|
|
Post by Ross.Bowden on Feb 18, 2015 22:15:11 GMT -5
Under the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012 which came into effect on 15 June 2013, all people whether in paid or volunteer positions in NSW, Australia, who engage in child-related work are required to be registered before they can work with children.
The object of the Act is to protect children:
- By not permitting certain persons to engage in child-related work, and
- By requiring persons engaged in child-related work to have working with children check clearances.
Over the past two years the law has been strengthened considerably to include all persons in volunteer positions. A worker can go online and answer 3 simple questions to find that they now require a Working with Children Check (WWCC)
In relation to religious organisations/services , religious leaders such as ministers and pastors, were due to have a Working with Children check by 31 March 2014 and all other employees who are working with children by 31 March 2015. Religious organisations or services must register as an "employer". The Office of the Children’s Guardian, responsible for administering the Act, has commenced their audit program. It is worth noting that the definition of an “employer” is very wide – it includes the normal “paid work” definition but also includes “a person who engages a worker to perform work as a volunteer for the person under an agreement (whether written or unwritten).”
Some key questions:
a. Has the Head Worker in NSW (Clyde Mackay) registered his religious organisation as an “Employer” as required by the Act?;
b. Has each worker in NSW who is “employed” as a volunteer by Clyde completed their application before 31 March 2014 and received their “Working with Children Check” clearance and number?;
c. Has each new worker undertaken this Check and been given their WWCC number prior to commencing in the work?;
d. Have workers who have failed to receive their clearance from the Children’s Guardian of NSW been removed from their position?; and
e. Does the Head Worker maintain a register of each worker’s full name, date of birth and each worker’s WWCC number as required by the Act and have they logged onto the Government website to verify these details?
Given it is NSW law, it is reasonable for a member of the church in NSW to ask one of their workers whether they are complying with the law in these areas and to ask the foregoing questions.
I am not a member so my interest is primarily on two fronts - I have relatives with children who are members of the church and as a NSW citizen it is important that we comply with the law in our state.
It should be noted that similar laws apply in other states of Australia although it does vary from state to state. No doubt, this will be made uniform post the current Royal Commission in Child Sexual Abuse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Feb 22, 2015 20:56:59 GMT -5
Great question Ross ! I wonder if the same applies for QLD ?
|
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 22, 2015 22:14:47 GMT -5
What work do workers do with children that would require such compliance?
|
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 22, 2015 23:26:28 GMT -5
What work do workers do with children that would require such compliance? Bob - the law is very broad which is an indication of the climate here in Australia where the Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse has been going on for 18 months or so and is likely to continue for that long again. See following link. www.kidsguardian.nsw.gov.au/Working-with-children/Working-With-Children-Check/Who-needs-the-checkBasically, any religious minister is required to have the check (they are deemed to be in a role where they have influential access to children) and any lay worker who works with children (ie leader of a Youth Bible Study etc). I read the list -- the only thing I see that might apply is religious services, but meetings aren't face-to-face activities with children. Does every other preacher in Australia have to register for this? Unless the workers have special meetings for children without their parents. |
|
|
|
Post by whyisitso on Feb 22, 2015 23:39:26 GMT -5
What work do workers do with children that would require such compliance? Bob - the law is very broad which is an indication of the climate here in Australia where the Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse has been going on for 18 months or so and is likely to continue for that long again. See following link. www.kidsguardian.nsw.gov.au/Working-with-children/Working-With-Children-Check/Who-needs-the-checkBasically, any religious minister is required to have the check (they are deemed to be in a role where they have influential access to children) and any lay worker who works with children (ie leader of a Youth Bible Study etc). As has been done before (Jerome Frandle case) they skirt around the 'religious minister' tag. So I wouldn't expect that Clyde would have this up to date! They're not a 'religion' & they're not 'ministers' (they say) We all know they're good at ducking & weaving.... |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 23, 2015 0:00:05 GMT -5
Bob - the law is very broad which is an indication of the climate here in Australia where the Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse has been going on for 18 months or so and is likely to continue for that long again. See following link. www.kidsguardian.nsw.gov.au/Working-with-children/Working-With-Children-Check/Who-needs-the-checkBasically, any religious minister is required to have the check (they are deemed to be in a role where they have influential access to children) and any lay worker who works with children (ie leader of a Youth Bible Study etc). As has been done before (Jerome Frandle case) they skirt around the 'religious minister' tag. So I wouldn't expect that Clyde would have this up to date! They're not a 'religion' & they're not 'ministers' (they say) We all know they're good at ducking & weaving.... But this law is not about the same thing. Jerome's case was about being required to report a crime. This law is about permission to work with children. They're not in the same law chapter. Even this law would not prevent situations that Jerome got in trouble for -- none of them were "working" with children. |
|
|
|
Post by whyisitso on Feb 23, 2015 0:09:21 GMT -5
