❓ A parliamentary question regarding child sexual abuse in foster care and the implementation of the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act. The Minister responds, defending the implementation timeline and criticising the opposition's priorities.
AnsweredQoN 483Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Of the seven cases of sexual abuse of children in foster care between April 2004 and March 2005, were any of these abuses perpetrated by people outside the home, such as tutors, other carers, drivers or music teachers? (2) When will the government implement its promised rigorous screening processes as outlined in the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act, which was rushed through Parliament with bipartisan support in 2004? Ms S.M. McHALE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I expected the opposition to ask more questions on this issue, but instead there have been questions on government advertising, shark patrols, Moira Rayner, infill sewerage, Lewandowski and smoking, which is an important issue. Those questions were dealt with before we got to the issue that is very important to me; that is, of working very hard to improve services for children. That is just amazing, given that this issue has shocked us all. The member for Cottesloe raised the matter this morning, and I am grateful for the comments he made. However, until now, there had not been one question on something that I thought the opposition would be interested in pursuing. Shame on the opposition. (1) I have a lot of information in my head about the work we are doing on abuse in care. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the details of the seven cases. I am happy to provide that information by way of supplementary information to the member. (2) The implementation date for the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act has always been 1 January. I heard the opposition say that there has been a delay. I assure every member of the house that there has never been a delay. The implementation date has been 1 January for very good reasons. This legislation does not introduce a simple, unsophisticated arrangement for checking whether people have a history of sexual offending; it is a rigorous and stringent piece of legislation. In the past number of months we have put out a tender for new software and hardware, which is being developed. We cannot buy other states’ systems because that is fraught with problems. We had to design the specifications to meet the Western Australian legislation, which the opposition supported. It is good that the legislation received bipartisan support. New software and hardware had to be developed for the legislation. That meant developing design specifications and calling for expressions of interest. That tender has been awarded and work is taking place in that regard. Significant community education is required around this matter. If members have been keeping abreast of this issue nationally, they would know that issues have arisen in Victoria about the requirement to check sporting volunteers, including coaches and the like. We must ensure that the community is well informed so that when the legislation is proclaimed and this scheme is rolled out, there will be no surprises or resistance - we do not want resistance. We also must draft regulations, and that work is in progress at the moment. Also, we had to issue the contract for the software provider. I give an example of what happened in the United Kingdom. The SPEAKER : Order, Deputy Leader of the Opposition! MS S.M. McHALE : An overzealous approach was adopted in the UK. Understandably, everyone always wants the legislation now. This government has introduced this legislation and worked very hard to achieve the most rigorous legislation possible. When the process was rushed in the United Kingdom, the system nearly collapsed. We do not want that to happen in Western Australia. It will be a very difficult process, and it is very important that we do not set it up to fail. The government has been very rigorous in this area. Why? As I explained yesterday, the government is including past charges in the screening scheme, so we need a system to connect with the police information records to ensure we can deliver on the stated intent. I ask members of the opposition to please understand the complexity of this matter. I know it is hard. The government wants to ensure it will set up a system that will succeed and minimise any backlash on whoever is in government at the time. I say it again - even the best piece of legislation is no absolute safeguard. People must be vigilant. Parents in this contemporary society, unfortunately, must be vigilant. The government and employers must be vigilant. That is why 1 January 2006 has always been the date for the proclamation of the legislation. We are working extremely hard. I am directing my department to ensure that time lines are met, and that there is no slippage so the government can deliver on this legislation.
