The object of this bill is to amend the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 so as to enable specified government agencies to collect and use personal information about a registrable person, within the meaning of that Act, and to exchange such information with other specified government agencies.

Australia’s responsibilities under Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1990 place paramount importance on the best interests of the child being considered when actions and decisions concerning children are taken. In the agreement in principle speech, the Parliamentary Secretary, on behalf of the Minister for Police, stated that the free exchange of information between certain agencies is essential for the effective functioning of the child protection watch team and management of high-risk offenders.

For this purpose, the bill introduces an exemption from the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 and the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 to facilitate the management of high-risk offenders across multiple agencies through the child protection watch team.

The child protection watch team commenced on a trial basis in south-western Sydney in September 2004 to manage high-risk offenders at a local level. The trial did not become fully operational until April 2005 after issues relating to the exchange of information between human services and law enforcement agencies had been resolved. The aim of the child protection watch team trial was to monitor and manage registrable persons who are referred to the child protection watch team because they pose a high risk of reoffending violently or sexually against children.

For the child protection watch team to monitor and manage referred persons effectively, it is necessary for the participating public sector agencies to collect, use and disclose personal information for the purposes of the trial. Following the trial, external consultant Jan McClelland conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of the watch team. The McClelland report recommended that the program be expanded throughout New South Wales, and that the Child Protection Offenders Registration Act 2000 be amended to clearly allow the exchange of information on registrable persons in certain circumstances along the lines of codes of practice drafted by Parliamentary Counsel’s Office for the child protection watch team trial. The McClelland report also recommended that a small group of nominated senior practitioners from agencies should be convened to develop guidelines and checklists for the implementation of the program in country and metropolitan regions.

Free exchange of information between certain agencies is essential for the effective functioning of the child protection watch team and management of these high-risk offenders. The departments and agencies include the New South Wales Police, the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care, the Department of Community Services, the Department of Corrective Services, the Department of Education and Training, the Department of Health, Housing New South Wales, the Department of Juvenile Justice, the Greater Southern Area Health Service, the Greater Western Area Health Service, the Hunter and New England Area Health Service, the North Coast Area Health Service, the Northern Sydney and Central Coast Area Health Service, the South Eastern Sydney and Illawarra Area Health Service, the Sydney South West Area Health Service, the Sydney West Area Health Service, the Children’s Hospital at Westmead and Justice Health.

The bill introduces an authorisation process whereby agencies involved can exchange personal information related to an individual on the child protection register if a senior officer reasonably suspects a risk of substantial adverse impact on a person, including the individual, or that a case management plan will be deficient if that information is not exchanged. This provision has the effect of making available to any of the agencies listed in schedule 1 information that was formerly subject to the privacy laws of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 and the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002.

Substantial adverse impact is defined to include “serious physical and mental harm, sexual abuse, significant loss of benefits or other income, imprisonment, loss of housing or the loss of a carer”. Here I want to raise a very important need. For many years at Wesley Mission I have been responsible for the care of children who suffer from intense childhood trauma. I was responsible, as guardian ad litem, for 3,600 children, most of whom had suffered great trauma in their life.

I can remember discovering a child sex offender on the childhood care staff at one of our centres in Burwood. I immediately terminated that man, and then rang up similar agencies to warn them, only to find that the Salvation Army had already employed that man in its Hornsby area childcare area. Informal and ad hoc networks have their place, but in providing that information, I was actually subject to the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 Act and the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002.

Government agencies that are involved in childcare need to have the right to collect, use and disclose personal information for the purposes of this trial program. Senior practitioners from various private or non-government agencies, who look after the majority of children in our State, need to develop some guidelines and checklists that enable the implementation of this particular program.

Pursuant to resolution business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a later hour. Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

I had reached the point where I was saying that as a member of a non-government organisation involved in child care I had the occasion to report a child sex offender, a predator in fact, who was in my employ. I felt I should support other organisations by letting them know that such a person had been terminated by me. Unfortunately by the time I got around to contacting one of the other agencies I found that particular person had already been employed by a non-government organisation.

Non-government childcare facilities in New South Wales should have similar protection to that of government agencies. It is the non-government organisations that care for most of the children in need in New South Wales who are exposed to traumatic events, including indecent acts and events of being filmed against their will for the sexual gratification of others and so on. The senior persons who are responsible for such childcare facilities must have some protection so they can also speak against the provisions of the Privacy Act. I would commend the Government to think about this and to produce further legislation to provide similar protection to that provided in this bill to senior personnel within the non-government sector who are responsible for the lives of so many children.

Whenever there are people who pervert justice in this way, and assault children, it creates traumatic situations and if adequate help is not found those children may end their lives or go through life extremely crippled. Those children may suffer from a range of mental and psychological illnesses and some of them will suffer long-term distortions of social norms.