As has been done before (Jerome Frandle case) they skirt around the 'religious minister' tag. So I wouldn't expect that Clyde would have this up to date! They're not a 'religion' & they're not 'ministers' (they say) We all know they're good at ducking & weaving.... But this law is not about the same thing. Jerome's case was about being required to report a crime. This law is about permission to work with children. They're not in the same law chapter. Even this law would not prevent situations that Jerome got in trouble for -- none of them were "working" with children. Hi Bob, I'm just saying the similarity is in the name. He (or his lawyer) skirted around saying he was a religious minister.... Given the fact the workers are regularly around children (meetings, conventions, PEOPLES HOMES, etc etc) but not 'teaching' them as such im not sure this law applies. What I'm saying is, if it comes down to a 'title' they will avoid admitting a title. |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 23, 2015 0:37:49 GMT -5
But this law is not about the same thing. Jerome's case was about being required to report a crime. This law is about permission to work with children. They're not in the same law chapter. Even this law would not prevent situations that Jerome got in trouble for -- none of them were "working" with children. Hi Bob, I'm just saying the similarity is in the name. He (or his lawyer) skirted around saying he was a religious minister.... Given the fact the workers are regularly around children (meetings, conventions, PEOPLES HOMES, etc etc) but not 'teaching' them as such im not sure this law applies. What I'm saying is, if it comes down to a 'title' they will avoid admitting a title. I know what you mean. Interesting what happens when a worker needs to hire an attorney Good lessons for them on how the world turns when you have to answer to someone else. |
|
|
|
Post by whyisitso on Feb 23, 2015 0:49:52 GMT -5
Hi Bob, I'm just saying the similarity is in the name. He (or his lawyer) skirted around saying he was a religious minister.... Given the fact the workers are regularly around children (meetings, conventions, PEOPLES HOMES, etc etc) but not 'teaching' them as such im not sure this law applies. What I'm saying is, if it comes down to a 'title' they will avoid admitting a title. In the NSW Act, the title is irrelevant, as is whether or not the person is paid or volunteer, as is whether the organisation is registered or not. There is no skirting around this issue. They may have taken legal advice on it by a "friendly" lawyer. In due course, there are those who will check via Freedom of Information whether or the workers have registered their organisation as an "employer" and themselves as individuals. Potentially, elders in the church need to register as well. If they are not registered I am sure Wings will be asking the Office of the Children's Guardian in NSW to audit the 2x2 church on this issue. Fixit made a good post on another thread about workers getting on the front foot on things and making appropriate changes. It is as obvious as the fingers on your hand that in due course, the role of the Office of Children's Guardian will be extended to ensure (as opposed to encourage which is currently the case) all organisations to adopt child-safe practices and procedures. This law exists well ahead of the findings of the Royal Commission which will no doubt strengthen and unify state laws across Australia. Workers need to treat the issue of child safety with the integrity and transparency it deserves. Victoria is often held up as a state where there have been a number of problems. There are been a number of problems in NSW as well but only one worker (Noel Harvey) has been jailed over the issue. Others have avoided prosecution and have left the work. Everyone knows who they are so those in 2x2 authority need to get on the front foot on this issue to protect the most vulnerable - young kids who deserve better from their leaders. That's good to know Ross.... Might be time they realized they're not above the law of the land... |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 23, 2015 0:50:44 GMT -5
I read the list -- the only thing I see that might apply is religious services, but meetings aren't face-to-face activities with children. Does every other preacher in Australia have to register for this? Unless the workers have special meetings for children without their parents. The Act is designed to be quite broad. You can have a look here. www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/view/inforce/act+51+2012+cd+0+NThe worker only needs to be in direct contact with children, which of course they are. All ministers in all churches - denominational and non-denominational in Australia have registered - don't know about the 2x2's. No doubt a check will be made on this under Freedom of Information Laws. Potentially, the law also extends to elders who have children in their meetings. I know lay workers, youth leaders etc in our church have registered by the deadline of 31 March 2015. Strange kind of law. But how do you say that workers are "employed"? You can't be employed if you can't be fired. |
|
|
|
Post by whyisitso on Feb 23, 2015 0:55:53 GMT -5
I read the list -- the only thing I see that might apply is religious services, but meetings aren't face-to-face activities with children. Does every other preacher in Australia have to register for this? Unless the workers have special meetings for children without their parents. The Act is designed to be quite broad. You can have a look here. www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/view/inforce/act+51+2012+cd+0+NThe worker only needs to be in direct contact with children, which of course they are. All ministers in all churches - denominational and non-denominational in Australia have registered - don't know about the 2x2's. No doubt a check will be made on this under Freedom of Information Laws. Potentially, the law also extends to elders who have children in their meetings. I know lay workers, youth leaders etc in our church have registered by the deadline of 31 March 2015. Does it matter tho if there is parental supervision or not? This was my initial thought.... They will skirt around being called a 'religious minister' and also that they are not alone (which we know they are at times) with children. Obviously they have been alone with children as there have been cases of sexual abuse so hopefully that excuse won't fly. Anyway, if the law is all encompassing there hopefully won't be any loop holes. |
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Feb 23, 2015 0:59:22 GMT -5
Has no worker been fired? Sometimes they call it resting - permanently.