(2) When will the government implement its promised rigorous screening processes as outlined in the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act, which was rushed through Parliament with bipartisan support in 2004? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I expected the opposition to ask more questions on this issue, but instead there have been questions on government advertising, shark patrols, Moira Rayner, infill sewerage, Lewandowski and smoking, which is an important issue. Those questions were dealt with before we got to the issue that is very important to me; that is, of working very hard to improve services for children. That is just amazing, given that this issue has shocked us all. The member for Cottesloe raised the matter this morning, and I am grateful for the comments he made. However, until now, there had not been one question on something that I thought the opposition would be interested in pursuing. Shame on the opposition. (1) I have a lot of information in my head about the work we are doing on abuse in care. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the details of the seven cases. I am happy to provide that information by way of supplementary information to the member. (2) The implementation date for the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act has always been 1 January. I heard the opposition say that there has been a delay. I assure every member of the house that there has never been a delay. The implementation date has been 1 January for very good reasons. This legislation does not introduce a simple, unsophisticated arrangement for checking whether people have a history of sexual offending; it is a rigorous and stringent piece of legislation. In the past number of months we have put out a tender for new software and hardware, which is being developed. We cannot buy other states’ systems because that is fraught with problems. We had to design the specifications to meet the Western Australian legislation, which the opposition supported. It is good that the legislation received bipartisan support. New software and hardware had to be developed for the legislation. That meant developing design specifications and calling for expressions of interest. That tender has been awarded and work is taking place in that regard. Significant community education is required around this matter. If members have been keeping abreast of this issue nationally, they would know that issues have arisen in Victoria about the requirement to check sporting volunteers, including coaches and the like. We must ensure that the community is well informed so that when the legislation is proclaimed and this scheme is rolled out, there will be no surprises or resistance - we do not want resistance. We also must draft regulations, and that work is in progress at the moment. Also, we had to issue the contract for the software provider. I give an example of what happened in the United Kingdom. The SPEAKER : Order, Deputy Leader of the Opposition! MS S.M. McHALE : An overzealous approach was adopted in the UK. Understandably, everyone always wants the legislation now. This government has introduced this legislation and worked very hard to achieve the most rigorous legislation possible. When the process was rushed in the United Kingdom, the system nearly collapsed. We do not want that to happen in Western Australia. It will be a very difficult process, and it is very important that we do not set it up to fail. The government has been very rigorous in this area. Why? As I explained yesterday, the government is including past charges in the screening scheme, so we need a system to connect with the police information records to ensure we can deliver on the stated intent. I ask members of the opposition to please understand the complexity of this matter. I know it is hard. The government wants to ensure it will set up a system that will succeed and minimise any backlash on whoever is in government at the time. I say it again - even the best piece of legislation is no absolute safeguard. People must be vigilant. Parents in this contemporary society, unfortunately, must be vigilant. The government and employers must be vigilant. That is why 1 January 2006 has always been the date for the proclamation of the legislation. We are working extremely hard. I am directing my department to ensure that time lines are met, and that there is no slippage so the government can deliver on this legislation.
Ms S.M. McHALE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I expected the opposition to ask more questions on this issue, but instead there have been questions on government advertising, shark patrols, Moira Rayner, infill sewerage, Lewandowski and smoking, which is an important issue. Those questions were dealt with before we got to the issue that is very important to me; that is, of working very hard to improve services for children. That is just amazing, given that this issue has shocked us all. The member for Cottesloe raised the matter this morning, and I am grateful for the comments he made. However, until now, there had not been one question on something that I thought the opposition would be interested in pursuing. Shame on the opposition. (1) I have a lot of information in my head about the work we are doing on abuse in care. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the details of the seven cases. I am happy to provide that information by way of supplementary information to the member. (2) The implementation date for the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act has always been 1 January. I heard the opposition say that there has been a delay. I assure every member of the house that there has never been a delay. The implementation date has been 1 January for very good reasons. This legislation does not introduce a simple, unsophisticated arrangement for checking whether people have a history of sexual offending; it is a rigorous and stringent piece of legislation. In the past number of months we have put out a tender for new software and hardware, which is being developed. We cannot buy other states’ systems because that is fraught with problems. We had to design the specifications to meet the Western Australian legislation, which the opposition supported. It is good that the legislation received bipartisan support. New software and hardware had to be developed for the legislation. That meant developing design specifications and calling for expressions