In the various non-government counselling agencies that I have been connected with, such as running Lifeline throughout Australia and so on, we have found that a large number of people present with all kinds of problems but when you delve into their situations you discover they have been abused and assaulted while in care earlier in life.

Social researchers such as Dolf Zillman and Jennings Bryant show that children exposed to indecent acts suffer serious adverse effects on their beliefs about sexuality towards members of the opposite sex and very rarely have the ability to form what we might call satisfactory and normal sexual relationships with another person who loves them. Many women have come to me over the years as a counsellor with problems in their marriages that date back to traumatic experiences in their childhood.

I know the Government appreciates that children are the most normal members of our community. The bill protects the safety of our children from predators. It protects members who work for government organisations from legal ramifications when sharing private information about predators but it is very important that we give this shelter of protection and care to those who are also on the non-government front-line working with children.

According to New South Wales recorded crime statistics, there were over 380 cases of child abduction and kidnapping in the 12 months ending 30 June 2008—that is more than one child every day of the year that is either kidnapped or abducted by a person who should not have them in their custody. Since August in Sydney, as we are all aware, there have been 15 abduction attempts of children aged between 8 years and 16 years. Given that New South Wales has the highest recorded rate of abductions in the country, and the recent abduction attempts, the bill is an important step in placing paramount importance on the best interests of the child.

The most recent national figures from the Australian Institute of Health Welfare indicate that in Australia during the year 2006-07 there were 309,000 reports of suspected cases of child abuse and neglect made to State authorities. These figures have increased by over 50 per cent in the last five years from under 200,000 in the year 2002-03. The figures do not necessarily mean that the actual incidence of child abuse and neglect has increased over this time, but it does show that the reporting of cases to child protection services has increased.

According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare statistics, in all jurisdictions girls were approximately three times more likely than boys to be the subject of substantiation of sexual abuse. Boys were generally more likely than girls to be the subject of substantiation of physical abuse. The rates of substantiated abuse or neglect decrease as age increases. Children under one year old are the most like to be the subject of substantiated report of abuse or neglect, while children aged 15 years to 16 years were the least likely.

Nationally, to our shame, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children were more likely to be the subject of substantiated reports than were other children. Across Australia, indigenous children were five times as likely as other children to be the subject of substantiated abuse. Substantial research has discovered a number of adverse impacts of childhood abuse and neglect, many of which may have significant financial costs both for the individual and Australian society more generally. These include future drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, poor health, homelessness, juvenile delinquency, juvenile or adult criminal behaviour and possible incarceration in a penitentiary.

The economic costs of child abuse are significant. According to the Productivity Commission’s 2008 Report on Government Services, in 2006-07 approximately $1.7 billion was spent across Australia on child protection and supported placement services. Further, during the period 2002-03 to 2006-07 real recurrent expenditure on child protection and out-of-home care services increased in all jurisdictions.

Given the economic and personal costs of child abuse and neglect, it is imperative that child maltreatment is prevented. The Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Amendment Bill will allow for a more coordinated interdepartmental response to managing sex offenders and the sharing of information on sex offenders. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary in her speech-in-reply to comment on the Government’s attitude towards extending the rights and protections given to the interdepartmental sharing of information on a private matter to those responsible for major child welfare agencies in the non-government sector.

Currently, on a trial basis, seven people are being managed by the Child Protection Watch Team in south-west Sydney, covering eight local commands. The evaluation report estimates that about 100 referrals could be made statewide as the watch team progressively expands and that about 50 of those referrals would be likely to be accepted for management. Those 50 would be the child sex offenders who are identified as those with the highest risk of reoffending.

They would require not only close supervision and monitoring but also significant assistance in reintegrating into the community. The coordinated approach taken by the watch team means that an offender can be assisted in obtaining appropriate housing, developing job skills through TAFE courses or accessing counselling. These types of intervention can reduce recidivism as an offender becomes reintegrated into normal social life.

As legislators, we have a responsibility to protect the children in our State to the best of our ability. The Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Amendment Bill 2008 will allow government agencies to be more proactive in managing high-risk sex offenders and gathering relevant evidence early to prevent physical and sexual abuse. It is important to note that this bill means that more government departments will have access to confidential information. Therefore, there is more likelihood of information being leaked. However, the security and safety of our children remain the paramount interest of our community. This bill will give the community greater peace of mind in relation to child sex offenders.

I thank the Government for introducing the bill, I congratulate the Minister on it and I commend it to the House. I again ask the Parliamentary Secretary to comment on the issue of extending the protections from the privacy Acts to those in non-government agencies who are responsible for the large-scale caring of children in our community.

Thursday, 23rd October, 2008, 3:31 pm

Rev The Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes, A.C., M.L.C.