Their role as minister brings them into direct contact with children. If they weren't workers they would not be staying in these homes. Staying in homes where there is often children is part of their job description.
|
|
|
|
Post by whyisitso on Feb 23, 2015 1:02:11 GMT -5
Has no worker been fired? Sometimes they call it resting - permanently. Their role as minister brings them into direct contact with children. If they weren't workers they would not be staying in these homes. Staying in homes where there is often children is part of their job description. As I read it it is 'direct contact' Supervised or unsupervised doesn't seem to matter? So looks like there's no loop holes! |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 23, 2015 1:56:20 GMT -5
Has no worker been fired? Sometimes they call it resting - permanently. Their role as minister brings them into direct contact with children. If they weren't workers they would not be staying in these homes. Staying in homes where there is often children is part of their job description. Yes, a worker has more direct contact with children than an average minister at a church. Far more. As a case in point, I read a testimony a while ago of a older professing lady in NSW who said "As a little girl I would often sit on <name of worker's> knee and he would tell me bible stories, he used to call me his little girl." I am not suggesting for a minute that anything inappropriate occurred but I think this would be similar in all our experiences - as kids we sat on many a worker's knee. The level of access that a worker has in folk's homes is immense. But any friend of the family has every bit as much access to the children, and they're exempt from this requirement. |
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 23, 2015 2:12:22 GMT -5
But any friend of the family has every bit as much access to the children, and they're exempt from this requirement. Agree, but guess you practically can't have everyone in the community required to have Working with Children clearances. I think the theory goes like this - people for years in institutions have attained roles of authority which has given them unfettered access to children. Systematic abuse has occurred hence the Australian Royal Abuse into Institutional Child Sexual Abuse - focused on institutions whether registered or not. The law is focused on this area. We also know that an amount of sexual abuse occurs by fathers, uncles etc. The law is not designed to cover this. Governments haven't gone down the road of requiring for example uncles to have a working with children clearance before they can visit their relatives - who knows where the law will go in the future! I agree with you on what the logic of the law was -- I just don't think it was designed with the 2x2 style of ministry in mind. But by the language in the law, I see no reason why any of the friends could not ask a worker to register. Another question I would ask -- what is the penalty for a worker not registering? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2015 5:22:28 GMT -5
What work do workers do with children that would require such compliance? This would need to be clarified in order to close up any loop holes or misunderstanding. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2015 6:44:59 GMT -5
I should add that I am a real supporter of the current laws - not because of anything to do with my 2x2 heritage (!!) but because many institutions who have had unfettered access to children have been serial abusers for many years. On the 2x2 front, it concerns me that Head Workers in Australia have reportedly had conversations about not being deemed to be an organisation - presumably driven by a belief that they either should not need or do not need to comply with such laws. It saddens me that an organisation that I was involved in for many years, who calls itself "The Truth" would hold this view - a more enlightened view would be that they should not just comply with the law but put in place even higher standards than just the minimum required by the law. In another thread on Conventions gems this relevant quote is made by a worker "We can be 99.99% resigned to God’s will, but the 0.01% can ruin it all". Where child safety is concerned, why does the 2x2 organisation and Head Workers consider that maintaining 0%, rather than striving for 100%, is adequate. My observations are that many religeous organisation adopt the notion that they are in the world but not of the world, so worldly matters such as these take a low priority, but Jesus said that we should reder unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's. Well as I see it, the laws of the land are Caesars concern and moral Behaviour is God's concern, so whether we are "not of the world" but "in the world" we are obliged to obey God's laws and also obey and acknowledge/ comply with,the laws the land(world)- caesar's terretory. if we are late for a meeting/church service I dont think that God would approve if we seriously break the speed limit to get there on time and in so doing be involved in an accident that results in the death of someone. Breaking the speed limit means breaking Caesar's law. |
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Feb 23, 2015 7:11:19 GMT -5
What work do workers do with children that would require such compliance? Church leaders. Having the privelege of staying in the friends homes where children live. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2015 8:44:29 GMT -5
This would need to be clarified in order to close up any loop holes or misunderstanding. There is no clarification required under the legislation - all ministers of a religious service or organisation are automatically deemed by the legislation to be in child related work and therefore must obtain certification. The workers may argue that they are not a religious service or organisation but under the legislation this would be futile and in any case dishonest. The next argument may be that the 2x2 church does not employ its workers but the legislation has been extended to cover all volunteer workers, whether in paid employment or not. The legislation has been drafted to cover all types of institutions - whether formally registered or not or whether they have paid or volunteer workers. Ok, that would seem fair and reasonable to me. |
