Betrayal of Trust implementation
Child safe standards and capacity building
Consultation report
2015
 To receive this publication in an accessible format phone using the National Relay
Service 13 36 77 if required or email childsafestandards@dhhs.vic.gov.au
Authorised and published by the Victorian Government, 1 Treasury Place, Melbourne.
© State of Victoria, Department of Health and Human Services, September 2015.
Where the term ‘Aboriginal’ is used it refers to both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Indigenous is retained when it is part of the title of a report, program or quotation.
ISBN 978-0-7311-6807-1 (pdf)
Available at http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/about-the-department/documents-and-resources/policies,guidelines-and-legislation/child-safe-standards
Contents
Executive summary................................................................................................................. 5
Background...................................................................................................................................................5
Consultation ..................................................................................................................................................5
Next steps .....................................................................................................................................................6
Further information .......................................................................................................................................6
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 7
The Betrayal of Trust Inquiry ........................................................................................................................7
About the child safe standards .....................................................................................................................7
Consultations ................................................................................................................................................8
Summary of consultations ..................................................................................................... 9
What minimum child safe standards should organisations be expected to meet? ......................................9
Which organisations should be in scope of compulsory child safe standards? .........................................13
How should compliance with child safe standards be monitored? .............................................................16
How can organisations be supported to meet the child safe standards? ...................................................19
Appendix.................................................................................................................................21
Organisations that attended consultation sessions ....................................................................................21
Organisations that provided written submissions .......................................................................................23
Executive summary
Background
On 13 November 2013 the Family and Community Development Committee of the Victorian
Parliament tabled the report of its Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other
Non-Government Organisations (the Betrayal of Trust Inquiry).1 The report provided 15
recommendations, including that the Victorian government review its contractual and funding
arrangements with education and community service organisations that work with children and young
people to ensure they have a minimum standard for ensuring a child-safe environment.
The government is committed to implementing all of the Inquiry’s recommendations, and proposes to
introduce compulsory child safe standards that would apply to organisations working with children in
Victoria.
The proposed child safe standards aim to respond to the Betrayal of Trust Inquiry’s findings by driving
cultural change in organisations so that protecting children from abuse is embedded in these
organisations’ everyday thinking and practice. It is intended that this would assist organisations in
preventing child abuse, and improve how they respond to any allegations of child abuse in their
organisations.
Consultation
From August to October 2014, government departments with the Commission for Children and Young
People (CCYP) ran consultation sessions with various bodies within government and relevant
organisations on the proposed standards. Supplementary consultation was undertaken from February
to May 2015 with a small number of organisations to explore issues raised during the first round of
consultations.
This report provides an overview of the perspectives of participants from the consultation. It aims to
ensure that all stakeholders who participated in the consultations and contributed submissions are
provided with an overview of community-wide issues and views, and the key themes arising from
consultations.
In summary, the feedback from stakeholder consultation includes:
• In general the proposed child safe standards were positively received.
• Embedding a culture of child safety within organisations is paramount to driving cultural change in
how organisations prevent and respond to allegations of child abuse.
• There was a strong focus on the importance of organisations engaging and empowering the
children they work with, and making sure children’s voices are heard and their rights promoted
within the organisations.
• Most organisations agreed that the standards should be compulsory for all organisations that work
with children. Voluntary compliance for some organisations would send an undesirable message
that child safety is ‘optional’, and perpetrators could target organisations subject to voluntary
standards.
• Stakeholders agreed that the standards should not be prescriptive so they can apply to all sectors
that work with children. Organisations said it would be useful if the standards were supported by
sector-specific tools, and that peak bodies will play an important role in developing and reviewing
sector-specific application of the standards.
1
Betrayal of Trust: Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations:
<www.parliament.vic.gov.au/fcdc/inquiries/article/1788>
Betrayal of Trust implementation: Child safe standards and capacity building consultation report
Page 5
• Stakeholders considered that cultural safety for Aboriginal children and CALD children should be
integrated into all the child safe standards. Some stakeholders considered that there should be two
additional standards or distinct elements for cultural safety: one to ensure the cultural safety of
Aboriginal children and the other for children from refugee and culturally and/or linguistically
diverse backgrounds.
