❓ The WA parliamentary question concerns the Minister's stance on mandatory reporting of child abuse, contrasting it with practices in other jurisdictions and seeking bipartisan support for its introduction in WA. The Minister's response highlights concerns about the effectiveness of mandatory reporting.
AnsweredQoN 301Legislative Assembly
Asked
2 June 2004
Member
Portfolio
Community Development, Women’s
Interests, Seniors and Youth
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to her statement in this House that it is important to understand that mandatory reporting of child abuse is not a tool for child protection. (1) Is the minister aware that mandatory reporting systems are in place in every other State and Territory of Australia, as well as every state of the United States, Denmark, Sweden and Canada? (2) Is the minister also aware that, without mandatory reporting, health and education professionals in Western Australia are under no legal compulsion to report even the most obvious signs of child abuse? (3) Will the minister join with the coalition Opposition to provide bipartisan support for the introduction of mandatory reporting of child abuse, which is in fact nationally and internationally recognised as being a crucially important tool for child protection? Ms S.M. McHALE
AnswerView source ↗
(1) Yes. (2)-(3) I would like to read from a report that has just been produced in the Australian Capital Territory. This report was released on 14 May and its author was Cheryl Vardon, Commissioner for Public Administration. The report states - Opinions differ about whether mandatory reporting should be expanded or whether it should be a statutory requirement at all. Arguments in favour of mandatory reporting are often based on an assumption that all mandated people will report . . . Further, there is no evidence that it ensures that the responsible government agency is informed of all suspected child abuse, so that the children in question are brought to its attention quickly . . . Mrs C.L. Edwardes: So none get reported? Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms S.M. McHALE: The report continues - . . . some jurisdictions say that mandatory reporting has flooded intake systems with notifications that cannot be responded to and that a large number of the reports are inaccurate or are better dealt with outside the child protection system. In Victoria, the system is said to be buckling under the current mandatory reporting regime, which has become largely legalistic and investigative. This Opposition has come in with a political stunt. Mr C.J. Barnett: The physical abuse of children is not a political stunt. For you to dismiss children’s safety is a political stunt. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I appreciate it is difficult for you, Mr Speaker, when people interject. Sometimes people on both sides do not behave, but this is a clear attempt by the Opposition to intimidate the minister. Her voice is clearly not as loud as mine or that of other males on the other side, and opposition members are really dragging down behaviour in this Chamber by the sheer volume of their interjections in an attempt to intimidate the minister when she is answering a question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: For the minister to imply in an aggressive way that a question asked by the member for Nedlands is a political stunt when we are talking about the sexual and physical abuse of children is offensive to members on this side of the House, if not to those on the other side. The SPEAKER: The point of order is correct: members should not be interjecting. The purpose of a question is to get an answer from a minister and not to hear members interjecting from either side of the House. I suggest that members desist. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.M. McHALE: The point I am making is that research is now pointing to the lack of evidence that mandatory reporting works to protect children. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
(1) Is the minister aware that mandatory reporting systems are in place in every other State and Territory of Australia, as well as every state of the United States, Denmark, Sweden and Canada? (2) Is the minister also aware that, without mandatory reporting, health and education professionals in Western Australia are under no legal compulsion to report even the most obvious signs of child abuse? (3) Will the minister join with the coalition Opposition to provide bipartisan support for the introduction of mandatory reporting of child abuse, which is in fact nationally and internationally recognised as being a crucially important tool for child protection? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1) Yes. (2)-(3) I would like to read from a report that has just been produced in the Australian Capital Territory. This report was released on 14 May and its author was Cheryl Vardon, Commissioner for Public Administration. The report states - Opinions differ about whether mandatory reporting should be expanded or whether it should be a statutory requirement at all. Arguments in favour of mandatory reporting are often based on an assumption that all mandated people will report . . . Further, there is no evidence that it ensures that the responsible government agency is informed of all suspected child abuse, so that the children in question are brought to its attention quickly . . . Mrs C.L. Edwardes: So none get reported? Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms S.M. McHALE: The report continues - . . . some jurisdictions say that mandatory reporting has flooded intake systems with notifications that cannot be responded to and that a large number of the reports are inaccurate or are better dealt with outside the child protection system. In Victoria, the system is said to be buckling under the current mandatory reporting regime, which has become largely legalistic and investigative. This Opposition has come in with a political stunt. Mr C.J. Barnett: The physical abuse of children is not a political stunt. For you to dismiss children’s safety is a political stunt. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I appreciate it is difficult for you, Mr Speaker, when people interject. Sometimes people on both sides do not behave, but this is a clear attempt by the Opposition to intimidate the minister. Her voice is clearly not as loud as mine or that of other males on the other side, and opposition members are really dragging down behaviour in this Chamber by the sheer volume of their interjections in an attempt to intimidate the minister when she is answering a question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: For the minister to imply in an aggressive way that a question asked by the member for Nedlands is a political stunt when we are talking about the sexual and physical abuse of children is offensive to members on this side of the House, if not to those on the other side. The SPEAKER: The point of order is correct: members should not be interjecting. The purpose of a question is to get an answer from a minister and not to hear members interjecting from either side of the House. I suggest that members desist. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.M. McHALE: The point I am making is that research is now pointing to the lack of evidence that mandatory reporting works to protect children. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
