Checks imbalance
I RARELY talk about the Surf Coast Shire Council but did so recently over the totally inappropriate flying of the rainbow flag a month or so ago.
My objection was that this gesture was meaningless and something over which the council had no direct responsibility or control.
At this week’s council meeting there was what at first sight seemed a fairly standard agenda item regarding the Section 86 committees of council. Pretty innocuous really you would have thought.
A Section 86 committee is when council delegates responsibilities to special committees made up of councillors, council staff, and members of the community.
The Surf Coast has seven such bodies but the agenda introduced a new facet to the requirements of those sitting on boards of management. Page 87 states that all committee members will have to comply with mandatory working with children checks (WWCC).
This would apply to a town planner, who sits in his office all day drawing lines and making calculations, with no chance of ever coming into contact with children in his daily work responsibilities, should he be delegated to sit on the Section 86.
Recently this council has also decided that all employers will have to gain a WWCC for their continued employment.
Five councillors supported the requirement remaining in the policy because “we have to protect our children”.
A highly laudable thought and one that no sensible person could possible disagree with. But have they really thought this through?
The Surf Coast Shire employs 435 staff, so, at a checking cost of $121.40 a head, we are talking about a not insignificant cost of $52,200 to the ratepayer, despite the fact that many of employees are not in positions where the WWCC is a legal requirement.
I also have to wonder if the shire’s employment governance regulations cover this sort of blanket attack, which may well come down to a right-to-privacy standoff.
The WWCC differs from a standard police check in significant ways. The report is over a lifetime as opposed to offences in the police check with a time expiree on them.
Also, unlike the police check, with the WWCC, your criminal record continues to be monitored for the life of your card.
Victoria Police automatically notifies the department of relevant charges, offences and findings of guilt, which then results in a reassessment of an individual’s eligibility to hold a card. It also takes into account all offences regardless of court outcome or whether charges are pending or were not proved.
Of course, this is all well and good for those who genuinely need to be checked out to work with children and there is a legal requirement to do so. But for the rest of the staff?
You also have to consider the ef- fect that these checks may have on employees who have no contact with children but may have some offences from the distant past that do not impact on their work or capacity to satisfy KPIs.
How secure will the information be? Who will have access to the files and what safeguards will ensure confidentiality?
There is considerable research arguing against this sort of blanket approach. In a WA parliamentary review, Justice Chaney noted: ‘The most significant counter-argument against broadening the scope is that it risks weakening that which the Act is designed to promote — the safety of children. If persons apply for WWC checks when they have little meaningful contact with children, the value of the check is diminished and the risk of it being merely one more administrative requirement is exacerbated. Furthermore, WWC checks being commonplace is likely to contribute to community complacency for ensuring child safe environments.”
I’ll leave the final word to the Human Rights Commission. The Commission believes only people involved directly in child-related work should be subject to a WWCC. It is noted that widespread “blanket” checking for those not directly involved diminishes the value of a check, places a strain on resources, may unfairly prevent people from work and volunteer opportunities where they would in fact pose no threat to children, and have proven to be impossible to effectively monitor. Yet this has become commonplace in some jurisdictions.
No doubt the Surf Coast Shire would have considered all available information and potential problems. If not, I’m sure the Australian Services Union will have done.