• Organisations emphasised that compliance monitoring and reporting should be built around
existing structures to avoid duplication and reduce the regulatory burden.
• Organisations said the standards should first focus on capacity building and education about what
it means for an organisation to be ‘child safe’.
Next steps
The feedback received during consultation is being used to further develop policy options for the
implementation of child safe standards. The government will communicate with all stakeholders once
a model has been approved. It is expected that the standards will be introduced by legislation in 2016.
Further information
For further information about the child safe standards, please contact:
childsafestandards@dhs.vic.gov.au
Page 6
Betrayal of Trust implementation: Child safe standards and capacity building consultation report
Introduction
The Betrayal of Trust Inquiry
In November 2013 the Family and Community Development Committee of the Victorian Parliament
tabled the report on its Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other NonGovernment Organisations (the Betrayal of Trust Inquiry). 2
Among other key findings, the Betrayal of Trust Inquiry drew attention to a number of limitations in
existing approaches to preventing and responding to child abuse within organisations, including:
• an overreliance on the Working with Children Check and limited use of other prevention tools
• limited guidance to assist organisations to assess and mitigate risks specific to child abuse
• limited awareness within organisations of how to use regular supervision and performance
management to identify concerns with the conduct of personnel
• limited awareness among many leaders and managers about how to create an organisational
culture that will ensure children are reasonably protected from abuse
• Inconsistencies across sectors in the child safety standards that apply to organisations funded and
regulated by government.
The Betrayal of Trust Inquiry recommended that government strengthen the capacity of organisations
to prevent and respond to child abuse allegations by reviewing its contractual and funding
arrangements with education and community service organisations that work with children to ensure
they have a minimum standard for ensuring a child-safe environment. The Betrayal of Trust Inquiry
also recommended that the government consider the potential for extending the minimum standard to
other organisations that have direct and regular contact with children.
The government is committed to implementing all of the recommendations from the Betrayal of Trust
Inquiry, including the implementation of minimum standards to create child-safe environments.
About the child safe standards
Consistent with the Betrayal of Trust Inquiry’s recommendations, the aim of the standards is to drive
cultural change in organisations so that protecting children from abuse is embedded in organisations’
everyday thinking and practice.
The introduction of child safe standards is intended to equip organisations with the knowledge and
tools to have constructive conversations about preventing and responding to child abuse, and to more
effectively manage the risk of abuse within their organisations.
Family and Community Development Committee of the Victorian Parliament’s report into the Handling of Child Abuse by
Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations (the Betrayal of Trust Inquiry), November 2013
<www.parliament.vic.gov.au/fcdc/article/1788>
2
Betrayal of Trust implementation: Child safe standards and capacity building consultation report
Page 7
Consultations
From August to October 2014, the former Departments of Human Services (DHS) 3, and Education
and Early Childhood Development (DEECD)4, with the Commission for Children and Young People
(CCYP), ran consultation sessions with various bodies within government and the broader community
on the proposed standards. The consultations focused on four questions:
1.
What minimum child safe standards should organisations be expected to meet?
2.
Which organisations should be in scope of compulsory child safe standards?
3.
How should compliance with child safe standards be monitored?
4.
How can organisations be supported to meet the child safe standards?
Supplementary consultations took place from February to May 2015 to explore specific issues raised
in the first round of consultations, including how the standards can apply to health services and how
cultural safety can be best incorporated into the standards. A complete list of organisations that were
consulted can be found in the Appendix.
3
As of 1 January 2015, the Department of Health and Human Services.
4
As of 1 January 2015, the Department of Education and Training.
Page 8
Betrayal of Trust implementation: Child safe standards and capacity building consultation report
Summary of consultations
What minimum child safe standards should organisations be
expected to meet?
Proposed standards
The departments and CCYP developed a preliminary set of child safe standards to prompt feedback
and discussion (Figure 1). The proposed standards were based on child safe standards in place
around Australia, including the 2005 National Framework for Creating a Child Safe Environment, 5 and
legislative child safe standards in Queensland and South Australia. The standards set out in the
National Framework and the compulsory standards in Queensland and South Australia are broadly
similar and consistent with the academic literature on situational crime prevention.