(2) Is the minister also aware that, without mandatory reporting, health and education professionals in Western Australia are under no legal compulsion to report even the most obvious signs of child abuse? (3) Will the minister join with the coalition Opposition to provide bipartisan support for the introduction of mandatory reporting of child abuse, which is in fact nationally and internationally recognised as being a crucially important tool for child protection? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1) Yes. (2)-(3) I would like to read from a report that has just been produced in the Australian Capital Territory. This report was released on 14 May and its author was Cheryl Vardon, Commissioner for Public Administration. The report states - Opinions differ about whether mandatory reporting should be expanded or whether it should be a statutory requirement at all. Arguments in favour of mandatory reporting are often based on an assumption that all mandated people will report . . . Further, there is no evidence that it ensures that the responsible government agency is informed of all suspected child abuse, so that the children in question are brought to its attention quickly . . . Mrs C.L. Edwardes: So none get reported? Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms S.M. McHALE: The report continues - . . . some jurisdictions say that mandatory reporting has flooded intake systems with notifications that cannot be responded to and that a large number of the reports are inaccurate or are better dealt with outside the child protection system. In Victoria, the system is said to be buckling under the current mandatory reporting regime, which has become largely legalistic and investigative. This Opposition has come in with a political stunt. Mr C.J. Barnett: The physical abuse of children is not a political stunt. For you to dismiss children’s safety is a political stunt. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I appreciate it is difficult for you, Mr Speaker, when people interject. Sometimes people on both sides do not behave, but this is a clear attempt by the Opposition to intimidate the minister. Her voice is clearly not as loud as mine or that of other males on the other side, and opposition members are really dragging down behaviour in this Chamber by the sheer volume of their interjections in an attempt to intimidate the minister when she is answering a question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: For the minister to imply in an aggressive way that a question asked by the member for Nedlands is a political stunt when we are talking about the sexual and physical abuse of children is offensive to members on this side of the House, if not to those on the other side. The SPEAKER: The point of order is correct: members should not be interjecting. The purpose of a question is to get an answer from a minister and not to hear members interjecting from either side of the House. I suggest that members desist. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.M. McHALE: The point I am making is that research is now pointing to the lack of evidence that mandatory reporting works to protect children. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
(3) Will the minister join with the coalition Opposition to provide bipartisan support for the introduction of mandatory reporting of child abuse, which is in fact nationally and internationally recognised as being a crucially important tool for child protection? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1) Yes. (2)-(3) I would like to read from a report that has just been produced in the Australian Capital Territory. This report was released on 14 May and its author was Cheryl Vardon, Commissioner for Public Administration. The report states - Opinions differ about whether mandatory reporting should be expanded or whether it should be a statutory requirement at all. Arguments in favour of mandatory reporting are often based on an assumption that all mandated people will report . . . Further, there is no evidence that it ensures that the responsible government agency is informed of all suspected child abuse, so that the children in question are brought to its attention quickly . . . Mrs C.L. Edwardes: So none get reported? Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms S.M. McHALE: The report continues - . . . some jurisdictions say that mandatory reporting has flooded intake systems with notifications that cannot be responded to and that a large number of the reports are inaccurate or are better dealt with outside the child protection system. In Victoria, the system is said to be buckling under the current mandatory reporting regime, which has become largely legalistic and investigative. This Opposition has come in with a political stunt. Mr C.J. Barnett: The physical abuse of children is not a political stunt. For you to dismiss children’s safety is a political stunt. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I appreciate it is difficult for you, Mr Speaker, when people interject. Sometimes people on both sides do not behave, but this is a clear attempt by the Opposition to intimidate the minister. Her voice is clearly not as loud as mine or that of other males on the other side, and opposition members are really dragging down behaviour in this Chamber by the sheer volume of their interjections in an attempt to intimidate the minister when she is answering a question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: For the minister to imply in an aggressive way that a question asked by the member for Nedlands is a political stunt when we are talking about the sexual and physical abuse of children is offensive to members on this side of the House, if not to those on the other side. The SPEAKER: The point of order is correct: members should not be interjecting. The purpose of a question is to get an answer from a minister and not to hear members interjecting from either side of the House. I suggest that members desist. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.M. McHALE: The point I am making is that research is now pointing to the lack of evidence that mandatory reporting works to protect children. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1) Yes. (2)-(3) I would like to read from a report that has just been produced in the Australian Capital Territory. This report was released on 14 May and its author was Cheryl Vardon, Commissioner for Public Administration. The report states - Opinions differ about whether mandatory reporting should be expanded or whether it should be a statutory requirement at all. Arguments in favour of mandatory reporting are often based on an assumption that all mandated people will report . . . Further, there is no evidence that it ensures that the responsible government agency is informed of all suspected child abuse, so that the children in question are brought to its attention quickly . . . Mrs C.L. Edwardes: So none get reported? Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms S.M. McHALE: The report continues - . . . some jurisdictions say that mandatory reporting has flooded intake systems with notifications that cannot be responded to and that a large number of the reports are inaccurate or are better dealt with outside the child protection system. In Victoria, the system is said to be buckling under the current mandatory reporting regime, which has become largely legalistic and investigative. This Opposition has come in with a political stunt. Mr C.J. Barnett: The physical abuse of children is not a political stunt. For you to dismiss children’s safety is a political stunt. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I appreciate it is difficult for you, Mr Speaker, when people interject. Sometimes people on both sides do not behave, but this is a clear attempt by the Opposition to intimidate the minister. Her voice is clearly not as loud as mine or that of other males on the other side, and opposition members are really dragging down behaviour in this Chamber by the sheer volume of their interjections in an attempt to intimidate the minister when she is answering a question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: For the minister to imply in an aggressive way that a question asked by the member for Nedlands is a political stunt when we are talking about the sexual and physical abuse of children is offensive to members on this side of the House, if not to those on the other side. The SPEAKER: The point of order is correct: members should not be interjecting. The purpose of a question is to get an answer from a minister and not to hear members interjecting from either side of the House. I suggest that members desist. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.M. McHALE: The point I am making is that research is now pointing to the lack of evidence that mandatory reporting works to protect children. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
(1) Yes. (2)-(3) I would like to read from a report that has just been produced in the Australian Capital Territory. This report was released on 14 May and its author was Cheryl Vardon, Commissioner for Public Administration. The report states - Opinions differ about whether mandatory reporting should be expanded or whether it should be a statutory requirement at all. Arguments in favour of mandatory reporting are often based on an assumption that all mandated people will report . . . Further, there is no evidence that it ensures that the responsible government agency is informed of all suspected child abuse, so that the children in question are brought to its attention quickly . . . Mrs C.L. Edwardes: So none get reported? Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms S.M. McHALE: The report continues - . . . some jurisdictions say that mandatory reporting has flooded intake systems with notifications that cannot be responded to and that a large number of the reports are inaccurate or are better dealt with outside the child protection system. In Victoria, the system is said to be buckling under the current mandatory reporting regime, which has become largely legalistic and investigative. This Opposition has come in with a political stunt. Mr C.J. Barnett: The physical abuse of children is not a political stunt. For you to dismiss children’s safety is a political stunt. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I appreciate it is difficult for you, Mr Speaker, when people interject. Sometimes people on both sides do not behave, but this is a clear attempt by the Opposition to intimidate the minister. Her voice is clearly not as loud as mine or that of other males on the other side, and opposition members are really dragging down behaviour in this Chamber by the sheer volume of their interjections in an attempt to intimidate the minister when she is answering a question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: For the minister to imply in an aggressive way that a question asked by the member for Nedlands is a political stunt when we are talking about the sexual and physical abuse of children is offensive to members on this side of the House, if not to those on the other side. The SPEAKER: The point of order is correct: members should not be interjecting. The purpose of a question is to get an answer from a minister and not to hear members interjecting from either side of the House. I suggest that members desist. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.M. McHALE: The point I am making is that research is now pointing to the lack of evidence that mandatory reporting works to protect children. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
(2)-(3) I would like to read from a report that has just been produced in the Australian Capital Territory. This report was released on 14 May and its author was Cheryl Vardon, Commissioner for Public Administration. The report states - Opinions differ about whether mandatory reporting should be expanded or whether it should be a statutory requirement at all. Arguments in favour of mandatory reporting are often based on an assumption that all mandated people will report . . . Further, there is no evidence that it ensures that the responsible government agency is informed of all suspected child abuse, so that the children in question are brought to its attention quickly . . . Mrs C.L. Edwardes: So none get reported? Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms S.M. McHALE: The report continues - . . . some jurisdictions say that mandatory reporting has flooded intake systems with notifications that cannot be responded to and that a large number of the reports are inaccurate or are better dealt with outside the child protection system. In Victoria, the system is said to be buckling under the current mandatory reporting regime, which has become largely legalistic and investigative. This Opposition has come in with a political stunt. Mr C.J. Barnett: The physical abuse of children is not a political stunt. For you to dismiss children’s safety is a political stunt. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I appreciate it is difficult for you, Mr Speaker, when people interject. Sometimes people on both sides do not behave, but this is a clear attempt by the Opposition to intimidate the minister. Her voice is clearly not as loud as mine or that of other males on the other side, and opposition members are really dragging down behaviour in this Chamber by the sheer volume of their interjections in an attempt to intimidate the minister when she is answering a question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: For the minister to imply in an aggressive way that a question asked by the member for Nedlands is a political stunt when we are talking about the sexual and physical abuse of children is offensive to members on this side of the House, if not to those on the other side. The SPEAKER: The point of order is correct: members should not be interjecting. The purpose of a question is to get an answer from a minister and not to hear members interjecting from either side of the House. I suggest that members desist. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.M. McHALE: The point I am making is that research is now pointing to the lack of evidence that mandatory reporting works to protect children. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms S.M. McHALE: The report continues - . . . some jurisdictions say that mandatory reporting has flooded intake systems with notifications that cannot be responded to and that a large number of the reports are inaccurate or are better dealt with outside the child protection system. In Victoria, the system is said to be buckling under the current mandatory reporting regime, which has become largely legalistic and investigative. This Opposition has come in with a political stunt. Mr C.J. Barnett: The physical abuse of children is not a political stunt. For you to dismiss children’s safety is a political stunt. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I appreciate it is difficult for you, Mr Speaker, when people interject. Sometimes people on both sides do not behave, but this is a clear attempt by the Opposition to intimidate the minister. Her voice is clearly not as loud as mine or that of other males on the other side, and opposition members are really dragging down behaviour in this Chamber by the sheer volume of their interjections in an attempt to intimidate the minister when she is answering a question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: For the minister to imply in an aggressive way that a question asked by the member for Nedlands is a political stunt when we are talking about the sexual and physical abuse of children is offensive to members on this side of the House, if not to those on the other side. The SPEAKER: The point of order is correct: members should not be interjecting. The purpose of a question is to get an answer from a minister and not to hear members interjecting from either side of the House. I suggest that members desist. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.M. McHALE: The point I am making is that research is now pointing to the lack of evidence that mandatory reporting works to protect children. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms S.M. McHALE: The report continues - . . . some jurisdictions say that mandatory reporting has flooded intake systems with notifications that cannot be responded to and that a large number of the reports are inaccurate or are better dealt with outside the child protection system. In Victoria, the system is said to be buckling under the current mandatory reporting regime, which has become largely legalistic and investigative. This Opposition has come in with a political stunt. Mr C.J. Barnett: The physical abuse of children is not a political stunt. For you to dismiss children’s safety is a political stunt. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I appreciate it is difficult for you, Mr Speaker, when people interject. Sometimes people on both sides do not behave, but this is a clear attempt by the Opposition to intimidate the minister. Her voice is clearly not as loud as mine or that of other males on the other side, and opposition members are really dragging down behaviour in this Chamber by the sheer volume of their interjections in an attempt to intimidate the minister when she is answering a question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: For the minister to imply in an aggressive way that a question asked by the member for Nedlands is a political stunt when we are talking about the sexual and physical abuse of children is offensive to members on this side of the House, if not to those on the other side. The SPEAKER: The point of order is correct: members should not be interjecting. The purpose of a question is to get an answer from a minister and not to hear members interjecting from either side of the House. I suggest that members desist. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.M. McHALE: The point I am making is that research is now pointing to the lack of evidence that mandatory reporting works to protect children. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
Ms S.M. McHALE: The report continues - . . . some jurisdictions say that mandatory reporting has flooded intake systems with notifications that cannot be responded to and that a large number of the reports are inaccurate or are better dealt with outside the child protection system. In Victoria, the system is said to be buckling under the current mandatory reporting regime, which has become largely legalistic and investigative. This Opposition has come in with a political stunt. Mr C.J. Barnett: The physical abuse of children is not a political stunt. For you to dismiss children’s safety is a political stunt. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I appreciate it is difficult for you, Mr Speaker, when people interject. Sometimes people on both sides do not behave, but this is a clear attempt by the Opposition to intimidate the minister. Her voice is clearly not as loud as mine or that of other males on the other side, and opposition members are really dragging down behaviour in this Chamber by the sheer volume of their interjections in an attempt to intimidate the minister when she is answering a question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: For the minister to imply in an aggressive way that a question asked by the member for Nedlands is a political stunt when we are talking about the sexual and physical abuse of children is offensive to members on this side of the House, if not to those on the other side. The SPEAKER: The point of order is correct: members should not be interjecting. The purpose of a question is to get an answer from a minister and not to hear members interjecting from either side of the House. I suggest that members desist. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.M. McHALE: The point I am making is that research is now pointing to the lack of evidence that mandatory reporting works to protect children. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
Mr C.J. Barnett: The physical abuse of children is not a political stunt. For you to dismiss children’s safety is a political stunt. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I appreciate it is difficult for you, Mr Speaker, when people interject. Sometimes people on both sides do not behave, but this is a clear attempt by the Opposition to intimidate the minister. Her voice is clearly not as loud as mine or that of other males on the other side, and opposition members are really dragging down behaviour in this Chamber by the sheer volume of their interjections in an attempt to intimidate the minister when she is answering a question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: For the minister to imply in an aggressive way that a question asked by the member for Nedlands is a political stunt when we are talking about the sexual and physical abuse of children is offensive to members on this side of the House, if not to those on the other side. The SPEAKER: The point of order is correct: members should not be interjecting. The purpose of a question is to get an answer from a minister and not to hear members interjecting from either side of the House. I suggest that members desist. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.M. McHALE: The point I am making is that research is now pointing to the lack of evidence that mandatory reporting works to protect children. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: For the minister to imply in an aggressive way that a question asked by the member for Nedlands is a political stunt when we are talking about the sexual and physical abuse of children is offensive to members on this side of the House, if not to those on the other side. The SPEAKER: The point of order is correct: members should not be interjecting. The purpose of a question is to get an answer from a minister and not to hear members interjecting from either side of the House. I suggest that members desist. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.M. McHALE: The point I am making is that research is now pointing to the lack of evidence that mandatory reporting works to protect children. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
The SPEAKER: The point of order is correct: members should not be interjecting. The purpose of a question is to get an answer from a minister and not to hear members interjecting from either side of the House. I suggest that members desist. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.M. McHALE: The point I am making is that research is now pointing to the lack of evidence that mandatory reporting works to protect children. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
(1) Is the minister aware that mandatory reporting systems are in place in every other State and Territory of Australia, as well as every state of the United States, Denmark, Sweden and Canada? (2) Is the minister also aware that, without mandatory reporting, health and education professionals in Western Australia are under no legal compulsion to report even the most obvious signs of child abuse? (3) Will the minister join with the coalition Opposition to provide bipartisan support for the introduction of mandatory reporting of child abuse, which is in fact nationally and internationally recognised as being a crucially important tool for child protection? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1) Yes. (2)-(3) I would like to read from a report that has just been produced in the Australian Capital Territory. This report was released on 14 May and its author was Cheryl Vardon, Commissioner for Public Administration. The report states - Opinions differ about whether mandatory reporting should be expanded or whether it should be a statutory requirement at all. Arguments in favour of mandatory reporting are often based on an assumption that all mandated people will report . . . Further, there is no evidence that it ensures that the responsible government agency is informed of all suspected child abuse, so that the children in question are brought to its attention quickly . . . Mrs C.L. Edwardes: So none get reported? Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms S.M. McHALE: The report continues - . . . some jurisdictions say that mandatory reporting has flooded intake systems with notifications that cannot be responded to and that a large number of the reports are inaccurate or are better dealt with outside the child protection system. In Victoria, the system is said to be buckling under the current mandatory reporting regime, which has become largely legalistic and investigative. This Opposition has come in with a political stunt. Mr C.J. Barnett: The physical abuse of children is not a political stunt. For you to dismiss children’s safety is a political stunt. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I appreciate it is difficult for you, Mr Speaker, when people interject. Sometimes people on both sides do not behave, but this is a clear attempt by the Opposition to intimidate the minister. Her voice is clearly not as loud as mine or that of other males on the other side, and opposition members are really dragging down behaviour in this Chamber by the sheer volume of their interjections in an attempt to intimidate the minister when she is answering a question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: For the minister to imply in an aggressive way that a question asked by the member for Nedlands is a political stunt when we are talking about the sexual and physical abuse of children is offensive to members on this side of the House, if not to those on the other side. The SPEAKER: The point of order is correct: members should not be interjecting. The purpose of a question is to get an answer from a minister and not to hear members interjecting from either side of the House. I suggest that members desist. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.M. McHALE: The point I am making is that research is now pointing to the lack of evidence that mandatory reporting works to protect children. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
(2) Is the minister also aware that, without mandatory reporting, health and education professionals in Western Australia are under no legal compulsion to report even the most obvious signs of child abuse? (3) Will the minister join with the coalition Opposition to provide bipartisan support for the introduction of mandatory reporting of child abuse, which is in fact nationally and internationally recognised as being a crucially important tool for child protection? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1) Yes. (2)-(3) I would like to read from a report that has just been produced in the Australian Capital Territory. This report was released on 14 May and its author was Cheryl Vardon, Commissioner for Public Administration. The report states - Opinions differ about whether mandatory reporting should be expanded or whether it should be a statutory requirement at all. Arguments in favour of mandatory reporting are often based on an assumption that all mandated people will report . . . Further, there is no evidence that it ensures that the responsible government agency is informed of all suspected child abuse, so that the children in question are brought to its attention quickly . . . Mrs C.L. Edwardes: So none get reported? Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms S.M. McHALE: The report continues - . . . some jurisdictions say that mandatory reporting has flooded intake systems with notifications that cannot be responded to and that a large number of the reports are inaccurate or are better dealt with outside the child protection system. In Victoria, the system is said to be buckling under the current mandatory reporting regime, which has become largely legalistic and investigative. This Opposition has come in with a political stunt. Mr C.J. Barnett: The physical abuse of children is not a political stunt. For you to dismiss children’s safety is a political stunt. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I appreciate it is difficult for you, Mr Speaker, when people interject. Sometimes people on both sides do not behave, but this is a clear attempt by the Opposition to intimidate the minister. Her voice is clearly not as loud as mine or that of other males on the other side, and opposition members are really dragging down behaviour in this Chamber by the sheer volume of their interjections in an attempt to intimidate the minister when she is answering a question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: For the minister to imply in an aggressive way that a question asked by the member for Nedlands is a political stunt when we are talking about the sexual and physical abuse of children is offensive to members on this side of the House, if not to those on the other side. The SPEAKER: The point of order is correct: members should not be interjecting. The purpose of a question is to get an answer from a minister and not to hear members interjecting from either side of the House. I suggest that members desist. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.M. McHALE: The point I am making is that research is now pointing to the lack of evidence that mandatory reporting works to protect children. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