|
|
|
Post by kittens on Feb 23, 2015 18:22:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 23, 2015 20:22:11 GMT -5
I agree all the workers should comply with the law but as none of them have been prosecuted they would all pass the working with children check and keep doing what they were doing before. I was threatened that if I 'exposed' anyone I would be sorry. I don't think I have the strength to get up in court and relive all the details. There are probably a lot of people in my situation so the working with children check card is not worth the paper it is written on. Thanks Kittens - no need to worry. There are many people out there who will follow-up whether a worker has a clearance, whether the group is registered etc. If they are not, then they are liable to be prosecuted - not by any of us but by the State after they have conducted an audit. I think you've missed the point though. If the members who have been abused by the workers are not going to feel safe enough to come forward and report the workers and go through a court case, it doesn't matter if they have that piece of paper or not. A fine for not having it maybe, but still they will go free if they are abusers and it isn't reported. And, I totally understand where kittens is coming from about not "having the strength to get up in court and relive the details". The people who have been abused and then threatened have had their self worth and esteem broken out of them to the point where it is dreadfully hard to overcome that. I know because I couldn't face my rapist in court knowing what I would go through. I wish now I had the courage and stamina to do that, but then I just couldn't face it. All the laws and paper in the world won't change much if people can't feel safe enough or strong enough to report it in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 24, 2015 11:03:55 GMT -5
I think you've missed the point though. If the members who have been abused by the workers are not going to feel safe enough to come forward and report the workers and go through a court case, it doesn't matter if they have that piece of paper or not. A fine for not having it maybe, but still they will go free if they are abusers and it isn't reported. And, I totally understand where kittens is coming from about not "having the strength to get up in court and relive the details". The people who have been abused and then threatened have had their self worth and esteem broken out of them to the point where it is dreadfully hard to overcome that. I know because I couldn't face my rapist in court knowing what I would go through. I wish now I had the courage and stamina to do that, but then I just couldn't face it. All the laws and paper in the world won't change much if people can't feel safe enough or strong enough to report it in the first place. Thanks Snow - agree with you and Kittens the piece of paper are two separate, albeit related, matters.Let me explain. The Working with Children clearance system is designed to protect children: - By not permitting certain persons to engage in child-related work, and - By requiring persons engaged in child-related work to have “Working with children check clearances”. Agree that if a person is never reported and never convicted they will easily get the clearance and go on "their merry way". This Act just places a little more pressure on workers to comply with the changing law. However, it will not stop abuse. It will not help victims report workers and go through a court case - this is an incredibly difficult issue and heart goes out to people in this situation. However, if a worker is reported/convicted and they (and other workers in NSW) have simply flouted the Working with Children system then I wouldn't like to be in the local Head Worker's shoes. Not only would the organisation be fined but all the workers in the state could be imprisoned for flaunting the law and of course the worker convicted for CSA crimes would have significant additional penalties. I agree with you that every little bit helps. It's just sad that the population that needs to come forward are usually the ones that have been beaten down and just don't have the energy to face more. The survivor of CSA or rape is under investigation, tested, questioned and in a way having to relive it. They also can make you feel like you asked for it, though that should never be the case when a child is involved. There are no easy answers. It's easy to say 'report it' when you are not the one that has to face what that means in the system. |
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Feb 24, 2015 18:25:12 GMT -5
ROSS!!!!The organisation that claims to be nameless (oops Christian Conventions,etc) are the greatest straw splitters? Will try and argue around truth of responsabilities,law and honest resonable law requirements. We all know that a State Elder was with and supported a worker appeal his lousy 6 months sentence,knowing the police were not able to reveal another 12!!! known victims of that workers criminal CSA acts. Vic/Tas now have the tightened laws--knowingly "NOT' reporting deviant sexual criminal crimes against children is a jailable offence? Who will fill all the vacancies that may come out of this?And people are still trying to keep out their group as alien to legal discription. "Influence on children in meetings and home environments is a simple inclusive discription for any teacher of a theological interpretation. Thanks Ross. As you know I am ex victam and I am in my 8th decade. That is my 75 years knowing coverups. GOOD ON YOU NSW G'OVT,GIVE "EM THE ULTIMATUM THEY MUST REGISTER,CHECK ALL THOROUGHLY ASAP,(mmm WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF HERE?) VICTORIA HAS A COUPLE OF REGISTERED NAMES THEY CAN LEND THEM UP THERE.