Figure 1: Proposed standards
The organisation’s policies and procedures for creating and maintaining a child safe environment
should incorporate each of the following elements of a child safe organisation:
• a child safe policy or statement of commitment to child safety
• a code of conduct that establishes clear expectations for appropriate behaviour
• human resources practices that reduce the risk of harm to children by new and existing
personnel, including through recruitment and selection (including undertaking WWC Checks),
training and support, supervision and performance management
• processes for responding to and reporting suspected harm to children
• a risk management approach
• mechanisms to promote the participation and empowerment of children
• strategies to embed an organisational culture of child safety.
Feedback was also sought about whether there should be a standard relating to promoting the
cultural safety of Aboriginal children and young people.
Feedback
In general, the proposed child safe standards were positively received by all stakeholders. Most of the
discussion focused on the importance of embedding a culture of child safety within organisations and
of promoting the empowerment and participation of children. Stakeholders also cited the importance
of recognising that children’s rights - as outlined in the Convention on the Rights on the Child6 underpin many elements covered in the draft standards. Key issues and common themes from the
stakeholder feedback have been summarised below.
Embedding a culture of child safety is paramount
• Stakeholders stressed the importance of generating real cultural change in organisations so that
child safety is paramount.
• The standards will not be effective unless they are a vehicle for cultural change that drives reform
of everyday practice. The standards should not promote ‘tick a box’ compliance.
Creating Safe Environments For Children – Organisations, Employees and Volunteers: National Framework, Community and
Disability Services Ministers’ Conference, July 2005
<www.ccyp.vic.gov.au/childsafetycommissioner/publications/childsafe_pubs.htm>
5
6
Convention on the Rights of the Child <www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx>
Betrayal of Trust implementation: Child safe standards and capacity building consultation report
Page 9
• An organisation may have the right kind of policies in place, but if they are not understood and
enforced by management and staff, they will be ineffective in preventing and responding to abuse.
This was seen in the Royal Commission case study into Jonathan Lord and the NSW YMCA 7.
• Perpetrators will test boundaries and target organisations with weak cultures of child safety.
• Embedding a culture of child safety within an organisation requires:
– a clear mandate from the organisation’s leadership (board and management) that child safety is
a priority, and is taken seriously
– prioritisation of child safety within the organisation’s everyday business, for example including
child safety as a regular agenda item at meetings
– an environment where staff feel comfortable and supported talking about concerns that they
might have about a colleague, child or other person within the organisation
– a ‘no blame’ reporting culture where there is an expectation that staff report all concerns and
incidents. This provides management with more data to be able to see trends and identify
areas that may require increased training or supervision or other action.
• Broader education for parents, children and the wider community about child abuse and child
safety would complement the introduction of child safe standards for organisations.
Empowering children is very important
• There was a strong focus by stakeholders on the importance of organisations engaging and
empowering the children they work with, and making sure children’s voices are heard and their
rights promoted.
• Children need to feel safe and empowered in an organisation to feel confident enough to report
concerns. If they feel that their voice is heard and their concerns are taken seriously, then they are
more likely to feel confident raising difficult issues or concerns with any person in the organisation.
• Children often do not know that they are allowed to make complaints, let alone how to do so.
Organisations need to make sure the children they work with know how to raise concerns and that
it is safe to do so.
• To promote the participation and empowerment of children, organisations need to use ‘child
friendly’ approaches. For example, children may be more comfortable using social media or
discussing issues with peers than raising concerns with an adult face-to-face.
• Different strategies may be necessary to promote the participation and empowerment of children
who are more vulnerable. For example, strategies for promoting the participation and
empowerment of children with a disability need to recognise the particular barriers these children
may face in raising any concerns they have about abuse.
• Many organisations acknowledged that they will find it challenging to know how to promote the
empowerment of children. For example, some religious organisations stated that they would need
advice about how to empower children as this is a new practice for many of them.
• Stakeholders also said that the participation and empowerment of the community around an
organisation (for example families and parents) also needs to be promoted so they feel they can
express any concerns they have about child safety in the organisation. Parents need to feel
confident that concerns about the safety of their children will be taken seriously by an
organisation’s governing body, management and staff. Parents need to understand what a ‘child
Royal Commission’s Report of Case Study No. 2: YMCA NSW’s response to the conduct of Jonathan Lord
<www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/getattachment/8196fe73-b2df-4cf9-a09b-55b200a84a16/Report-of-Case-Study-no2>.
