A Tasmanian child protection advocate is concerned that drug dealers and people who use violence are able to obtain Working With Vulnerable People cards, and wants to see more stringent risk assessment criteria introduced.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Tasmanian children, the elderly and people with disabilities are at the centre of the Working With Vulnerable People check system, which sees more than 143,000 adults, including teachers, sports coaches, foster carers and volunteers, registered to work with the state's most at risk groups.
Recent Justice Department data reveals that three WWVP registration applications were refused, four current cards were cancelled, and a further 47 were suspended last financial year.
There were more than 24,000 new applications for cards, and more than 26,000 were renewed in that same year.
A total of three people across Tasmania who have obtained cards are allowed to work with vulnerable people but with conditions attached.
For the most part child advocate organisations and sporting groups are satisfied with the system, "because something is better than nothing", but some warn that the community should never rely on the WWVP checks alone.
Further, People Protecting Children founder Allison Ritchie said crimes that would immediately prevent someone from obtaining a card should extend beyond those related to child sexual abuse.
However, persons with a drug dealing history, for instance, may still validly obtain WWVP cards.
"The current system seems to be more about finding ways to give people cards rather than to stop people who are inappropriate," she said.
"I'm very well aware of people who have obtained cards that should not, in my opinion, be permitted to work in environments with children. And yet, they obtain them.
"The fact is that what society might regard as an unsuitable person clearly isn't what the department regards as an unsuitable person when you get repeated convicted drug dealers and those who are convicted of crimes against people who are able to obtain cards.
"Clearly, if you have repeatedly sold drugs, and if you've repeatedly physically harmed people, then you are a risk."
When a person applies for a WWVP card, one of 19 full time staff within the Justice Department's Consumer, Building and Occupation Services does an initial risk assessment on every application.
A spokesperson said this involved obtaining extensive criminal history information from the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, with Tasmanian Police and State Service Agencies required to notify reportable behaviour. This is any behaviour that poses a risk to vulnerable persons.
They said that drug offences, including manufacture, possession, supply and trafficking, are taken into consideration in an assessment of whether a person poses an unacceptable risk to vulnerable persons.
"The risk assessment considers factors relating to the individual, their conduct and the risks associated with recurrence," the said.
"Factors relating to the applicant include conduct since the offence, age at the time of the offence, current age and seriousness of total criminal records. Factors relating to the conduct include the seriousness, length of time since the conduct occurred [and] age and vulnerability of the victims."
Additional risk assessments may also be conducted, and any crimes or reportable behaviours that occur after registration will be picked up on renewal.
Ms Ritchie cautioned against relying on the system as a standalone tool, due to the fact that "the overwhelming majority of perpetrators don't get caught".
Indeed, just 10 to 15 per cent of sex offenders known to police will end up with a conviction.
Bravehearts research director Carol Ronken echoed the sentiments, adding that WWVP schemes can create a false sense of security in organisations, who believe that once those checks are done, that the person is safe.
"They need to ensure that they have really robust employment processes, there are reference checks and behavioural based questions to seek out whether an individual really is an appropriate person for that organisation," she said.
What do you think? Send us a letter to the editor:
