Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to echo the words of the member for Moreton. Often when we think of the threat to our children from paedophiles or those who would abuse them, we think of cliches like, ‘Watch out around public toilets in parks,’ and ‘Watch out for the car driving past,’ or the white van that we often hear so much about over in Perth when someone tries to grab children off the streets. But the reality is that our vigilance as parents must start at home, particularly with regard to members of the family and family friends, because it is often there that the greatest threat lies. So I certainly echo the words of the member for Moreton on that point.

I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution today on the Crimes Amendment (Working With Children—Criminal History) Bill 2009. I do see it as a reminder that we must always look for opportunities to strengthen the safeguards we have for the protection of children. The working with children checks and cards have been since their introduction a very important part of the safeguard regime. The proposed amendments in this bill would create an exception for convictions of persons who work or seek work with children so that those convictions can be and rightfully should be disclosed to and taken into account by the Commonwealth, state and territory screening agencies in determining whether a person is suitable to work with children.

There is nothing more important than the safety of our children and I share the view of many in our society that sexual abuse assaults against children are the worst of crimes. It just does not get any worse than where power and absolute control by an adult over children is used to undertake sexual assault. My view is that rehabilitation for such criminals is highly unlikely and that they should actually be retained in prisons. It is certainly the case that victims of these crimes will struggle to recover, mentally and socially; they are likely to have ongoing psychological issues and an inability to relate to others socially. They are less likely to succeed in education and in work. Also they are more likely to become involved in crime themselves. This is a reminder to us that we cannot afford to allow any children to be subjected to sexual crime because beyond the tragic lifelong damage that they will experience, the impact on society is also significant when you add up the cases across the nation. The point being that not a single case of child sexual abuse or assault is ever acceptable.

I would expect that all members of parliament are committed to fighting for the absolute elimination of these crimes and we must look to take every step that we can to achieve that goal. It is for that reason that I support this bill as it will amend the Crimes Act 1914 to allow exceptions to the provisions that prevent the disclosure of pardoned, quashed or spent convictions. In this bill pardoned and quashed convictions would be disclosed to persons or bodies in prescribed jurisdictions and could be used to determine whether an applicant would be able to be authorised to work with children. In the case of spent convictions exceptions which already exist would be expanded upon. The extract from the COAG communiqué from the meeting of 29 November last year regarding interjurisdictional exchange of criminal history information for people working with children read:

Leaders agreed in principle at the April 2007 COAG meeting to a framework to improve access to inter-jurisdictional criminal history information by child-related employment screening schemes.

COAG at this meeting affirmed the importance of an inter-jurisdictional exchange being put in place as soon as possible, and endorsed a set of implementation actions, the establishment of a project implementation committee under the auspices of COAG and an implementation plan. The implementation plan includes that jurisdictions will prepare, introduce and seek passage of legislative amendments within nine months, to enable the information exchange to commence in 12 months. COAG noted that all jurisdictions, with the exception of Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory, would exchange information on non-conviction charges for screening of people working with children.

While it is hoped by COAG that all states would agree Victoria unfortunately has chosen to be excluded from the operation of the exchange of criminal history information. It must be said that I find the Victorian approach disappointing but hardly surprising. I say that because Victoria has a charter of human rights. That document allows judges to overrule the decisions of elected representatives in many cases. This raises an interesting point given the Commonwealth government’s commitment to more jobs for lawyers and slower decision-making also known as a federal charter for human rights. As Senator Brandis has pointed out, the issues that Victoria needs elite lawyers and judges to decide are in fact those that should be decided by elected representatives.

If the Rudd government wants a charter of human rights then, unlike Victoria, it should have a referendum to ask the people. I make the point for Western Australians that, with regard to illegal immigrants, any move back by the coalition to strong border controls could be overruled by judges. Also, the popular WA mandatory sentencing laws for assaults on public officials would be a target for lawyers and judges under the charter of human rights. In fact, everyone who feels that the criminal courts in Australia rarely dispense justice should get used to the rights of criminals being paramount. These are matters worth thinking about as the push for this left-wing icon marches forward.

I return now to the matter of spent, pardoned and quashed convictions. In Western Australia, convictions are only spent by application to the court. South Australia has no spent convictions regime at all. Pardoned convictions can only be approved by a minister and convictions can be pardoned for technical reasons or for a lack of evidence. A quashed conviction can only be approved by a court. If a conviction is overturned on appeal, it is quashed. According to the Attorney-General’s Department, the reasoning behind this legislation is that, even if a conviction is pardoned or quashed, there is still reason to believe that the person concerned has an unreliable nature and may offend in the future—quite right.

Safeguards within the bill include a comprehensive regime for assessing people who work or who seek to work with children to be balanced with a person’s right to rehabilitation, privacy and employment. Accordingly, the use and disclosure of extended criminal history information will be subject to stringent safeguards and conditions—as it should be. One safeguard included in the bill is that the criminal history information received may only be used for the limited purpose of assessing the risks that a person may pose in working with children—which is quite necessary. The information may not be used for the purpose of a general integrity or employment suitability check. A potential employee’s criminal history information will not be given to their employer. The employer receives only a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ from the screening unit. A person can appeal the decision of a screening unit and will be able to view the reason they received a ‘no’ decision. In November 2009, a 12-month trial of the new sharing arrangements will begin between agencies that already have screening units.

The facts are that the rights of Australian citizens have been and are still protected under existing laws and amendments passed by this House and the other place. What concerns me about a federal charter of human rights is that it might take away the most important obligation in this nation—that of the personal responsibility of elected representatives to pass laws that place controls on actions.

After somewhat of a digression, I would like to return to the core issue of the ‘working with children’ checks. I have longed believed that after a person’s criminal history check has been concluded, the ‘working with children’ card indicates that the person has not been convicted of certain crimes. That is good. However, the question must be asked: how do we better protect our children from those who have an intention to take advantage of them? I therefore bring a proposal to the parliament which represents my own personal viewpoint. I propose that every person seeking a ‘working with children’ card should be required to authorise their internet service provider to provide to the department or the screening authority a certificate stating whether or not that person had ever visited a pornographic website. I believe that such information would seriously undermine confidence in such a person’s reliability in working with children and, if not, at least it should be considered.

It is my view that the amendments outlined in this bill will provide additional benefits in the fight to better protect our children. However, there will always be more that can be done—and I have just provided such a proposal. It is always a matter of conjecture as to whether there are more paedophiles now than in the past. I do not believe so. But I do believe that if these warped predators are given an opportunity by weak systems then they will attempt to abuse children. The internet is one such weak system where predators can indulge with some ease their darker side. The Australian Federal Police and other agencies have been doing great work in that area. However, more can be done via such a suggestion as mine. A lack of communication between authorities across this country is also a weakness that could be exploited. I therefore welcome the changes brought forward in this legislation.

Finally, as adults and particularly with our extra responsibilities in this place, we have a clear obligation to make sure that we do everything in our power to protect children. I say that not just for those in this place but for every adult in this country. We all have a clear obligation to protect children and to report suspicions or concerns to the appropriate authority. We should never think twice about fulfilling that obligation, and I think more people in this country could do a whole lot better in that regard.

See this speech in context