7
Page 10
Betrayal of Trust implementation: Child safe standards and capacity building consultation report
safe’ organisation looks like and what they should watch out for in assessing how ‘child safe’ an
organisation is. It was noted that the CCYP has developed guidelines to assist parents to do this. 8
The minimum child safe standards should be supported by sector-specific tools
• Stakeholders indicated that the standards should not be prescriptive so that they can apply to all
sectors working with children. However, they noted it would be useful if they were supported by
more detailed sector-specific tools (for example, for out-of-home care services or sporting
organisations) that provide additional guidance about what the standards might mean in practice
for that sector.
• It was generally agreed that each sector will need to take responsibility for adapting the child safe
standards to their context. Peak bodies will play an important role in developing and reviewing
sector-specific application of the standards.
• Some stakeholders, in particular disability advocates and representatives of culturally and/or
linguistically diverse (CALD) organisations, suggested that the standards should also take into
account and respond to a range of factors that may make children particularly vulnerable.
• Some stakeholders noted that children do not only access child-specific services, and suggested
‘mainstream’ services that children use should also be educated on how to keep children safe. For
example, disability stakeholders noted that that children with a disability access both disabilityspecific and mainstream services, and that it is necessary for all these services to ensure their
organisation is safe for children.
• Volunteer organisations suggested that the standards and accompanying tools be framed in
accessible formats to allow people without a professional service delivery or policy background to
readily understand and implement them.
The child safe standards should promote cultural safety
• Some stakeholders – including the CCYP and Aboriginal Community-Controlled Organisations
(ACCOs) – indicated that there should be an additional, discrete standard or element within the
standards on ensuring organisations are culturally safe for Aboriginal children and young people.
This is because if Aboriginal children do not feel safe in their cultural identity within an
organisation, they are unlikely to feel confident enough to report abuse. The Commissioner for
Aboriginal Children and Young People was particularly concerned about the cultural safety of
Aboriginal children and young people in out-of-home care and in the youth justice system.
• Other stakeholders stated that the standards should include the implementation of policies and
practices to promote cultural safety of Aboriginal children as an additional, distinct element within
the proposed standards.
• ACCOs also stated that the cultural safety of Aboriginal children should be assessed by Aboriginal
people.
• ACCOs suggested that guidance should be provided to assist organisations to be culturally safe.
Examples of frameworks that could guide organisations include the Reconciliation Action Plan
model or a cultural competence framework.
• Other stakeholders suggested examples of culturally appropriate strategies that organisations can
use towards improving cultural safety for Aboriginal children. For example, using an ACCO to
support the child and/or the investigator where an allegation of child abuse is made involving an
Aboriginal child, and including cultural risks to Aboriginal children in risk management process.
8
Information for parents - Things to look at when selecting child-safe activities or services for your child
<www.ccyp.vic.gov.au/childsafetycommissioner/publications/childsafe_pubs.htm>. Published by the Office of the Child Safety
Commission (now the Commission for Children and Young People).
Betrayal of Trust implementation: Child safe standards and capacity building consultation report
Page 11
• It was also suggested that supporting materials for the standards could include the South
Australian guidance material about ‘Child safe environments for Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children’.9
• Some stakeholders suggested that there be an additional standard to ensure the cultural safety of
children from a CALD background.
• The CCYP’s and ACCOs’ position is that Aboriginal children and children from a CALD
background should not be responded to collectively, and that it is important that the cultural safety
of Aboriginal children and young people be addressed in a standard that is specifically about
Aboriginal children. The CCYP supports including two separate standards on cultural safety, one
ensuring the cultural safety of Aboriginal children and young people, one relating to children and
young people from CALD and refugee backgrounds.
• Stakeholders from multicultural and CALD organisations, refugee settlement services and some
youth groups believe that cultural safety is also important for CALD and refugee children and
young people. They noted that refugee children and unaccompanied minors are particularly
vulnerable and will also be unlikely to report abuse or that they feel unsafe, if their cultural identity
is not understood within an organisation. These stakeholders support the inclusion of a separate
standard on the cultural safety of children and young people from CALD and refugee backgrounds,
in addition to a standard relating to the cultural safety of Aboriginal children and young people.
• In addition to separate standards, stakeholders from Aboriginal and CALD organisations
considered that cultural safety should be integrated into all of the child safe standards. For
example, organisations should engage in culturally inclusive recruitment and undertake training in
how to be culturally responsive and respectful.
• While supporting the promotion of cultural safety in the standards, some stakeholders expressed
concerns with having additional cultural safety standards. They said some organisations and
sectors will have difficulty understanding how to implement cultural safety in practice.
• Other organisations consulted supported the additional standards for cultural safety, but also noted
that there are other mechanisms, for example cultural competency frameworks, through which to
achieve cultural safety.
• Stakeholders noted that extra support and capacity building will be needed to promote cultural
safety in the standards.
9
Child safe environments for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
<www.families.sa.gov.au/pages/protectingchildren/CSEATSI/?reFlag=1>
Page 12
Betrayal of Trust implementation: Child safe standards and capacity building consultation report
Which organisations should be in scope of compulsory child safe
standards?
Proposed scope
The consultation paper proposed that all child-related organisations would be expected to meet the
child safe standards, but that they would only be compulsory for organisations with high responsibility
for children. Figure 2 sets out the organisations that were proposed to be subject to compulsory
standards and those that were proposed to be subject to voluntary standards.
Figure 2: Proposed scope
Organisations potentially in scope of compulsory child safe standards:
• out-of-home care
• disability services providing direct care to children
• youth justice services
• schools (government and non-government)
• education and care services and licensed children’s services
• residential child and youth mental health and drug and alcohol services
• child protection services
• organisations providing homelessness services to children and young people
• organisations providing counselling and support services to children and young people
• family and parenting services religious organisations, including pastoral and spiritual care
services.
Organisations potentially in scope of voluntary child safe standards:
• All other organisations engaged in child-related work as defined by the Victorian Working with
Children Act 2005 (for example, sport and recreation clubs, youth groups, nannying and
babysitting services, tutoring services).
Feedback
The question about which organisations should be in scope of the standards generated the most
discussion at the consultations. Overall, there was a view that all organisations that work with children
should be subject to compulsory child safe standards. However, some smaller, community-based
organisations, and organisations that have limited contact with children, believed mandatory
compliance could pose challenges.
All organisations that work with children should be subject to compulsory child safe
standards
• Overall stakeholders consider that the standards should be compulsory for all organisations that
work with children (for example, all organisations whose employees and volunteers are required to
have a Working with Children Check).
• It was confirmed that government agencies providing services to children, for example, child
protection and youth justice services, should be subject to compulsory standards.
• Stakeholders – including many of those proposed to be subject to voluntary standards – raised the
following concerns with voluntary compliance:
– it sends an undesirable message that child safety is ‘optional’
– perpetrators of abuse may target organisations subject to voluntary standards
– it creates an impression that organisations in the voluntary category are 'second class'
Betrayal of Trust implementation: Child safe standards and capacity building consultation report
Page 13
– because they are often subject to less regulation currently, some of the organisations proposed
to be in the voluntary category are likely to pose a higher risk to children than some
organisations in the compulsory group.
• Faith-based groups agreed that all religious organisations should be subject to compulsory
standards, and considered that the application of the standards should extend to services
delivered by religious organisations that might not be considered ‘pastoral and spiritual care’.
• All organisations recognised the value in uniform compulsory compliance. However, smaller
community-based, volunteer-run organisations and peak bodies, including sports and recreation
organisations, arts organisations and volunteering organisations noted the potential for compulsory
compliance to impose a significant burden on smaller organisations.
• These organisations noted that the regulatory burden would depend on how the standards are
implemented, how compliance is monitored (for example, reporting requirements), and what
supports are provided to assist them to meet the standards.
• Generally, stakeholders considered that concerns about the capacity of smaller, volunteer-based
organisations to comply with compulsory standards should be addressed not by making the
standards voluntary, but by targeting support and resources and/or by staggering the
implementation of the standards to give these organisations more time to comply.
• Although the consultation paper proposed that youth organisations should be subject to voluntary
standards, all the youth groups consulted wanted to be subject to compulsory standards. Some
stakeholders were particularly concerned about organisations engaged in higher risk activities,
such as overnight camps, not being subject to compulsory compliance.
• In addition, stakeholders suggested that compulsory standards should apply to a broad range of
organisations, including:
– sport and recreation clubs and associations
– Victoria Police
– family violence services
– playgroups and informal child care
– nannying services
– tutoring services
– boarding facilities
– residential facilities for overseas students
– guardianship services for overseas students
– cultural exchange organisations
– community education providers (to the extent that they cater to young people)
– home stays
– vocational education and training (VET) providers
– ‘Saturday morning’ community cultural and language tutoring
– businesses employing children
– correctional services
– refugee settlement services
– maternal and child health services.
• Some stakeholders suggested that all organisations should be subject to child safe standards, for
example, fast food restaurants, cinemas and retail businesses.
• Organisations queried how the standards would apply where some parts of the organisation have
only limited contact with children.
• Some stakeholders also queried how the standards would apply to labour hire firms and ‘agency’
staff.
Page 14
Betrayal of Trust implementation: Child safe standards and capacity building consultation report
• Stakeholders questioned whether sole traders that engaged in child-related work would be subject
to child safe standards, and if so, how this would be enforced.
Application of the standards to health services
• Many stakeholders were concerned that, under the original proposal, the majority of health
services were not proposed to be subject to compulsory child safe standards. They noted that
children and their families could be particularly vulnerable at times when they are accessing health
services.
• Existing practitioner regulations and quality standards were not considered sufficient to ensure that
organisations providing health services were ‘child safe’. It was noted that a large number of
people work in and interact with health services, many of whom are not registered health
professionals. This includes researchers, administrative staff, volunteers and visitors.
• During supplementary consultation, a number of health services and community health
organisations were consulted on a revised proposal to include them in scope of compulsory
compliance with the standards. The organisations consulted agreed that the standards would
assist in raising awareness of child safety and risk management among health services and
complement existing policies and strategies. It was agreed that compulsory compliance should
apply to all health services that have contact with children.
Betrayal of Trust implementation: Child safe standards and capacity building consultation report
Page 15
How should compliance with child safe standards be monitored?
Proposed compliance arrangements
The consultation paper noted that many organisations are already subject to obligations to ensure
client safety and have relevant policies and practices in place. Child safe standards are not intended
to replace or duplicate existing obligations and compliance will be monitored through current
processes wherever possible. Support to enable compliance could be delivered by the CCYP, peaks
and/or specialist non-government organisations.
Feedback
Overall, organisations did not consider that compliance with the proposed child safe standards would
be too onerous. However, given the range of policies and standards some organisations are already
required to meet, they were concerned about the potential administrative burden involved in
demonstrating compliance with another set of standards. Volunteer-based organisations expressed
particular concern about the burden they may face in complying with the standards, especially in
relation to supervision and training requirements that will be difficult to deliver given limited resources
and volunteer involvement.
Introducing the standards through legislation may strengthen some organisations’ ability to
enforce compliance among their staff
• Some organisations stated that it would be easier to require staff to comply with these standards if
they were legislated because embedding the standards in legislation makes compliance a ‘given’.
• This was echoed by some peak bodies who said that legislating the standards would encourage
compliance among their member organisations.
• Compliance could also be encouraged through insurance incentives or by linking the standards to
occupational health and safety obligations.
Where possible, standards should align with, not duplicate, existing obligations.
• Organisations that are already regulated by government emphasised that the child safe standards
should not duplicate existing regulation. Government should work to make sure that existing
obligations relating to child safety are aligned with the new child safe standards.
• Health services stated that the proposed child safe standards align well with these existing
frameworks, and that any monitoring and oversight function should build on existing mechanisms
for health agencies. Health services suggested that it would be preferable to implement the
standards in the health sector by incorporating them into the National Safety and Quality Health
Service Standards,10 or as part of ‘Health Care that Counts’ (the best practice health services
framework for vulnerable children, which is currently being developed under the Victoria’s
Vulnerable Children Strategy).
