney General and I agree that decisions by public servants should be the subject of independent review. The principle of natural justice is important. If the appeal court makes decisions that fail to adequately protect children, I will look at strengthening the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act 2004. (3) The appeal has not been heard and a date for the hearing of the appeal has not been received by the department.
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) This person, referred to by SAT as “S”, appealed the decision by the department to not grant that person a working with children card. SAT upheld that appeal; however, upon my direction as minister, the department, in collaboration with the State Solicitor’s Office, successfully applied to the Court of Appeal for a stay of the SAT decision. This means that the negative notice issued to “S” remains in effect and that person continues to be prohibited from working with children. (2) The Attorney General is responsible for legislation relating to SAT; however, I am confident that the Attorney General and I agree that decisions by public servants should be the subject of independent review. The principle of natural justice is important. If the appeal court makes decisions that fail to adequately protect children, I will look at strengthening the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act 2004. (3) The appeal has not been heard and a date for the hearing of the appeal has not been received by the department.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) This person, referred to by SAT as “S”, appealed the decision by the department to not grant that person a working with children card. SAT upheld that appeal; however, upon my direction as minister, the department, in collaboration with the State Solicitor’s Office, successfully applied to the Court of Appeal for a stay of the SAT decision. This means that the negative notice issued to “S” remains in effect and that person continues to be prohibited from working with children. (2) The Attorney General is responsible for legislation relating to SAT; however, I am confident that the Attorney General and I agree that decisions by public servants should be the subject of independent review. The principle of natural justice is important. If the appeal court makes decisions that fail to adequately protect children, I will look at strengthening the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act 2004. (3) The appeal has not been heard and a date for the hearing of the appeal has not been received by the department.
(1) This person, referred to by SAT as “S”, appealed the decision by the department to not grant that person a working with children card. SAT upheld that appeal; however, upon my direction as minister, the department, in collaboration with the State Solicitor’s Office, successfully applied to the Court of Appeal for a stay of the SAT decision. This means that the negative notice issued to “S” remains in effect and that person continues to be prohibited from working with children. (2) The Attorney General is responsible for legislation relating to SAT; however, I am confident that the Attorney General and I agree that decisions by public servants should be the subject of independent review. The principle of natural justice is important. If the appeal court makes decisions that fail to adequately protect children, I will look at strengthening the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act 2004. (3) The appeal has not been heard and a date for the hearing of the appeal has not been received by the department.
(2) The Attorney General is responsible for legislation relating to SAT; however, I am confident that the Attorney General and I agree that decisions by public servants should be the subject of independent review. The principle of natural justice is important. If the appeal court makes decisions that fail to adequately protect children, I will look at strengthening the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act 2004. (3) The appeal has not been heard and a date for the hearing of the appeal has not been received by the department.
(3) The appeal has not been heard and a date for the hearing of the appeal has not been received by the department.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more