of interest. That tender has been awarded and work is taking place in that regard. Significant community education is required around this matter. If members have been keeping abreast of this issue nationally, they would know that issues have arisen in Victoria about the requirement to check sporting volunteers, including coaches and the like. We must ensure that the community is well informed so that when the legislation is proclaimed and this scheme is rolled out, there will be no surprises or resistance - we do not want resistance. We also must draft regulations, and that work is in progress at the moment. Also, we had to issue the contract for the software provider. I give an example of what happened in the United Kingdom. The SPEAKER : Order, Deputy Leader of the Opposition! MS S.M. McHALE : An overzealous approach was adopted in the UK. Understandably, everyone always wants the legislation now. This government has introduced this legislation and worked very hard to achieve the most rigorous legislation possible. When the process was rushed in the United Kingdom, the system nearly collapsed. We do not want that to happen in Western Australia. It will be a very difficult process, and it is very important that we do not set it up to fail. The government has been very rigorous in this area. Why? As I explained yesterday, the government is including past charges in the screening scheme, so we need a system to connect with the police information records to ensure we can deliver on the stated intent. I ask members of the opposition to please understand the complexity of this matter. I know it is hard. The government wants to ensure it will set up a system that will succeed and minimise any backlash on whoever is in government at the time. I say it again - even the best piece of legislation is no absolute safeguard. People must be vigilant. Parents in this contemporary society, unfortunately, must be vigilant. The government and employers must be vigilant. That is why 1 January 2006 has always been the date for the proclamation of the legislation. We are working extremely hard. I am directing my department to ensure that time lines are met, and that there is no slippage so the government can deliver on this legislation.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I expected the opposition to ask more questions on this issue, but instead there have been questions on government advertising, shark patrols, Moira Rayner, infill sewerage, Lewandowski and smoking, which is an important issue. Those questions were dealt with before we got to the issue that is very important to me; that is, of working very hard to improve services for children. That is just amazing, given that this issue has shocked us all. The member for Cottesloe raised the matter this morning, and I am grateful for the comments he made. However, until now, there had not been one question on something that I thought the opposition would be interested in pursuing. Shame on the opposition. (1) I have a lot of information in my head about the work we are doing on abuse in care. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the details of the seven cases. I am happy to provide that information by way of supplementary information to the member. (2) The implementation date for the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act has always been 1 January. I heard the opposition say that there has been a delay. I assure every member of the house that there has never been a delay. The implementation date has been 1 January for very good reasons. This legislation does not introduce a simple, unsophisticated arrangement for checking whether people have a history of sexual offending; it is a rigorous and stringent piece of legislation. In the past number of months we have put out a tender for new software and hardware, which is being developed. We cannot buy other states’ systems because that is fraught with problems. We had to design the specifications to meet the Western Australian legislation, which the opposition supported. It is good that the legislation received bipartisan support. New software and hardware had to be developed for the legislation. That meant developing design specifications and calling for expressions of interest. That tender has been awarded and work is taking place in that regard. Significant community education is required around this matter. If members have been keeping abreast of this issue nationally, they would know that issues have arisen in Victoria about the requirement to check sporting volunteers, including coaches and the like. We must ensure that the community is well informed so that when the legislation is proclaimed and this scheme is rolled out, there will be no surprises or resistance - we do not want resistance. We also must draft regulations, and that work is in progress at the moment. Also, we had to issue the contract for the software provider. I give an example of what happened in the United Kingdom. The SPEAKER : Order, Deputy Leader of the Opposition! MS S.M. McHALE : An overzealous approach was adopted in the UK. Understandably, everyone always wants the legislation now. This government has introduced this legislation and worked very hard to achieve the most rigorous legislation possible. When the process was rushed in the United Kingdom, the system nearly collapsed. We do not want that to happen in Western Australia. It will be a very difficult process, and it is very important that we do not set it up to fail. The government has been very rigorous in this area. Why? As I explained yesterday, the government is including past charges in the screening scheme, so we need a system to connect with the police information records to ensure we can deliver on the stated intent. I ask members of the opposition to please understand the complexity of this matter. I know it is hard. The government wants to ensure it will set up a system that will succeed and minimise any backlash on whoever is in government at the time. I say it again - even the best piece of legislation is no absolute safeguard. People must be vigilant. Parents in this contemporary society, unfortunately, must be vigilant. The government and employers must be vigilant. That is why 1 January 2006 has always been the date for the proclamation of the legislation. We are working extremely hard. I am directing my department to ensure that time lines are met, and that there is no slippage so the government can deliver on this legislation.
