Mr TOYNE - 1997-04-24
Is it not true that the Country Liberal Party administration has failed to establish principles and procedures for responding to complaints of sexual abuse of schoolchildren? Why has the government failed to protect Territory children, teachers and communities by leaving it to school communities to grapple with sexual abuse of children, unassisted by his department?
Mr Stirling: Shame!
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the only shame is that the honourable member has obviously been reading my mail. I have been trying to get this same question up for the last 2 days, but the program has been a little too busy. Of course, the honourable member will be embarrassed about this in a second. He has a matter of public importance listed for discussion today, and I welcome it with open arms. It will give us a chance to tell Territorians again of the vast chasm of difference in policy and attitude that exists between the Labor Party and the successful Country Liberal Party government. It is a chasm of difference because these people, along with their mates, the Australian Education Union, are soft when it comes to processes to ensure that young Territorians have a safe environment in which to attend school. This government has been moving ahead of the states by a considerable margin for the last 3 or 4 years in ensuring that we have the toughest processes, not just in terms of screening out undesirables at recruitment, but also in terms of education processes in the classroom, and the procedures that all staff have to go through in reporting any suspicion of undesirable behaviour, whether it be sexual abuse or any other form of child abuse.
I have to give a little credit because, in recent days, the Labor government in New South Wales has decided to get tough. Of course, it did not have much choice, given the outcome of the royal commission inquiry there into some of these matters. However, that tough attitude has not transferred across the border to the Territory Labor Party, and I will give the very simplest of explanations why. Nobody in this country, not one person, has been oblivious to the serious concern that has been raised out of New South Wales, following other examples involving some non-government schools over recent years. Nobody could be other than concerned, and aware of the need to protect our children. The paedophilia headlines, sexual abuse headlines, had been prominent for many months, well prior to the Labor Party writing its you-beaut education policy, an education policy written against the background of all of these well-reported, well-publicised events. What reference did the wusses on that side of the House, in the Labor Party, come up with in their up-to-date education policy with regard to
Page 2059
recruitment and other reporting processes? The guru of the Internet was surfing at the wrong beach. He thought that truancy was a big deal, because he found 5500 references to truancy ...
Mr Stirling: It is cheaper than going to America, Fred.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr FINCH: Let me tell you what they do about paedophilia in America. You might be interested in this, Syd.
Mr Stirling: You saw the fight.
Mr Toyne interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr FINCH: This shows how interested you are in the answer to your own question.
As far as the Labor Party is concerned, against the background of this national awareness of paedophilia, there is no reference whatsoever in its document - not one word. The only brilliant suggestion members opposite have concerning the recruitment of teachers is to let all schools out there in the middle of nowhere, in the bush, in suburbia, do their own headhunting - your words, not mine. However, this government is not about to let schools recruit on their own without enforcing the very tough processes that are in place. Members opposite have been told this before in the House, but I will repeat it quickly. Where we have moved ahead of the country is in relation to mandatory police checks.
Mr Toyne: Come on!
Mr FINCH: Don't keep talking - listen to me. The use of mandatory police checks is a first in the country. The other checks that we have in place involve random reference checks to prior employers, on top of the normal reference follow-up. These random checks are not made in any of the states. In the Northern Territory, if the slightest negative comment is made by any previous employer contacted, the person involved is simply not interviewed. We are prepared to go interstate ...
Mrs Hickey: What do you do about people who display characteristics ...
Mr FINCH: Let me tell you what we include there. This has been agreed to now by New South Wales and the Northern Territory, as the principal advocates of this interstate arrangement. We are prepared to exchange all relevant information about prior history on teachers - all relevant history. We are not like the Australian Education Union and Labor Party members opposite, with their civil liberties background. We do not mind taking on information other than that in criminal records. We have no compunction at all. We are quite happy to err on the side of safety when it comes to screening out some of these people and dealing with some of these people. If they are discovered in our system, out the door they go. Let them come back and sue us! Let them do what they choose but, as far as we are concerned, we are prepared to do it the tough way. We have an agreement now with the states. We simply make
Page 2060
contact with them and, if we receive a `not to be employed' or other negative comment, in addition to anything revealed by the police check, they do not start.
As for the processes in place, we can talk about those in the discussion of the matter of public importance later. Processes are in place relating to obligations to report, processes of reporting, the police follow-up and reference, and the discharge of the person summarily from the system or, in many cases, from the classroom. Would the Labor Party come up with such a strategy? No. It is with the union. During the MPI debate, I will cite some of their own quotes that will choke them. This government has comprehensive processes in place to ensure that young students know the dangers and what to do about them. The staff obligations in terms of reporting are clear. The screening process is second to none. We are the leader of the pack in comparison with the state systems. In addition, we are ahead of the game in terms of encouraging all of our non-government school systems to adopt exactly the same hard line approach to these very serious matters.
