❓ Question on Notice regarding child abuse reporting rates in WA compared to SA, specifically questioning the impact of the absence of mandatory reporting laws in WA. The Minister defends WA's approach, citing a different screening process and questioning the opposition's understanding of the issue.
AnsweredQoN 717Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to interstate comparisons of child abuse allegations and substantiations published in the Productivity Commission’s “Report on Government Services 2005”. (1) Does the minister agree that the key explanation of why there were almost 2 500 substantiated cases of child abuse in South Australia compared with Western Australia’s total of 968 is the absence of mandatory reporting laws in Western Australia? (2) If not, what other explanation will the minister offer? (3) Why does the minister continue to reject calls for mandatory reporting laws when it is clear that the absence of such laws is protecting hundreds of child abusers from justice while failing to protect hundreds of abused children? Ms S.M. McHALE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) The explanation for the difference in notifications is contained in the report. Specifically in relation to Western Australia, at page 15.7, the report states - WA undertakes a further screening process designed to differentiate between reports about harm/maltreatment and child and family concerns. This reduces the number of notifications, in that only reports about child harm/maltreatment are the subject of this report. As I explained last week, that is the justification and explanation from the Productivity Commission for the difference in the reporting outcomes between Western Australia and other states. I refer the member to that page. It is remarkable that, judging from some of its public comments, the opposition has absolutely no idea where it stands on this issue. It is interesting that last week the member for Nedlands referred to the lower number of notifications in Western Australia and then, a couple of days ago, the Leader of the Opposition referred to a 42 per cent increase in the number of allegations of child neglect in Western Australia and said that it was an absolute indictment of the person running the department. It can be seen that the opposition is all over the place when it comes to having a good understanding of what actually happens to children. The only people who are calling for mandatory reporting to support their own ideological position are members of the opposition. The government has argued from a very sound research base that mandatory reporting does not work to protect children in a wholesale manner. There is also a misunderstanding on the part of the opposition about what happens in Western Australia. There are various legislative requirements in targeted areas. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Ms S.M. McHALE : The member for Cottesloe can sit there smugly, shaking his head in a very irrelevant way. We have targeted reporting in areas where it counts. The research indicates that there are far better ways of protecting children, and that is what Western Australia is trying to do.
(1) Does the minister agree that the key explanation of why there were almost 2 500 substantiated cases of child abuse in South Australia compared with Western Australia’s total of 968 is the absence of mandatory reporting laws in Western Australia? (2) If not, what other explanation will the minister offer? (3) Why does the minister continue to reject calls for mandatory reporting laws when it is clear that the absence of such laws is protecting hundreds of child abusers from justice while failing to protect hundreds of abused children? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1)-(3) The explanation for the difference in notifications is contained in the report. Specifically in relation to Western Australia, at page 15.7, the report states - WA undertakes a further screening process designed to differentiate between reports about harm/maltreatment and child and family concerns. This reduces the number of notifications, in that only reports about child harm/maltreatment are the subject of this report. As I explained last week, that is the justification and explanation from the Productivity Commission for the difference in the reporting outcomes between Western Australia and other states. I refer the member to that page. It is remarkable that, judging from some of its public comments, the opposition has absolutely no idea where it stands on this issue. It is interesting that last week the member for Nedlands referred to the lower number of notifications in Western Australia and then, a couple of days ago, the Leader of the Opposition referred to a 42 per cent increase in the number of allegations of child neglect in Western Australia and said that it was an absolute indictment of the person running the department. It can be seen that the opposition is all over the place when it comes to having a good understanding of what actually happens to children. The only people who are calling for mandatory reporting to support their own ideological position are members of the opposition. The government has argued from a very sound research base that mandatory reporting does not work to protect children in a wholesale manner. There is also a misunderstanding on the part of the opposition about what happens in Western Australia. There are various legislative requirements in targeted areas. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Ms S.M. McHALE : The member for Cottesloe can sit there smugly, shaking his head in a very irrelevant way. We have targeted reporting in areas where it counts. The research indicates that there are far better ways of protecting children, and that is what Western Australia is trying to do.
