Queensland Projects
Our position on criminal history screening
The Queensland Government recently conducted a consultation outlining a range of changes to streamline criminal history screening systems. The stated intention of these changes is to improve timeframes and efficiencies for individuals and organisations while maintaining safeguards for vulnerable people. This intent is consistent with the intent of the Queensland Compact and is well supported by our membership.
Key changes
- Establishment of a structured yellow card exemption for blue card holders.
- Broad exemptions for registered health practitioners when performing their duties as a health practitioner, police officers, and teachers.
- Disability employees will be required to pay to obtain and maintain their own card. The cost of the yellow card is currently paid by government. The expectation is that the employee will pay their own costs associated with obtaining and maintaining current cards, however, it is acknowledged that employers may choose to pick up these costs.
General Issues
- The cost of cards is likely to be picked up by disability organisations, given employees are often required for an immediate start, and the administrative cost of retrieving the fees from wages, and monitoring compliance will negate any saving by having the employee pay themselves.
- While volunteers in disability organisations will not be required to pay for a blue or yellow card, the organisation will be required to notify govt/commission if the volunteer moves into a paid role for any length of time. This may act as a disincentive for volunteers and employers to engage volunteers in paid work.
- Volunteers will be required to have their card on commencement of engagement, removing the option of an immediate start and acting as a disincentive to being involved in the sector.
- Notification of need for renewal is sent only to the primary employer. This information is sometimes outdated and does not acknowledge that many employees choose to work for multiple employers, all of whom are required to monitor and ensure compliance.
Conclusion
The disability sector already has an array of financial and administrative imposts associated with compliance that are beyond those experienced in any other state. The additional burden the proposed changes represent is likely to compromise viability for some services and is considered unreasonable.
Overall, it is the view of our members that the proposed changes represent administrative efficiencies for government but represent an increase in administrative, monitoring and financial impost for non government disability service providers. There is also concern that these changes will disadvantage low income (predominately female) workers, and specifically disadvantage people with disability (or families) who manage their own funding, or live in indigenous communities where the labour market is tight.
Recommendations for consideration
- The recommended strategy for achieving a reduction in duplication of criminal history screening & increase consistency of processes, that benefits both government and non-government organisations is to have a single card (with a highest level of screening) in operation across the sector.
- Additional administrative efficiencies would be achieved by developing an online system for application and for individuals/organisations to make minor changes (e.g. change of address, change of employer) on line.
- The recommended strategy for avoiding disability service viability being compromised is for government to continue current practice of covering the cost of criminal history checking under the relevant system, or to ensure the full cost is reflected in all funding agreements
-
To avoid the changes becoming a disincentive for volunteers joining our sector it is recommended that they be allowed to be engaged while their criminal history screening is undertaken, and that a low hours threshold be applied for volunteers who do limited paid work in the sector.
Last updated: 27 October 2009 |