The surfer of the Internet has the absolute audacity to come in here and suggest that he has answers on top of what I have outlined. That is nonsense. He helped to write the policy. There was not a single word about these matters other than to let schools go headhunting.
Page 2061
Mr Stirling: Shame!
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the only shame is that the honourable member has obviously been reading my mail. I have been trying to get this same question up for the last 2 days, but the program has been a little too busy. Of course, the honourable member will be embarrassed about this in a second. He has a matter of public importance listed for discussion today, and I welcome it with open arms. It will give us a chance to tell Territorians again of the vast chasm of difference in policy and attitude that exists between the Labor Party and the successful Country Liberal Party government. It is a chasm of difference because these people, along with their mates, the Australian Education Union, are soft when it comes to processes to ensure that young Territorians have a safe environment in which to attend school. This government has been moving ahead of the states by a considerable margin for the last 3 or 4 years in ensuring that we have the toughest processes, not just in terms of screening out undesirables at recruitment, but also in terms of education processes in the classroom, and the procedures that all staff have to go through in reporting any suspicion of undesirable behaviour, whether it be sexual abuse or any other form of child abuse.
I have to give a little credit because, in recent days, the Labor government in New South Wales has decided to get tough. Of course, it did not have much choice, given the outcome of the royal commission inquiry there into some of these matters. However, that tough attitude has not transferred across the border to the Territory Labor Party, and I will give the very simplest of explanations why. Nobody in this country, not one person, has been oblivious to the serious concern that has been raised out of New South Wales, following other examples involving some non-government schools over recent years. Nobody could be other than concerned, and aware of the need to protect our children. The paedophilia headlines, sexual abuse headlines, had been prominent for many months, well prior to the Labor Party writing its you-beaut education policy, an education policy written against the background of all of these well-reported, well-publicised events. What reference did the wusses on that side of the House, in the Labor Party, come up with in their up-to-date education policy with regard to
Page 2059
recruitment and other reporting processes? The guru of the Internet was surfing at the wrong beach. He thought that truancy was a big deal, because he found 5500 references to truancy ...
Mr Stirling: It is cheaper than going to America, Fred.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr FINCH: Let me tell you what they do about paedophilia in America. You might be interested in this, Syd.
Mr Stirling: You saw the fight.
Mr Toyne interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr FINCH: This shows how interested you are in the answer to your own question.
As far as the Labor Party is concerned, against the background of this national awareness of paedophilia, there is no reference whatsoever in its document - not one word. The only brilliant suggestion members opposite have concerning the recruitment of teachers is to let all schools out there in the middle of nowhere, in the bush, in suburbia, do their own headhunting - your words, not mine. However, this government is not about to let schools recruit on their own without enforcing the very tough processes that are in place. Members opposite have been told this before in the House, but I will repeat it quickly. Where we have moved ahead of the country is in relation to mandatory police checks.
Mr Toyne: Come on!
Mr FINCH: Don't keep talking - listen to me. The use of mandatory police checks is a first in the country. The other checks that we have in place involve random reference checks to prior employers, on top of the normal reference follow-up. These random checks are not made in any of the states. In the Northern Territory, if the slightest negative comment is made by any previous employer contacted, the person involved is simply not interviewed. We are prepared to go interstate ...
Mrs Hickey: What do you do about people who display characteristics ...
Mr FINCH: Let me tell you what we include there. This has been agreed to now by New South Wales and the Northern Territory, as the principal advocates of this interstate arrangement. We are prepared to exchange all relevant information about prior history on teachers - all relevant history. We are not like the Australian Education Union and Labor Party members opposite, with their civil liberties background. We do not mind taking on information other than that in criminal records. We have no compunction at all. We are quite happy to err on the side of safety when it comes to screening out some of these people and dealing with some of these people. If they are discovered in our system, out the door they go. Let them come back and sue us! Let them do what they choose but, as far as we are concerned, we are prepared to do it the tough way. We have an agreement now with the states. We simply make
Page 2060
contact with them and, if we receive a `not to be employed' or other negative comment, in addition to anything revealed by the police check, they do not start.
As for the processes in place, we can talk about those in the discussion of the matter of public importance later. Processes are in place relating to obligations to report, processes of reporting, the police follow-up and reference, and the discharge of the person summarily from the system or, in many cases, from the classroom. Would the Labor Party come up with such a strategy? No. It is with the union. During the MPI debate, I will cite some of their own quotes that will choke them. This government has comprehensive processes in place to ensure that young students know the dangers and what to do about them. The staff obligations in terms of reporting are clear. The screening process is second to none. We are the leader of the pack in comparison with the state systems. In addition, we are ahead of the game in terms of encouraging all of our non-government school systems to adopt exactly the same hard line approach to these very serious matters.
The surfer of the Internet has the absolute audacity to come in here and suggest that he has answers on top of what I have outlined. That is nonsense. He helped to write the policy. There was not a single word about these matters other than to let schools go headhunting.
Page 2061
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016