(2) If not, what other explanation will the minister offer? (3) Why does the minister continue to reject calls for mandatory reporting laws when it is clear that the absence of such laws is protecting hundreds of child abusers from justice while failing to protect hundreds of abused children? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1)-(3) The explanation for the difference in notifications is contained in the report. Specifically in relation to Western Australia, at page 15.7, the report states - WA undertakes a further screening process designed to differentiate between reports about harm/maltreatment and child and family concerns. This reduces the number of notifications, in that only reports about child harm/maltreatment are the subject of this report. As I explained last week, that is the justification and explanation from the Productivity Commission for the difference in the reporting outcomes between Western Australia and other states. I refer the member to that page. It is remarkable that, judging from some of its public comments, the opposition has absolutely no idea where it stands on this issue. It is interesting that last week the member for Nedlands referred to the lower number of notifications in Western Australia and then, a couple of days ago, the Leader of the Opposition referred to a 42 per cent increase in the number of allegations of child neglect in Western Australia and said that it was an absolute indictment of the person running the department. It can be seen that the opposition is all over the place when it comes to having a good understanding of what actually happens to children. The only people who are calling for mandatory reporting to support their own ideological position are members of the opposition. The government has argued from a very sound research base that mandatory reporting does not work to protect children in a wholesale manner. There is also a misunderstanding on the part of the opposition about what happens in Western Australia. There are various legislative requirements in targeted areas. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Ms S.M. McHALE : The member for Cottesloe can sit there smugly, shaking his head in a very irrelevant way. We have targeted reporting in areas where it counts. The research indicates that there are far better ways of protecting children, and that is what Western Australia is trying to do.
(3) Why does the minister continue to reject calls for mandatory reporting laws when it is clear that the absence of such laws is protecting hundreds of child abusers from justice while failing to protect hundreds of abused children? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1)-(3) The explanation for the difference in notifications is contained in the report. Specifically in relation to Western Australia, at page 15.7, the report states - WA undertakes a further screening process designed to differentiate between reports about harm/maltreatment and child and family concerns. This reduces the number of notifications, in that only reports about child harm/maltreatment are the subject of this report. As I explained last week, that is the justification and explanation from the Productivity Commission for the difference in the reporting outcomes between Western Australia and other states. I refer the member to that page. It is remarkable that, judging from some of its public comments, the opposition has absolutely no idea where it stands on this issue. It is interesting that last week the member for Nedlands referred to the lower number of notifications in Western Australia and then, a couple of days ago, the Leader of the Opposition referred to a 42 per cent increase in the number of allegations of child neglect in Western Australia and said that it was an absolute indictment of the person running the department. It can be seen that the opposition is all over the place when it comes to having a good understanding of what actually happens to children. The only people who are calling for mandatory reporting to support their own ideological position are members of the opposition. The government has argued from a very sound research base that mandatory reporting does not work to protect children in a wholesale manner. There is also a misunderstanding on the part of the opposition about what happens in Western Australia. There are various legislative requirements in targeted areas. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Ms S.M. McHALE : The member for Cottesloe can sit there smugly, shaking his head in a very irrelevant way. We have targeted reporting in areas where it counts. The research indicates that there are far better ways of protecting children, and that is what Western Australia is trying to do.
Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1)-(3) The explanation for the difference in notifications is contained in the report. Specifically in relation to Western Australia, at page 15.7, the report states - WA undertakes a further screening process designed to differentiate between reports about harm/maltreatment and child and family concerns. This reduces the number of notifications, in that only reports about child harm/maltreatment are the subject of this report. As I explained last week, that is the justification and explanation from the Productivity Commission for the difference in the reporting outcomes between Western Australia and other states. I refer the member to that page. It is remarkable that, judging from some of its public comments, the opposition has absolutely no idea where it stands on this issue. It is interesting that last week the member for Nedlands referred to the lower number of notifications in Western Australia and then, a couple of days ago, the Leader of the Opposition referred to a 42 per cent increase in the number of allegations of child neglect in Western Australia and said that it was an absolute indictment of the person running the department. It can be seen that the opposition is all over the place when it comes to having a good understanding of what actually happens to children. The only people who are calling for mandatory reporting to support their own ideological position are members of the opposition. The government has argued from a very sound research base that mandatory reporting does not work to protect children in a wholesale manner. There is also a misunderstanding on the part of the opposition about what happens in Western Australia. There are various legislative requirements in targeted areas. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Ms S.M. McHALE : The member for Cottesloe can sit there smugly, shaking his head in a very irrelevant way. We have targeted reporting in areas where it counts. The research indicates that there are far better ways of protecting children, and that is what Western Australia is trying to do.
(1)-(3) The explanation for the difference in notifications is contained in the report. Specifically in relation to Western Australia, at page 15.7, the report states - WA undertakes a further screening process designed to differentiate between reports about harm/maltreatment and child and family concerns. This reduces the number of notifications, in that only reports about child harm/maltreatment are the subject of this report. As I explained last week, that is the justification and explanation from the Productivity Commission for the difference in the reporting outcomes between Western Australia and other states. I refer the member to that page. It is remarkable that, judging from some of its public comments, the opposition has absolutely no idea where it stands on this issue. It is interesting that last week the member for Nedlands referred to the lower number of notifications in Western Australia and then, a couple of days ago, the Leader of the Opposition referred to a 42 per cent increase in the number of allegations of child neglect in Western Australia and said that it was an absolute indictment of the person running the department. It can be seen that the opposition is all over the place when it comes to having a good understanding of what actually happens to children. The only people who are calling for mandatory reporting to support their own ideological position are members of the opposition. The government has argued from a very sound research base that mandatory reporting does not work to protect children in a wholesale manner. There is also a misunderstanding on the part of the opposition about what happens in Western Australia. There are various legislative requirements in targeted areas. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Ms S.M. McHALE : The member for Cottesloe can sit there smugly, shaking his head in a very irrelevant way. We have targeted reporting in areas where it counts. The research indicates that there are far better ways of protecting children, and that is what Western Australia is trying to do.
It is remarkable that, judging from some of its public comments, the opposition has absolutely no idea where it stands on this issue. It is interesting that last week the member for Nedlands referred to the lower number of notifications in Western Australia and then, a couple of days ago, the Leader of the Opposition referred to a 42 per cent increase in the number of allegations of child neglect in Western Australia and said that it was an absolute indictment of the person running the department. It can be seen that the opposition is all over the place when it comes to having a good understanding of what actually happens to children. The only people who are calling for mandatory reporting to support their own ideological position are members of the opposition. The government has argued from a very sound research base that mandatory reporting does not work to protect children in a wholesale manner. There is also a misunderstanding on the part of the opposition about what happens in Western Australia. There are various legislative requirements in targeted areas.
Ms S.M. McHALE : The member for Cottesloe can sit there smugly, shaking his head in a very irrelevant way. We have targeted reporting in areas where it counts. The research indicates that there are far better ways of protecting children, and that is what Western Australia is trying to do.