(1) I have a lot of information in my head about the work we are doing on abuse in care. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the details of the seven cases. I am happy to provide that information by way of supplementary information to the member. (2) The implementation date for the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act has always been 1 January. I heard the opposition say that there has been a delay. I assure every member of the house that there has never been a delay. The implementation date has been 1 January for very good reasons. This legislation does not introduce a simple, unsophisticated arrangement for checking whether people have a history of sexual offending; it is a rigorous and stringent piece of legislation. In the past number of months we have put out a tender for new software and hardware, which is being developed. We cannot buy other states’ systems because that is fraught with problems. We had to design the specifications to meet the Western Australian legislation, which the opposition supported. It is good that the legislation received bipartisan support. New software and hardware had to be developed for the legislation. That meant developing design specifications and calling for expressions of interest. That tender has been awarded and work is taking place in that regard. Significant community education is required around this matter. If members have been keeping abreast of this issue nationally, they would know that issues have arisen in Victoria about the requirement to check sporting volunteers, including coaches and the like. We must ensure that the community is well informed so that when the legislation is proclaimed and this scheme is rolled out, there will be no surprises or resistance - we do not want resistance. We also must draft regulations, and that work is in progress at the moment. Also, we had to issue the contract for the software provider. I give an example of what happened in the United Kingdom. The SPEAKER : Order, Deputy Leader of the Opposition! MS S.M. McHALE : An overzealous approach was adopted in the UK. Understandably, everyone always wants the legislation now. This government has introduced this legislation and worked very hard to achieve the most rigorous legislation possible. When the process was rushed in the United Kingdom, the system nearly collapsed. We do not want that to happen in Western Australia. It will be a very difficult process, and it is very important that we do not set it up to fail. The government has been very rigorous in this area. Why? As I explained yesterday, the government is including past charges in the screening scheme, so we need a system to connect with the police information records to ensure we can deliver on the stated intent. I ask members of the opposition to please understand the complexity of this matter. I know it is hard. The government wants to ensure it will set up a system that will succeed and minimise any backlash on whoever is in government at the time. I say it again - even the best piece of legislation is no absolute safeguard. People must be vigilant. Parents in this contemporary society, unfortunately, must be vigilant. The government and employers must be vigilant. That is why 1 January 2006 has always been the date for the proclamation of the legislation. We are working extremely hard. I am directing my department to ensure that time lines are met, and that there is no slippage so the government can deliver on this legislation.
(2) The implementation date for the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act has always been 1 January. I heard the opposition say that there has been a delay. I assure every member of the house that there has never been a delay. The implementation date has been 1 January for very good reasons. This legislation does not introduce a simple, unsophisticated arrangement for checking whether people have a history of sexual offending; it is a rigorous and stringent piece of legislation. In the past number of months we have put out a tender for new software and hardware, which is being developed. We cannot buy other states’ systems because that is fraught with problems. We had to design the specifications to meet the Western Australian legislation, which the opposition supported. It is good that the legislation received bipartisan support. New software and hardware had to be developed for the legislation. That meant developing design specifications and calling for expressions of interest. That tender has been awarded and work is taking place in that regard. Significant community education is required around this matter. If members have been keeping abreast of this issue nationally, they would know that issues have arisen in Victoria about the requirement to check sporting volunteers, including coaches and the like. We must ensure that the community is well informed so that when the legislation is proclaimed and this scheme is rolled out, there will be no surprises or resistance - we do not want resistance. We also must draft regulations, and that work is in progress at the moment. Also, we had to issue the contract for the software provider. I give an example of what happened in the United Kingdom. The SPEAKER : Order, Deputy Leader of the Opposition! MS S.M. McHALE : An overzealous approach was adopted in the UK. Understandably, everyone always wants the legislation now. This government has introduced this legislation and worked very hard to achieve the most rigorous legislation possible. When the process was rushed in the United Kingdom, the system nearly collapsed. We do not want that to happen in Western Australia. It will be a very difficult process, and it is very important that we do not set it up to fail. The government has been very rigorous in this area. Why? As I explained yesterday, the government is including past charges in the screening scheme, so we need a system to connect with the police information records to ensure we can deliver on the stated intent. I ask members of the opposition to please understand the complexity of this matter. I know it is hard. The government wants to ensure it will set up a system that will succeed and minimise any backlash on whoever is in government at the time. I say it again - even the best piece of legislation is no absolute safeguard. People must be vigilant. Parents in this contemporary society, unfortunately, must be vigilant. The government and employers must be vigilant. That is why 1 January 2006 has always been the date for the proclamation of the legislation. We are working extremely hard. I am directing my department to ensure that time lines are met, and that there is no slippage so the government can deliver on this legislation.
The SPEAKER : Order, Deputy Leader of the Opposition! MS S.M. McHALE : An overzealous approach was adopted in the UK. Understandably, everyone always wants the legislation now. This government has introduced this legislation and worked very hard to achieve the most rigorous legislation possible. When the process was rushed in the United Kingdom, the system nearly collapsed. We do not want that to happen in Western Australia. It will be a very difficult process, and it is very important that we do not set it up to fail. The government has been very rigorous in this area. Why? As I explained yesterday, the government is including past charges in the screening scheme, so we need a system to connect with the police information records to ensure we can deliver on the stated intent. I ask members of the opposition to please understand the complexity of this matter. I know it is hard. The government wants to ensure it will set up a system that will succeed and minimise any backlash on whoever is in government at the time. I say it again - even the best piece of legislation is no absolute safeguard. People must be vigilant. Parents in this contemporary society, unfortunately, must be vigilant. The government and employers must be vigilant. That is why 1 January 2006 has always been the date for the proclamation of the legislation. We are working extremely hard. I am directing my department to ensure that time lines are met, and that there is no slippage so the government can deliver on this legislation.
