Page 928 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 29 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
noted, the ACT is the first jurisdiction to move to provide checks for people working with adults.
As a community, we must do what we can to ensure that vulnerable people who receive a service are not placed at risk of harm from the person providing that service. Many organisations, including private, government and community, already employ strong measures and risk assessment processes to ensure that the people they employ are subject to considerable background checks. However, occasions remain where these checks may not work and place the service recipient at risk, and a stronger degree of background checking is required.
With the legislation before us, it is the aspect of peer employment that has raised the most questions. For those sectors relating to vulnerable adults, there are frequent occasions when the best person to provide a service is someone who has a lived experience and has experienced what their clients are going through themselves. These areas include the drug and alcohol sector, the mental health sector, some men’s services and cultural-based sectors such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.
Advocates working in these areas have, most rightly, been concerned that, depending on who checks their background and what assessment they make of their background, they will no longer be able to gain employment. Some people in those sectors have been concerned about the ability of organisations such as the Office of Regulatory Services, who are to conduct the checks, to make the right call about the applicants and to make that call in a timely manner. There is concern that small community organisations that have high levels of employment of staff with lived experience will have diminished ability to employ staff quickly and maintain their services. This is a fair concern which must be recognised and not dismissed as insignificant.
The Greens support the working with vulnerable people bill. However, the devil is in the detail, and there are details that are yet to be worked out. The government has estimated that around 12 per cent of the ACT population will be checked, with applicants being rejected at a rate of about 0.2 per cent. The Greens believe the government’s projected rejection rate is understated, as it is based on the implementation of the children and young people checks in states such as Queensland, as Mrs Dunne has already noted, which have not included the checking of people working with vulnerable adults. Once you include that segment, the rejection rate is likely to increase.
It is the debate about the detail which has been of most concern to the Greens, and the manner in which this debate has been handled. When the then community services minister, Ms Gallagher, first began consultations with the community sector about the background checks in August 2009 there appeared to be a substantial omission in that ACT Health, I have been advised, did not adequately pick up that the bill would impact the mental health and drug and alcohol sectors. Consultations ran for a considerable period without those most affected being involved. Many of the submissions to the consultation were positive and we have picked up on those comments. However, without having included those who will be most affected, it was not an entirely fair and representative consultation process.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video