(3) Will the minister join with the coalition Opposition to provide bipartisan support for the introduction of mandatory reporting of child abuse, which is in fact nationally and internationally recognised as being a crucially important tool for child protection? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1) Yes. (2)-(3) I would like to read from a report that has just been produced in the Australian Capital Territory. This report was released on 14 May and its author was Cheryl Vardon, Commissioner for Public Administration. The report states - Opinions differ about whether mandatory reporting should be expanded or whether it should be a statutory requirement at all. Arguments in favour of mandatory reporting are often based on an assumption that all mandated people will report . . . Further, there is no evidence that it ensures that the responsible government agency is informed of all suspected child abuse, so that the children in question are brought to its attention quickly . . . Mrs C.L. Edwardes: So none get reported? Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms S.M. McHALE: The report continues - . . . some jurisdictions say that mandatory reporting has flooded intake systems with notifications that cannot be responded to and that a large number of the reports are inaccurate or are better dealt with outside the child protection system. In Victoria, the system is said to be buckling under the current mandatory reporting regime, which has become largely legalistic and investigative. This Opposition has come in with a political stunt. Mr C.J. Barnett: The physical abuse of children is not a political stunt. For you to dismiss children’s safety is a political stunt. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I appreciate it is difficult for you, Mr Speaker, when people interject. Sometimes people on both sides do not behave, but this is a clear attempt by the Opposition to intimidate the minister. Her voice is clearly not as loud as mine or that of other males on the other side, and opposition members are really dragging down behaviour in this Chamber by the sheer volume of their interjections in an attempt to intimidate the minister when she is answering a question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: For the minister to imply in an aggressive way that a question asked by the member for Nedlands is a political stunt when we are talking about the sexual and physical abuse of children is offensive to members on this side of the House, if not to those on the other side. The SPEAKER: The point of order is correct: members should not be interjecting. The purpose of a question is to get an answer from a minister and not to hear members interjecting from either side of the House. I suggest that members desist. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.M. McHALE: The point I am making is that research is now pointing to the lack of evidence that mandatory reporting works to protect children. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
Ms S.M. McHALE replied: (1) Yes. (2)-(3) I would like to read from a report that has just been produced in the Australian Capital Territory. This report was released on 14 May and its author was Cheryl Vardon, Commissioner for Public Administration. The report states - Opinions differ about whether mandatory reporting should be expanded or whether it should be a statutory requirement at all. Arguments in favour of mandatory reporting are often based on an assumption that all mandated people will report . . . Further, there is no evidence that it ensures that the responsible government agency is informed of all suspected child abuse, so that the children in question are brought to its attention quickly . . . Mrs C.L. Edwardes: So none get reported? Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms S.M. McHALE: The report continues - . . . some jurisdictions say that mandatory reporting has flooded intake systems with notifications that cannot be responded to and that a large number of the reports are inaccurate or are better dealt with outside the child protection system. In Victoria, the system is said to be buckling under the current mandatory reporting regime, which has become largely legalistic and investigative. This Opposition has come in with a political stunt. Mr C.J. Barnett: The physical abuse of children is not a political stunt. For you to dismiss children’s safety is a political stunt. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I appreciate it is difficult for you, Mr Speaker, when people interject. Sometimes people on both sides do not behave, but this is a clear attempt by the Opposition to intimidate the minister. Her voice is clearly not as loud as mine or that of other males on the other side, and opposition members are really dragging down behaviour in this Chamber by the sheer volume of their interjections in an attempt to intimidate the minister when she is answering a question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: For the minister to imply in an aggressive way that a question asked by the member for Nedlands is a political stunt when we are talking about the sexual and physical abuse of children is offensive to members on this side of the House, if not to those on the other side. The SPEAKER: The point of order is correct: members should not be interjecting. The purpose of a question is to get an answer from a minister and not to hear members interjecting from either side of the House. I suggest that members desist. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.M. McHALE: The point I am making is that research is now pointing to the lack of evidence that mandatory reporting works to protect children. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