|
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 24, 2015 23:32:58 GMT -5
I agree with you that every little bit helps. It's just sad that the population that needs to come forward are usually the ones that have been beaten down and just don't have the energy to face more. The survivor of CSA or rape is under investigation, tested, questioned and in a way having to relive it. They also can make you feel like you asked for it, though that should never be the case when a child is involved. There are no easy answers. It's easy to say 'report it' when you are not the one that has to face what that means in the system. I agree - I know a girl who anguished for years before reporting it (her two sisters who had been abused did not want to report) but eventually the time came when they collectively went to the policy - the father got many years in jail. The extremely sad part (and it was in the mid to late 1990's) was that the girl who initially wanted to report went to the local senior worker (who is now a Head Worker in an Australian state) and told her and his advice was "whatever you do don't go to the police". Thankfully, she ultimately ignored him. When my wife met with her to support her the trauma of the whole situation wracked her body. The abuse started at around 4 and went to around 13 and involved other men in the local community, including at least one professing man who also ultimately did time. I'm glad that they ultimately did get justice and hopefully from that, some healing. It's hard to believe that the leaders of a group that ironically calls itself the Truth, doesn't actually see the need to report these people. I am sure some of the leaders do, but the ones that don't, I just don't understand their thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Feb 11, 2017 16:47:58 GMT -5
Do you know if you have only one child in your congregation,and you preach an interpretation of scripture in mission.sermon,testamony,prayer,sunday fellowship gatherings,etc, you must have a "Working with children check" in our State I have one to take reading at a grandsons school. "Because you are influencing the childs mind,teaching a one religion or lifestyle. So every preacher,meeting,church speaker,etc, must have one or only have adult only meetings. You are influencing them with a doctrine-Christianity.
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 11, 2017 23:31:55 GMT -5
Do you know if you have only one child in your congregation,and you preach an interpretation of scripture in mission.sermon,testamony,prayer,sunday fellowship gatherings,etc, you must have a "Working with children check" in our State I have one to take reading at a grandsons school. "Because you are influencing the childs mind,teaching a one religion or lifestyle. So every preacher,meeting,church speaker,etc, must have one or only have adult only meetings. You are influencing them with a doctrine-Christianity.
A Working With Children Check is a requirement for people who work or volunteer in child-related work.
It involves a national criminal history check and a review of findings of workplace misconduct.
It is for people who like yourself work with children in a school setting.
Tutors, etc.
I don't think that it applies to every church where the children were just a part of the church group and not just exclusively children who were being spoken to.
|
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Feb 12, 2017 7:00:09 GMT -5
Preaching=teaching!!!! Ephesians 4,V,11-12.Church instructions given are pretty specific. Praying aloud=a promotion of "A"God. Maggie.
P.S. If you pray to a Christian God you are obliged to allow as much time to others Gods. Workers,prayers and speakers in any meeting expressing a doctrine,children present,check it out? Remember,today, our intellectual educators from Universities down,in which a large percentage promote atheism or equal time to all"GODS". They educate our extreme left policy makers,and you can't beat them,unless you can find one of the minority of right wing just Judges thats left.
|
|
|
|
Post by searcher on Feb 12, 2017 8:52:16 GMT -5
Funny how God's Truth and Way that all hinges on the only true ministers, (called by God himself) suddenly tries to become invisible when accountability shows up.
Jerome Frandle tried to deny that he was ordained. Did he stand up in court and proclaim that he was part of the one and only true ministry? No. He denied it all by claiming that he wasn't "ordained". The court was not blinded by the smoke screen.
|
|