MS S.M. McHALE : An overzealous approach was adopted in the UK. Understandably, everyone always wants the legislation now. This government has introduced this legislation and worked very hard to achieve the most rigorous legislation possible. When the process was rushed in the United Kingdom, the system nearly collapsed. We do not want that to happen in Western Australia. It will be a very difficult process, and it is very important that we do not set it up to fail. The government has been very rigorous in this area. Why? As I explained yesterday, the government is including past charges in the screening scheme, so we need a system to connect with the police information records to ensure we can deliver on the stated intent. I ask members of the opposition to please understand the complexity of this matter. I know it is hard. The government wants to ensure it will set up a system that will succeed and minimise any backlash on whoever is in government at the time. I say it again - even the best piece of legislation is no absolute safeguard. People must be vigilant. Parents in this contemporary society, unfortunately, must be vigilant. The government and employers must be vigilant. That is why 1 January 2006 has always been the date for the proclamation of the legislation. We are working extremely hard. I am directing my department to ensure that time lines are met, and that there is no slippage so the government can deliver on this legislation.
I ask members of the opposition to please understand the complexity of this matter. I know it is hard. The government wants to ensure it will set up a system that will succeed and minimise any backlash on whoever is in government at the time. I say it again - even the best piece of legislation is no absolute safeguard. People must be vigilant. Parents in this contemporary society, unfortunately, must be vigilant. The government and employers must be vigilant. That is why 1 January 2006 has always been the date for the proclamation of the legislation. We are working extremely hard. I am directing my department to ensure that time lines are met, and that there is no slippage so the government can deliver on this legislation.
(2) When will the government implement its promised rigorous screening processes as outlined in the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act, which was rushed through Parliament with bipartisan support in 2004? Ms S.M. McHALE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I expected the opposition to ask more questions on this issue, but instead there have been questions on government advertising, shark patrols, Moira Rayner, infill sewerage, Lewandowski and smoking, which is an important issue. Those questions were dealt with before we got to the issue that is very important to me; that is, of working very hard to improve services for children. That is just amazing, given that this issue has shocked us all. The member for Cottesloe raised the matter this morning, and I am grateful for the comments he made. However, until now, there had not been one question on something that I thought the opposition would be interested in pursuing. Shame on the opposition. (1) I have a lot of information in my head about the work we are doing on abuse in care. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the details of the seven cases. I am happy to provide that information by way of supplementary information to the member. (2) The implementation date for the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act has always been 1 January. I heard the opposition say that there has been a delay. I assure every member of the house that there has never been a delay. The implementation date has been 1 January for very good reasons. This legislation does not introduce a simple, unsophisticated arrangement for checking whether people have a history of sexual offending; it is a rigorous and stringent piece of legislation. In the past number of months we have put out a tender for new software and hardware, which is being developed. We cannot buy other states’ systems because that is fraught with problems. We had to design the specifications to meet the Western Australian legislation, which the opposition supported. It is good that the legislation received bipartisan support. New software and hardware had to be developed for the legislation. That meant developing design specifications and calling for expressions of interest. That tender has been awarded and work is taking place in that regard. Significant community education is required around this matter. If members have been keeping abreast of this issue nationally, they would know that issues have arisen in Victoria about the requirement to check sporting volunteers, including coaches and the like. We must ensure that the community is well informed so that when the legislation is proclaimed and this scheme is rolled out, there will be no surprises or resistance - we do not want resistance. We also must draft regulations, and that work is in progress at the moment. Also, we had to issue the contract for the software provider. I give an example of what happened in the United Kingdom. The SPEAKER : Order, Deputy Leader of the Opposition! MS S.M. McHALE : An overzealous approach was adopted in the UK. Understandably, everyone always wants the legislation now. This government has introduced this legislation and worked very hard to achieve the most rigorous legislation possible. When the process was rushed in the United Kingdom, the system nearly collapsed. We do not want that to happen in Western Australia. It will be a very difficult process, and it is very important that we do not set it up to fail. The government has been very rigorous in this area. Why? As I explained yesterday, the government is including past charges in the screening scheme, so we need a system to connect with the police information records to ensure we can deliver on the stated intent. I ask members of the opposition to please understand the complexity of this matter. I know it is hard. The government wants to ensure it will set up a system that will succeed and minimise any backlash on whoever is in government at the time. I say it again - even the best piece of legislation is no absolute safeguard. People must be vigilant. Parents in this contemporary society, unfortunately, must be vigilant. The government and employers must be vigilant. That is why 1 January 2006 has always been the date for the proclamation of the legislation. We are working extremely hard. I am directing my department to ensure that time lines are met, and that there is no slippage so the government can deliver on this legislation.
