Tuesday, 27 August 2024

Questions without notice and ministers statements

Working with children checks

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:05): (629) My question is to the Attorney-General. Attorney, your department advised in a brief that around 157,000 working with children check applicants did not have their status notified to their nominated organisations due to a systems error. Of great concern is that 69 of these applicants were found to have been permanently or temporarily excluded from child-related work, yet their status was not passed on. This briefing from the department of justice states that DJCS has attempted to contact all of the 69 applicants who were subject to an exclusion, interim exclusion or suspension to ensure that they are not engaging in child-related work. So I ask: Attorney, exactly how many of those 69 people were contacted, and how many were found to be engaging in child-related work?

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:06): Ms Crozier, I welcome the question – it is an important question – but at the time of the last election the MOG changes moved working with children check operations to DGS under the Minister for Government Services, so if you would like to refer that to Minister Williams, she might be best placed to respond, bearing in mind that it was with the department of justice prior, so there might be a bit of crossover. But the current responsible minister who would be best placed to answer your question is Minister Williams.

Georgie Crozier: On a point of order, President, if I could get some clarification, as it is the Attorney, the briefing from the department of justice states DJCS has attempted to contact all of the 69 applicants who were subject to an exclusion, interim exclusion or suspension to ensure they are not engaging in child-related work. Clearly it is in the purview of the Attorney if it is the department of justice, so if she does not know the answer, I am very happy for her to follow it up rather than it be redirected, given it was the department of justice who made that statement.

The PRESIDENT: I think the minister has stated that the question falls under the responsibility of another minister, and the minister is prepared to pass that on under the standing orders. Is that right?

Jaclyn SYMES: Further to the point of order, President, if I can assist Ms Crozier, I am not attempting to shirk responsibilities here. If I was briefed and I was the responsible minister, I would be more than happy to get you that information or indeed I would have that information at hand and be able to answer it, but the issue that you have raised refers to Services Victoria and their interaction with working with children checks, not the legal side of working with children checks in terms of policy. It is an operational issue. Therefore the relevant minister is Minister Williams. I note that you do not want it to be referred to her, so therefore that is my answer.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:08): It is incredibly disappointing, given it clearly falls within the minister’s remit.

Members interjecting.

Georgie CROZIER: It is. DJCS is responsible for the administration of working with children checks. It is no wonder it has been stuffed up.

Jaclyn Symes: On a point of order, President, Ms Crozier is deliberately misleading the house. She has made a statement that the department of justice is responsible for the administration of working with children checks. I can assure her, as the minister that was previously responsible, I am very well placed to inform the house that I am no longer responsible. That has moved under a MOG exchange to the Minister for Government Services.

The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. I think you can address the substance in the answer.

Georgie CROZIER: On the point of order, President, just in relation to the minister: I know you have ruled against the point of order, but I say again –

The PRESIDENT: There is no point in going further on a point of order that has been ruled against. Is it a different point of order?

Georgie CROZIER: I will move to the supplementary, then, given the minister refuses to take any responsibility. The brief from the department of justice goes on to state:

On a worst-case scenario, the State may be a party to a possible negligence claim … where a child was harmed by a person who continued to undertake child-related work because their adverse WWCC outcome was not communicated to the organisation by DJCS …

Given this government is currently seeking to limit its civil liability in relation to the Lawyer X scandal, will the Attorney-General guarantee that the government will not seek to limit its liability to any children who were harmed as a result of this appalling working with children check bungle?

The PRESIDENT: I am really struggling to see how that is supplementary to the substantive question and the answer from the minister.

Georgie CROZIER: On a point of order, President, it is directly related given that my quote from the substantive question related to the briefing from the department of justice around these 69 applicants with a working with children check. My supplementary goes to linking to that. But the question is around the liability which the minister, the Attorney herself, has responsibility for, and it is directly related to any civil liability, given these working with children checks are incredibly important.

David Davis: Further to the point of order, President, this is a very difficult situation, because if a minister or a department has briefings that relate directly to that department and then questions are asked to the relevant minister on those briefings, the standing orders refer to a matter for which the minister is responsible or connected to. It is impossible to see how the Attorney-General is not connected, as lead minister, with justice department memos and documents.

The PRESIDENT: It has been a clear practice that a minister may say the question referred to is the responsibility of another minister and they are more prepared. The minister was prepared to pass that on to another minister. She acquitted it in saying that it is not her responsibility. It is not for me to determine who is responsible for what as far as the executive orders go.

Georgie CROZIER: On a further point of order, President, it is my understanding that under the general order dated 2 April 2024 – that is, this year – the Worker Screening Act 2020 falls under the Attorney-General’s responsibilities. The act is jointly and severally administered with the Minister for Government Services, so I am saying that my question is relevant and the minister should answer these questions as they are directly related to her portfolio.

The PRESIDENT: On the substantive question, I think the minister did respond, but I am happy to ask the minister to respond to the supplementary question.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:13): Ms Crozier, for full clarity, your substantive question referred to the operation of the scheme, which I explained to you has moved to DGS and is under the responsibility of Minister Williams. More appropriately, your second question could be directed to me, and the answer is no.