(1) Yes. (2)-(3) I would like to read from a report that has just been produced in the Australian Capital Territory. This report was released on 14 May and its author was Cheryl Vardon, Commissioner for Public Administration. The report states - Opinions differ about whether mandatory reporting should be expanded or whether it should be a statutory requirement at all. Arguments in favour of mandatory reporting are often based on an assumption that all mandated people will report . . . Further, there is no evidence that it ensures that the responsible government agency is informed of all suspected child abuse, so that the children in question are brought to its attention quickly . . . Mrs C.L. Edwardes: So none get reported? Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms S.M. McHALE: The report continues - . . . some jurisdictions say that mandatory reporting has flooded intake systems with notifications that cannot be responded to and that a large number of the reports are inaccurate or are better dealt with outside the child protection system. In Victoria, the system is said to be buckling under the current mandatory reporting regime, which has become largely legalistic and investigative. This Opposition has come in with a political stunt. Mr C.J. Barnett: The physical abuse of children is not a political stunt. For you to dismiss children’s safety is a political stunt. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I appreciate it is difficult for you, Mr Speaker, when people interject. Sometimes people on both sides do not behave, but this is a clear attempt by the Opposition to intimidate the minister. Her voice is clearly not as loud as mine or that of other males on the other side, and opposition members are really dragging down behaviour in this Chamber by the sheer volume of their interjections in an attempt to intimidate the minister when she is answering a question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: For the minister to imply in an aggressive way that a question asked by the member for Nedlands is a political stunt when we are talking about the sexual and physical abuse of children is offensive to members on this side of the House, if not to those on the other side. The SPEAKER: The point of order is correct: members should not be interjecting. The purpose of a question is to get an answer from a minister and not to hear members interjecting from either side of the House. I suggest that members desist. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.M. McHALE: The point I am making is that research is now pointing to the lack of evidence that mandatory reporting works to protect children. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
(2)-(3) I would like to read from a report that has just been produced in the Australian Capital Territory. This report was released on 14 May and its author was Cheryl Vardon, Commissioner for Public Administration. The report states - Opinions differ about whether mandatory reporting should be expanded or whether it should be a statutory requirement at all. Arguments in favour of mandatory reporting are often based on an assumption that all mandated people will report . . . Further, there is no evidence that it ensures that the responsible government agency is informed of all suspected child abuse, so that the children in question are brought to its attention quickly . . . Mrs C.L. Edwardes: So none get reported? Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms S.M. McHALE: The report continues - . . . some jurisdictions say that mandatory reporting has flooded intake systems with notifications that cannot be responded to and that a large number of the reports are inaccurate or are better dealt with outside the child protection system. In Victoria, the system is said to be buckling under the current mandatory reporting regime, which has become largely legalistic and investigative. This Opposition has come in with a political stunt. Mr C.J. Barnett: The physical abuse of children is not a political stunt. For you to dismiss children’s safety is a political stunt. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I appreciate it is difficult for you, Mr Speaker, when people interject. Sometimes people on both sides do not behave, but this is a clear attempt by the Opposition to intimidate the minister. Her voice is clearly not as loud as mine or that of other males on the other side, and opposition members are really dragging down behaviour in this Chamber by the sheer volume of their interjections in an attempt to intimidate the minister when she is answering a question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: For the minister to imply in an aggressive way that a question asked by the member for Nedlands is a political stunt when we are talking about the sexual and physical abuse of children is offensive to members on this side of the House, if not to those on the other side. The SPEAKER: The point of order is correct: members should not be interjecting. The purpose of a question is to get an answer from a minister and not to hear members interjecting from either side of the House. I suggest that members desist. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.M. McHALE: The point I am making is that research is now pointing to the lack of evidence that mandatory reporting works to protect children. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms S.M. McHALE: The report continues - . . . some jurisdictions say that mandatory reporting has flooded intake systems with notifications that cannot be responded to and that a large number of the reports are inaccurate or are better dealt with outside the child protection system. In Victoria, the system is said to be buckling under the current mandatory reporting regime, which has become largely legalistic and investigative. This Opposition has come in with a political stunt. Mr C.J. Barnett: The physical abuse of children is not a political stunt. For you to dismiss children’s safety is a political stunt. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I appreciate it is difficult for you, Mr Speaker, when people interject. Sometimes people on both sides do not behave, but this is a clear attempt by the Opposition to intimidate the minister. Her voice is clearly not as loud as mine or that of other males on the other side, and opposition members are really dragging down behaviour in this Chamber by the sheer volume of their interjections in an attempt to intimidate the minister when she is answering a question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: For the minister to imply in an aggressive way that a question asked by the member for Nedlands is a political stunt when we are talking about the sexual and physical abuse of children is offensive to members on this side of the House, if not to those on the other side. The SPEAKER: The point of order is correct: members should not be interjecting. The purpose of a question is to get an answer from a minister and not to hear members interjecting from either side of the House. I suggest that members desist. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.M. McHALE: The point I am making is that research is now pointing to the lack of evidence that mandatory reporting works to protect children. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms S.M. McHALE: The report continues - . . . some jurisdictions say that mandatory reporting has flooded intake systems with notifications that cannot be responded to and that a large number of the reports are inaccurate or are better dealt with outside the child protection system. In Victoria, the system is said to be buckling under the current mandatory reporting regime, which has become largely legalistic and investigative. This Opposition has come in with a political stunt. Mr C.J. Barnett: The physical abuse of children is not a political stunt. For you to dismiss children’s safety is a political stunt. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I appreciate it is difficult for you, Mr Speaker, when people interject. Sometimes people on both sides do not behave, but this is a clear attempt by the Opposition to intimidate the minister. Her voice is clearly not as loud as mine or that of other males on the other side, and opposition members are really dragging down behaviour in this Chamber by the sheer volume of their interjections in an attempt to intimidate the minister when she is answering a question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: For the minister to imply in an aggressive way that a question asked by the member for Nedlands is a political stunt when we are talking about the sexual and physical abuse of children is offensive to members on this side of the House, if not to those on the other side. The SPEAKER: The point of order is correct: members should not be interjecting. The purpose of a question is to get an answer from a minister and not to hear members interjecting from either side of the House. I suggest that members desist. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.M. McHALE: The point I am making is that research is now pointing to the lack of evidence that mandatory reporting works to protect children. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
Ms S.M. McHALE: The report continues - . . . some jurisdictions say that mandatory reporting has flooded intake systems with notifications that cannot be responded to and that a large number of the reports are inaccurate or are better dealt with outside the child protection system. In Victoria, the system is said to be buckling under the current mandatory reporting regime, which has become largely legalistic and investigative. This Opposition has come in with a political stunt. Mr C.J. Barnett: The physical abuse of children is not a political stunt. For you to dismiss children’s safety is a political stunt. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I appreciate it is difficult for you, Mr Speaker, when people interject. Sometimes people on both sides do not behave, but this is a clear attempt by the Opposition to intimidate the minister. Her voice is clearly not as loud as mine or that of other males on the other side, and opposition members are really dragging down behaviour in this Chamber by the sheer volume of their interjections in an attempt to intimidate the minister when she is answering a question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: For the minister to imply in an aggressive way that a question asked by the member for Nedlands is a political stunt when we are talking about the sexual and physical abuse of children is offensive to members on this side of the House, if not to those on the other side. The SPEAKER: The point of order is correct: members should not be interjecting. The purpose of a question is to get an answer from a minister and not to hear members interjecting from either side of the House. I suggest that members desist. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.M. McHALE: The point I am making is that research is now pointing to the lack of evidence that mandatory reporting works to protect children. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
Mr C.J. Barnett: The physical abuse of children is not a political stunt. For you to dismiss children’s safety is a political stunt. Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I appreciate it is difficult for you, Mr Speaker, when people interject. Sometimes people on both sides do not behave, but this is a clear attempt by the Opposition to intimidate the minister. Her voice is clearly not as loud as mine or that of other males on the other side, and opposition members are really dragging down behaviour in this Chamber by the sheer volume of their interjections in an attempt to intimidate the minister when she is answering a question. Mr C.J. BARNETT: For the minister to imply in an aggressive way that a question asked by the member for Nedlands is a political stunt when we are talking about the sexual and physical abuse of children is offensive to members on this side of the House, if not to those on the other side. The SPEAKER: The point of order is correct: members should not be interjecting. The purpose of a question is to get an answer from a minister and not to hear members interjecting from either side of the House. I suggest that members desist. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.M. McHALE: The point I am making is that research is now pointing to the lack of evidence that mandatory reporting works to protect children. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: For the minister to imply in an aggressive way that a question asked by the member for Nedlands is a political stunt when we are talking about the sexual and physical abuse of children is offensive to members on this side of the House, if not to those on the other side. The SPEAKER: The point of order is correct: members should not be interjecting. The purpose of a question is to get an answer from a minister and not to hear members interjecting from either side of the House. I suggest that members desist. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.M. McHALE: The point I am making is that research is now pointing to the lack of evidence that mandatory reporting works to protect children. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
The SPEAKER: The point of order is correct: members should not be interjecting. The purpose of a question is to get an answer from a minister and not to hear members interjecting from either side of the House. I suggest that members desist. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.M. McHALE: The point I am making is that research is now pointing to the lack of evidence that mandatory reporting works to protect children. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
Ms S.M. McHALE: I am trying to advise the Opposition to look at the evidence and not just come in here with political stunts dealing with child protection. If the Opposition were serious about child protection, it would not have opposed the children’s Bill. The Opposition would have had a spokesperson in its shadow ministry - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Nedlands to order for the second time. Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
Ms S.M. McHALE: Those opposite would not have opposed the Bill, and they would have appointed a person in their shadow ministry to look at the resources needed. Those opposite are trying to undermine the best Government to have delivered on child protection. Members opposite do not like that, but the evidence is clear.
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.