Ms S.M. McHALE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I expected the opposition to ask more questions on this issue, but instead there have been questions on government advertising, shark patrols, Moira Rayner, infill sewerage, Lewandowski and smoking, which is an important issue. Those questions were dealt with before we got to the issue that is very important to me; that is, of working very hard to improve services for children. That is just amazing, given that this issue has shocked us all. The member for Cottesloe raised the matter this morning, and I am grateful for the comments he made. However, until now, there had not been one question on something that I thought the opposition would be interested in pursuing. Shame on the opposition. (1) I have a lot of information in my head about the work we are doing on abuse in care. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the details of the seven cases. I am happy to provide that information by way of supplementary information to the member. (2) The implementation date for the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act has always been 1 January. I heard the opposition say that there has been a delay. I assure every member of the house that there has never been a delay. The implementation date has been 1 January for very good reasons. This legislation does not introduce a simple, unsophisticated arrangement for checking whether people have a history of sexual offending; it is a rigorous and stringent piece of legislation. In the past number of months we have put out a tender for new software and hardware, which is being developed. We cannot buy other states’ systems because that is fraught with problems. We had to design the specifications to meet the Western Australian legislation, which the opposition supported. It is good that the legislation received bipartisan support. New software and hardware had to be developed for the legislation. That meant developing design specifications and calling for expressions of interest. That tender has been awarded and work is taking place in that regard. Significant community education is required around this matter. If members have been keeping abreast of this issue nationally, they would know that issues have arisen in Victoria about the requirement to check sporting volunteers, including coaches and the like. We must ensure that the community is well informed so that when the legislation is proclaimed and this scheme is rolled out, there will be no surprises or resistance - we do not want resistance. We also must draft regulations, and that work is in progress at the moment. Also, we had to issue the contract for the software provider. I give an example of what happened in the United Kingdom. The SPEAKER : Order, Deputy Leader of the Opposition! MS S.M. McHALE : An overzealous approach was adopted in the UK. Understandably, everyone always wants the legislation now. This government has introduced this legislation and worked very hard to achieve the most rigorous legislation possible. When the process was rushed in the United Kingdom, the system nearly collapsed. We do not want that to happen in Western Australia. It will be a very difficult process, and it is very important that we do not set it up to fail. The government has been very rigorous in this area. Why? As I explained yesterday, the government is including past charges in the screening scheme, so we need a system to connect with the police information records to ensure we can deliver on the stated intent. I ask members of the opposition to please understand the complexity of this matter. I know it is hard. The government wants to ensure it will set up a system that will succeed and minimise any backlash on whoever is in government at the time. I say it again - even the best piece of legislation is no absolute safeguard. People must be vigilant. Parents in this contemporary society, unfortunately, must be vigilant. The government and employers must be vigilant. That is why 1 January 2006 has always been the date for the proclamation of the legislation. We are working extremely hard. I am directing my department to ensure that time lines are met, and that there is no slippage so the government can deliver on this legislation.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I expected the opposition to ask more questions on this issue, but instead there have been questions on government advertising, shark patrols, Moira Rayner, infill sewerage, Lewandowski and smoking, which is an important issue. Those questions were dealt with before we got to the issue that is very important to me; that is, of working very hard to improve services for children. That is just amazing, given that this issue has shocked us all. The member for Cottesloe raised the matter this morning, and I am grateful for the comments he made. However, until now, there had not been one question on something that I thought the opposition would be interested in pursuing. Shame on the opposition. (1) I have a lot of information in my head about the work we are doing on abuse in care. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the details of the seven cases. I am happy to provide that information by way of supplementary information to the member. (2) The implementation date for the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act has always been 1 January. I heard the opposition say that there has been a delay. I assure every member of the house that there has never been a delay. The implementation date has been 1 January for very good reasons. This legislation does not introduce a simple, unsophisticated arrangement for checking whether people have a history of sexual offending; it is a rigorous and stringent piece of legislation. In the past number of months we have put out a tender for new software and hardware, which is being developed. We cannot buy other states’ systems because that is fraught with problems. We had to design the specifications to meet the Western Australian legislation, which the opposition supported. It is good that the legislation received bipartisan support. New software and hardware had to be developed for the legislation. That meant developing design specifications and calling for expressions of interest. That tender has been awarded and work is taking place in that regard. Significant community education is required around this matter. If members have been keeping abreast of this issue nationally, they would know that issues have arisen in Victoria about the requirement to check sporting volunteers, including coaches and the like. We must ensure that the community is well informed so that when the legislation is proclaimed and this scheme is rolled out, there will be no surprises or resistance - we do not want resistance. We also must draft regulations, and that work is in progress at the moment. Also, we had to issue the contract for the software provider. I give an example of what happened in the United Kingdom. The SPEAKER : Order, Deputy Leader of the Opposition! MS S.M. McHALE : An overzealous approach was adopted in the UK. Understandably, everyone always wants the legislation now. This government has introduced this legislation and worked very hard to achieve the most rigorous legislation possible. When the process was rushed in the United Kingdom, the system nearly collapsed. We do not want that to happen in Western Australia. It will be a very difficult process, and it is very important that we do not set it up to fail. The government has been very rigorous in this area. Why? As I explained yesterday, the government is including past charges in the screening scheme, so we need a system to connect with the police information records to ensure we can deliver on the stated intent. I ask members of the opposition to please understand the complexity of this matter. I know it is hard. The government wants to ensure it will set up a system that will succeed and minimise any backlash on whoever is in government at the time. I say it again - even the best piece of legislation is no absolute safeguard. People must be vigilant. Parents in this contemporary society, unfortunately, must be vigilant. The government and employers must be vigilant. That is why 1 January 2006 has always been the date for the proclamation of the legislation. We are working extremely hard. I am directing my department to ensure that time lines are met, and that there is no slippage so the government can deliver on this legislation.
(1) I have a lot of information in my head about the work we are doing on abuse in care. Unfortunately, I cannot provide the details of the seven cases. I am happy to provide that information by way of supplementary information to the member. (2) The implementation date for the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act has always been 1 January. I heard the opposition say that there has been a delay. I assure every member of the house that there has never been a delay. The implementation date has been 1 January for very good reasons. This legislation does not introduce a simple, unsophisticated arrangement for checking whether people have a history of sexual offending; it is a rigorous and stringent piece of legislation. In the past number of months we have put out a tender for new software and hardware, which is being developed. We cannot buy other states’ systems because that is fraught with problems. We had to design the specifications to meet the Western Australian legislation, which the opposition supported. It is good that the legislation received bipartisan support. New software and hardware had to be developed for the legislation. That meant developing design specifications and calling for expressions of interest. That tender has been awarded and work is taking place in that regard. Significant community education is required around this matter. If members have been keeping abreast of this issue nationally, they would know that issues have arisen in Victoria about the requirement to check sporting volunteers, including coaches and the like. We must ensure that the community is well informed so that when the legislation is proclaimed and this scheme is rolled out, there will be no surprises or resistance - we do not want resistance. We also must draft regulations, and that work is in progress at the moment. Also, we had to issue the contract for the software provider. I give an example of what happened in the United Kingdom. The SPEAKER : Order, Deputy Leader of the Opposition! MS S.M. McHALE : An overzealous approach was adopted in the UK. Understandably, everyone always wants the legislation now. This government has introduced this legislation and worked very hard to achieve the most rigorous legislation possible. When the process was rushed in the United Kingdom, the system nearly collapsed. We do not want that to happen in Western Australia. It will be a very difficult process, and it is very important that we do not set it up to fail. The government has been very rigorous in this area. Why? As I explained yesterday, the government is including past charges in the screening scheme, so we need a system to connect with the police information records to ensure we can deliver on the stated intent. I ask members of the opposition to please understand the complexity of this matter. I know it is hard. The government wants to ensure it will set up a system that will succeed and minimise any backlash on whoever is in government at the time. I say it again - even the best piece of legislation is no absolute safeguard. People must be vigilant. Parents in this contemporary society, unfortunately, must be vigilant. The government and employers must be vigilant. That is why 1 January 2006 has always been the date for the proclamation of the legislation. We are working extremely hard. I am directing my department to ensure that time lines are met, and that there is no slippage so the government can deliver on this legislation.