• Most organisations already regulated by government supported existing regulators monitoring
compliance with the standards. There was limited support among education stakeholders for
empowering a body to monitor or enforce the standards for organisations that are already
regulated for service quality and child/client safety. Education stakeholders generally supported
the idea of unregulated bodies being subject to child safety regulation, but there was no clear
consensus on who should act as the regulating body.
10
National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards, Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare,
September 2012: <www.safetyandquality.gov.au/publications/national-safety-and-quality-health-service-standards/>
Page 16
Betrayal of Trust implementation: Child safe standards and capacity building consultation report
• While sporting organisations noted steps are being taken to ensure that sporting clubs and
associations are ‘child safe’, they noted the challenges involved in enforcing compliance across a
large network of local sporting clubs.
The initial response to non-compliance should include education and capacity-building, but
there should be penalties for repeated or serious breaches
• Many organisations will require capacity building and education about what it means to be ‘child
safe’ and how to implement the standards. Breaches, at first, may be inadvertent. These initial
breaches should be approached by assisting organisations to meet the standards.
• Repeated or serious breaches should be subject to penalties. There should be provisions within
relevant legislation outlining penalties for non-compliance.
• If a government-funded agency fails to meet its obligations under the child safe standards, all the
consequences already in place for non-compliance with government policies and standards should
be available, including terminating funding.
• Some stakeholders suggested that a ‘name and shame’ procedure might be suitable to promote
compliance among organisations not closely regulated by government or in unregulated sectors.
Organisations that operate at arms-length from government may represent more of a risk and
are more difficult to regulate
• Organisations that are not already regulated by government in relation to client safety may pose
more of a risk (by virtue of the absence of regulation), and are likely to be less equipped to
implement child safe standards. This includes services such as nannying services and sport and
recreation clubs, where employees and volunteers spend a significant amount of time with children
(often one-on-one), but are not currently subject to any child safety regulation beyond the
requirement to have a Working with Children Check.
Compliance should not be too onerous
• The burden of implementing these standards should not make it too difficult to deliver services to
children, especially for those organisations relying on volunteers. Compliance should not
negatively affect civic life, volunteerism or the availability of children’s services
• Sporting organisations were very supportive of the standards, and are in the process of developing
a sector-specific approach to creating child safe environments. However, they face the challenge
of promoting compliance among 16,000 sporting bodies across Victoria. Many of these bodies are
small, have a minimal budget and are dependent on volunteers. If compliance is too onerous,
there may be a reduction in services which play an important role in promoting children’s health
and wellbeing.
• Volunteering organisations were also supportive of the standards, but outlined a similar challenge
for their sector.
• There is a risk that organisations that provide services to both adults and children might cease
providing services to children if compliance with child safe standards is too onerous.
Viewing an organisation’s written policies is not enough
• To ensure that the standards are being put into practice, compliance monitoring should include ‘on
the ground’ assessment of how organisations are putting the standards into practice.
• This might involve spot audits of selected organisations and discussions with staff, children and
parents involved with the organisation about their perceptions of safety, and their understanding
and application of the organisation’s child safe policies. Other mechanisms for testing practical
knowledge include regular staff surveys that test whether staff know how to respond to
disclosures, allegations and concerns regarding child abuse.
Betrayal of Trust implementation: Child safe standards and capacity building consultation report
Page 17
• Some stakeholders considered that organisations should be required to become accredited as
‘child safe’. Others believed that child safety requires constant vigilance, and that accreditation
could give rise to a false sense of safety among parents and the community, and/or complacency
within the organisation.
Page 18
Betrayal of Trust implementation: Child safe standards and capacity building consultation report
How can organisations be supported to meet the child safe
standards?
Proposed supports
The consultation paper noted that there are a range of avenues through which the capacity of the
non-government sector could be developed, including through online resources and tools, and online
or face-to-face training/workshops.
Feedback
A variety of supports and training will be needed to assist organisations to become and
remain child safe
• A suite of different supports, including guidance materials, training and advice, is likely to be most
effective in assisting non-government organisations to meet child safe standards.
• Some stakeholders suggested that there should be a focus on directing resources to organisations
least equipped to comply with the standards, for example some smaller, volunteer-based
organisations.