(1) Does the minister agree that the key explanation of why there were almost 2 500 substantiated cases of child abuse in South Australia compared with Western Australia’s total of 968 is the absence of mandatory reporting laws in Western Australia? (2) If not, what other explanation will the minister offer? (3) Why does the minister continue to reject calls for mandatory reporting laws when it is clear that the absence of such laws is protecting hundreds of child abusers from justice while failing to protect hundreds of abused children? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1)-(3) The explanation for the difference in notifications is contained in the report. Specifically in relation to Western Australia, at page 15.7, the report states - WA undertakes a further screening process designed to differentiate between reports about harm/maltreatment and child and family concerns. This reduces the number of notifications, in that only reports about child harm/maltreatment are the subject of this report. As I explained last week, that is the justification and explanation from the Productivity Commission for the difference in the reporting outcomes between Western Australia and other states. I refer the member to that page. It is remarkable that, judging from some of its public comments, the opposition has absolutely no idea where it stands on this issue. It is interesting that last week the member for Nedlands referred to the lower number of notifications in Western Australia and then, a couple of days ago, the Leader of the Opposition referred to a 42 per cent increase in the number of allegations of child neglect in Western Australia and said that it was an absolute indictment of the person running the department. It can be seen that the opposition is all over the place when it comes to having a good understanding of what actually happens to children. The only people who are calling for mandatory reporting to support their own ideological position are members of the opposition. The government has argued from a very sound research base that mandatory reporting does not work to protect children in a wholesale manner. There is also a misunderstanding on the part of the opposition about what happens in Western Australia. There are various legislative requirements in targeted areas. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Ms S.M. McHALE : The member for Cottesloe can sit there smugly, shaking his head in a very irrelevant way. We have targeted reporting in areas where it counts. The research indicates that there are far better ways of protecting children, and that is what Western Australia is trying to do.
(2) If not, what other explanation will the minister offer? (3) Why does the minister continue to reject calls for mandatory reporting laws when it is clear that the absence of such laws is protecting hundreds of child abusers from justice while failing to protect hundreds of abused children? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1)-(3) The explanation for the difference in notifications is contained in the report. Specifically in relation to Western Australia, at page 15.7, the report states - WA undertakes a further screening process designed to differentiate between reports about harm/maltreatment and child and family concerns. This reduces the number of notifications, in that only reports about child harm/maltreatment are the subject of this report. As I explained last week, that is the justification and explanation from the Productivity Commission for the difference in the reporting outcomes between Western Australia and other states. I refer the member to that page. It is remarkable that, judging from some of its public comments, the opposition has absolutely no idea where it stands on this issue. It is interesting that last week the member for Nedlands referred to the lower number of notifications in Western Australia and then, a couple of days ago, the Leader of the Opposition referred to a 42 per cent increase in the number of allegations of child neglect in Western Australia and said that it was an absolute indictment of the person running the department. It can be seen that the opposition is all over the place when it comes to having a good understanding of what actually happens to children. The only people who are calling for mandatory reporting to support their own ideological position are members of the opposition. The government has argued from a very sound research base that mandatory reporting does not work to protect children in a wholesale manner. There is also a misunderstanding on the part of the opposition about what happens in Western Australia. There are various legislative requirements in targeted areas. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Ms S.M. McHALE : The member for Cottesloe can sit there smugly, shaking his head in a very irrelevant way. We have targeted reporting in areas where it counts. The research indicates that there are far better ways of protecting children, and that is what Western Australia is trying to do.
(3) Why does the minister continue to reject calls for mandatory reporting laws when it is clear that the absence of such laws is protecting hundreds of child abusers from justice while failing to protect hundreds of abused children? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1)-(3) The explanation for the difference in notifications is contained in the report. Specifically in relation to Western Australia, at page 15.7, the report states - WA undertakes a further screening process designed to differentiate between reports about harm/maltreatment and child and family concerns. This reduces the number of notifications, in that only reports about child harm/maltreatment are the subject of this report. As I explained last week, that is the justification and explanation from the Productivity Commission for the difference in the reporting outcomes between Western Australia and other states. I refer the member to that page. It is remarkable that, judging from some of its public comments, the opposition has absolutely no idea where it stands on this issue. It is interesting that last week the member for Nedlands referred to the lower number of notifications in Western Australia and then, a couple of days ago, the Leader of the Opposition referred to a 42 per cent increase in the number of allegations of child neglect in Western Australia and said that it was an absolute indictment of the person running the department. It can be seen that the opposition is all over the place when it comes to having a good understanding of what actually happens to children. The only people who are calling for mandatory reporting to support their own ideological position are members of the opposition. The government has argued from a very sound research base that mandatory reporting does not work to protect children in a wholesale manner. There is also a misunderstanding on the part of the opposition about what happens in Western Australia. There are various legislative requirements in targeted areas. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Ms S.M. McHALE : The member for Cottesloe can sit there smugly, shaking his head in a very irrelevant way. We have targeted reporting in areas where it counts. The research indicates that there are far better ways of protecting children, and that is what Western Australia is trying to do.
Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1)-(3) The explanation for the difference in notifications is contained in the report. Specifically in relation to Western Australia, at page 15.7, the report states - WA undertakes a further screening process designed to differentiate between reports about harm/maltreatment and child and family concerns. This reduces the number of notifications, in that only reports about child harm/maltreatment are the subject of this report. As I explained last week, that is the justification and explanation from the Productivity Commission for the difference in the reporting outcomes between Western Australia and other states. I refer the member to that page. It is remarkable that, judging from some of its public comments, the opposition has absolutely no idea where it stands on this issue. It is interesting that last week the member for Nedlands referred to the lower number of notifications in Western Australia and then, a couple of days ago, the Leader of the Opposition referred to a 42 per cent increase in the number of allegations of child neglect in Western Australia and said that it was an absolute indictment of the person running the department. It can be seen that the opposition is all over the place when it comes to having a good understanding of what actually happens to children. The only people who are calling for mandatory reporting to support their own ideological position are members of the opposition. The government has argued from a very sound research base that mandatory reporting does not work to protect children in a wholesale manner. There is also a misunderstanding on the part of the opposition about what happens in Western Australia. There are various legislative requirements in targeted areas. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Ms S.M. McHALE : The member for Cottesloe can sit there smugly, shaking his head in a very irrelevant way. We have targeted reporting in areas where it counts. The research indicates that there are far better ways of protecting children, and that is what Western Australia is trying to do.
(1)-(3) The explanation for the difference in notifications is contained in the report. Specifically in relation to Western Australia, at page 15.7, the report states - WA undertakes a further screening process designed to differentiate between reports about harm/maltreatment and child and family concerns. This reduces the number of notifications, in that only reports about child harm/maltreatment are the subject of this report. As I explained last week, that is the justification and explanation from the Productivity Commission for the difference in the reporting outcomes between Western Australia and other states. I refer the member to that page. It is remarkable that, judging from some of its public comments, the opposition has absolutely no idea where it stands on this issue. It is interesting that last week the member for Nedlands referred to the lower number of notifications in Western Australia and then, a couple of days ago, the Leader of the Opposition referred to a 42 per cent increase in the number of allegations of child neglect in Western Australia and said that it was an absolute indictment of the person running the department. It can be seen that the opposition is all over the place when it comes to having a good understanding of what actually happens to children. The only people who are calling for mandatory reporting to support their own ideological position are members of the opposition. The government has argued from a very sound research base that mandatory reporting does not work to protect children in a wholesale manner. There is also a misunderstanding on the part of the opposition about what happens in Western Australia. There are various legislative requirements in targeted areas. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. Ms S.M. McHALE : The member for Cottesloe can sit there smugly, shaking his head in a very irrelevant way. We have targeted reporting in areas where it counts. The research indicates that there are far better ways of protecting children, and that is what Western Australia is trying to do.
It is remarkable that, judging from some of its public comments, the opposition has absolutely no idea where it stands on this issue. It is interesting that last week the member for Nedlands referred to the lower number of notifications in Western Australia and then, a couple of days ago, the Leader of the Opposition referred to a 42 per cent increase in the number of allegations of child neglect in Western Australia and said that it was an absolute indictment of the person running the department. It can be seen that the opposition is all over the place when it comes to having a good understanding of what actually happens to children. The only people who are calling for mandatory reporting to support their own ideological position are members of the opposition. The government has argued from a very sound research base that mandatory reporting does not work to protect children in a wholesale manner. There is also a misunderstanding on the part of the opposition about what happens in Western Australia. There are various legislative requirements in targeted areas.
Ms S.M. McHALE : The member for Cottesloe can sit there smugly, shaking his head in a very irrelevant way. We have targeted reporting in areas where it counts. The research indicates that there are far better ways of protecting children, and that is what Western Australia is trying to do.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.