(2) The implementation date for the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act has always been 1 January. I heard the opposition say that there has been a delay. I assure every member of the house that there has never been a delay. The implementation date has been 1 January for very good reasons. This legislation does not introduce a simple, unsophisticated arrangement for checking whether people have a history of sexual offending; it is a rigorous and stringent piece of legislation. In the past number of months we have put out a tender for new software and hardware, which is being developed. We cannot buy other states’ systems because that is fraught with problems. We had to design the specifications to meet the Western Australian legislation, which the opposition supported. It is good that the legislation received bipartisan support. New software and hardware had to be developed for the legislation. That meant developing design specifications and calling for expressions of interest. That tender has been awarded and work is taking place in that regard. Significant community education is required around this matter. If members have been keeping abreast of this issue nationally, they would know that issues have arisen in Victoria about the requirement to check sporting volunteers, including coaches and the like. We must ensure that the community is well informed so that when the legislation is proclaimed and this scheme is rolled out, there will be no surprises or resistance - we do not want resistance. We also must draft regulations, and that work is in progress at the moment. Also, we had to issue the contract for the software provider. I give an example of what happened in the United Kingdom. The SPEAKER : Order, Deputy Leader of the Opposition! MS S.M. McHALE : An overzealous approach was adopted in the UK. Understandably, everyone always wants the legislation now. This government has introduced this legislation and worked very hard to achieve the most rigorous legislation possible. When the process was rushed in the United Kingdom, the system nearly collapsed. We do not want that to happen in Western Australia. It will be a very difficult process, and it is very important that we do not set it up to fail. The government has been very rigorous in this area. Why? As I explained yesterday, the government is including past charges in the screening scheme, so we need a system to connect with the police information records to ensure we can deliver on the stated intent. I ask members of the opposition to please understand the complexity of this matter. I know it is hard. The government wants to ensure it will set up a system that will succeed and minimise any backlash on whoever is in government at the time. I say it again - even the best piece of legislation is no absolute safeguard. People must be vigilant. Parents in this contemporary society, unfortunately, must be vigilant. The government and employers must be vigilant. That is why 1 January 2006 has always been the date for the proclamation of the legislation. We are working extremely hard. I am directing my department to ensure that time lines are met, and that there is no slippage so the government can deliver on this legislation.
The SPEAKER : Order, Deputy Leader of the Opposition! MS S.M. McHALE : An overzealous approach was adopted in the UK. Understandably, everyone always wants the legislation now. This government has introduced this legislation and worked very hard to achieve the most rigorous legislation possible. When the process was rushed in the United Kingdom, the system nearly collapsed. We do not want that to happen in Western Australia. It will be a very difficult process, and it is very important that we do not set it up to fail. The government has been very rigorous in this area. Why? As I explained yesterday, the government is including past charges in the screening scheme, so we need a system to connect with the police information records to ensure we can deliver on the stated intent. I ask members of the opposition to please understand the complexity of this matter. I know it is hard. The government wants to ensure it will set up a system that will succeed and minimise any backlash on whoever is in government at the time. I say it again - even the best piece of legislation is no absolute safeguard. People must be vigilant. Parents in this contemporary society, unfortunately, must be vigilant. The government and employers must be vigilant. That is why 1 January 2006 has always been the date for the proclamation of the legislation. We are working extremely hard. I am directing my department to ensure that time lines are met, and that there is no slippage so the government can deliver on this legislation.
MS S.M. McHALE : An overzealous approach was adopted in the UK. Understandably, everyone always wants the legislation now. This government has introduced this legislation and worked very hard to achieve the most rigorous legislation possible. When the process was rushed in the United Kingdom, the system nearly collapsed. We do not want that to happen in Western Australia. It will be a very difficult process, and it is very important that we do not set it up to fail. The government has been very rigorous in this area. Why? As I explained yesterday, the government is including past charges in the screening scheme, so we need a system to connect with the police information records to ensure we can deliver on the stated intent. I ask members of the opposition to please understand the complexity of this matter. I know it is hard. The government wants to ensure it will set up a system that will succeed and minimise any backlash on whoever is in government at the time. I say it again - even the best piece of legislation is no absolute safeguard. People must be vigilant. Parents in this contemporary society, unfortunately, must be vigilant. The government and employers must be vigilant. That is why 1 January 2006 has always been the date for the proclamation of the legislation. We are working extremely hard. I am directing my department to ensure that time lines are met, and that there is no slippage so the government can deliver on this legislation.
I ask members of the opposition to please understand the complexity of this matter. I know it is hard. The government wants to ensure it will set up a system that will succeed and minimise any backlash on whoever is in government at the time. I say it again - even the best piece of legislation is no absolute safeguard. People must be vigilant. Parents in this contemporary society, unfortunately, must be vigilant. The government and employers must be vigilant. That is why 1 January 2006 has always been the date for the proclamation of the legislation. We are working extremely hard. I am directing my department to ensure that time lines are met, and that there is no slippage so the government can deliver on this legislation.
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.