The Liberal-Nationals Coalition supports the Commission for Children and Young People Amendment Bill, which will enable the exchange of information between the States and Territories about the criminal history of people who work or want to work with children.

While we support the bill, the Opposition is concerned that the bill lacks a definition of "stringent requirements". Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary, in her speech in reply, can outline exactly what that means. The requirements on screening agencies, including those in New South Wales, will determine the strength of this legislation. Legislation that covers many jurisdictions is only as good as the weakest link. Therefore, we are keen to have a definition of "stringent requirements".

The existing legislation refers to screening agencies approved by the Minister without offering further detail on what the requirements might be for a national scheme in terms of approval and how that might be established. It should also be noted that the intergovernmental agreement establishing the initiative has not yet been finalised. The Commonwealth legislation is not yet in place, and to my knowledge the legislation that lists approved screening units has not yet been introduced. By way of background, members will no doubt be aware that each day across Australia children come into contact with any number of organisations—schools, childcare centres, medical centres, sporting bodies et cetera—and the development of a policy with legislation relating to the screening of adults who work, in a voluntary or paid capacity, with children in any sort of related field is important. I am sure all members would support the need for a screening process to take place, and it is important that we ensure that the process is as stringent as possible.

There will be times when people fall through the cracks. However, this legislation will close some loopholes in terms of people who move from State to State. There will be a wide variety of checks on people who work with children. This legislation is about a national framework. It talks about the requirement of obtaining working with children checks or police checks. Each State and Territory has its own procedures and it is necessary to fulfil the requirements within the jurisdiction in which one is working.

Most States and Territories have introduced legislation that provides for child-related employment pre-screening and, if not, they are working towards it. The legislation defines broad categories of child-related work. It is important to note that employers must fulfil requirements within New South Wales. There are differences between jurisdictions about what records are checked and who is required to undergo screening. In New South Wales the system is employer driven in that it is mandatory for employers in relevant fields to carry out background checks on prospective employees or volunteers. Those systems provide a point in time background check that individuals must undergo screening each time they enter into a child-related position. However, other States have different processes, such as certification that is valid for a period of time and differing ways in which there is or is not ongoing monitoring, so there is a need to bring it into line.

It is important to identify the difference between a police check and a working with children check. Police checks identify and release relevant criminal history information relating to convictions, findings of guilt or pending court proceedings. However, due to spent convictions, non-disclosure legislation and information release policies, there are limitations on a police check and what can be provided. For example, the Spent Convictions Scheme stipulates that prior convictions are not to be disclosed when 10 years have passed from the date of conviction. The object of the working with children check is to make an assessment of the level of risk an individual poses to children's safety. Working with children checks, however, are far more extensive and more targeted than police checks. For example, a working with children check draws together information from various sources that might include a primary focus on certain types of offences such as sexual offences and offences relating to harm or mistreatment of a child.

In general, working with children checks give consideration to convictions, whether they have been spent or committed by a juvenile; apprehended violence orders; charges, including when a conviction has not been recorded—for example, a proceeding has not been heard or finalised by a court or, indeed, when charges have been dismissed or withdrawn—any relevant allegations or police investigations involving the individual; and relevant employment proceedings and disciplinary information from professional organisations such as those associated with teachers, child care service providers, foster carers and health practitioners. When one looks at those requirements and their importance one can see it is a balancing act in respect of the rights of individuals who have been convicted, or might even have been pardoned, or a conviction quashed, and the rights of those children we seek to protect. In every case the scales are tipped more in favour of the children we seek to protect. The balance might not always be right but that is in essence what this legislation seeks to do. The aim of this legislation is to make sure that across all States we have consistency and harm minimisation.

I am a member of the Legislative Review Committee. It is noted in our report that the intention of the bill is to protect children through ensuring that complete and reliable criminal history information is available across jurisdictions through the working with children check. However, the committee questioned whether the bill strikes the right balance between the personal rights of the individual and, in particular, the right to privacy and the interests of the community. Members can wrestle with their own assessment when they read this bill. The bill provides that a wide range of information may be provided to interstate screening agencies, as I have already mentioned.

Not having a legal background, I seek clarification about the sharing of information regarding people who have been pardoned, for example, or who have had their convictions quashed. Does that mean information on people who do not have convictions recorded against their name will be passed on? What is that legality? What is the standing of those people? Are they termed criminals in the justice system? It may be that I have not read that section clearly enough. However, I would like clarification if it is possible.

The Legislative Review Committee was also of the view that proposed amendments to extend the application of the one-year trial period of proposed section 38A and the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998 could be more appropriately made by an amending Act rather than through regulations. It also considered whether proposed section 38A (4) is an appropriate delegation of legislative power. This bill will give effect to a Council of Australian Governments [COAG] decision and it enables the Commissioner of Police to disclose information relating to criminal histories to Commonwealth and interstate law enforcement agencies. As I said, there are a number of variations. Last year COAG agreed to enable a full and consistent exchange of information. We look forward to other States and Territories getting their act together quickly so that this can work across the country and all jurisdictions.

I note that New South Wales has been working efficiently with the Children and Young People Commission and our checks on children and young people, but those checks are only as strong as the agency checking people's criminal backgrounds and their behaviour. So this legislation will only be as strong as the checks and balances, how often they are updated and maintained, and whether they are mandatory and employer driven or agency driven. However, having worked in the child and family services sector for many years, I know how much those checks and balances are needed and how important for employers it is to check on employees or volunteers.

Obviously I know how important it is for every child and family to make sure that they have confidence that there is a system in place to protect them from any harmful contact from people who have a history that is dangerous and abusive towards children. It is a system that we need. We must protect the children in our society and do whatever we can to create a safe environment for children throughout our community so parents know that their children are in safe and qualified hands. I commend the bill to the House. I encourage other members to support it.