• Different types of supports suit different types of organisations and contexts, and different types of
people within organisations (e.g. leadership, senior managers and outreach workers). For
example, online resources and training modules may be particularly useful for rural and regional
organisations, and organisations that rely on volunteers. Some organisations considered face-toface training to be important, which could be complimented by online training and tools.
• The following types of supports were cited as being useful:
– more detailed guidance about what steps organisations can take to implement the standards,
including how to generate a cultural shift across all levels of the organisation towards a stronger
focus on child safety
– model human resources policies, codes of conduct and complaint-handling procedures that can
be adapted by organisations to suit their own needs and risks
– face-to-face education and outreach
– online resources, such as online self-assessment tools, training modules and YouTube tutorials
– an external information hotline (see below).
• Regular training of leadership, management, staff and volunteers is important to embed a culture
of child safety in organisations.
• While templates are useful, it was noted that there is a risk that they could encourage ‘tick a box’
compliance. An important part of embedding a culture of child safety is for organisations to
consider how the standards should be implemented in the context of their organisation’s activities.
• In particular, organisations are likely to require guidance about how to:
– identify safety risks within their organisation and what steps to take to manage risks
– communicate effectively with children and young people
– empower children and young people to feel safe to raise concerns
– understand normal child development and recognise indicators of abuse in children
– respond to disclosures of abuse by children
– identify inappropriate behaviours among staff/volunteers
– address concerns about staff behaviour where there may not be tangible evidence of abuse,
particularly within existing disciplinary and industrial relations frameworks
– respond if a staff member leaves during an investigation.
Betrayal of Trust implementation: Child safe standards and capacity building consultation report
Page 19
A child safety advice and information hotline may be useful
• Many organisations agreed that a child safety information hotline would be useful. The hotline
could be used to:
– assist senior management and/or employees in managing concerns about staff behaviour,
particularly where there is no clear evidence of abuse occurring
– provide an external avenue for reporting complaints or concerns within an organisation that is
not supportive of child safety concerns being raised
– provide guidance about when a concern should be reported to the police, rather than dealt with
internally.
• An external hotline should not replace internal capacity-building within organisations. It is important
that appropriate processes and the capacity to manage complaints and concerns are developed
within organisations.
• If a hotline is established, additional resourcing is likely to be required by the organisation that
operates it.
Government and all organisations have a role in building a culture of child safety
• Generic materials to support the standards should be developed.
• Peak bodies are also willing to assist in the preparation of sector-specific materials, provided there
is appropriate resourcing.
• Organisations can learn from each other. A forum through which organisations can share ideas
and best practice would be helpful, both within their sector and across different sectors
• Supports and resources could draw on existing expertise on child safety and resources already
offered by specialist and peak bodies.
• Cultural change and community awareness about child abuse and child safety could be
encouraged through a public awareness campaign. Any communications campaign should
consider how best to reach culturally diverse organisations and communities.
Organisations with less capacity to meet the standards may require additional assistance or
more time to comply
• If resources are limited, supports should be targeted to smaller, volunteer-based organisations that
may have less capacity to implement the standards.
• Some organisations suggested that compulsory standards be phased in to allow organisations
time to make changes, particularly those that need to do more work to meet the standards.
Page 20
Betrayal of Trust implementation: Child safe standards and capacity building consultation report
Appendix
Organisations that attended
consultation sessions11
• Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and
Legal Service
• Centre against Against Sexual Assault –
South East
• Centre for Excellence in Child and Family
Welfare
• Centre for Multicultural Youth
• Alfred Health
• Child & Family Services Ballarat Inc.
• Ambulance Victoria
• Child Wise
• Anchor Incorporated
• Children's Protection Society
• Anglicare Victoria
• Chirnside Park Community Centre
• Ansvar Insurance
• Christian Education National
• Anxiety Recovery Centre Victoria
• Christian Schools Australia
• Association for Children with a Disability
• City of Greater Geelong
• Association of Neighbourhood Houses and
Learning Centres
• City of Knox
• Austin Health
• Colac Area Health
• Australian Camps Association
• Community Housing Federation of Victoria
• Australian Childhood Foundation
• Corrections Victoria
• Baptcare
• Council of Student Exchange Organisations
• Baptist Union of Victoria
• Council to Homeless Persons
• Bendigo Community Health Services
• CREATE Foundation
• Berry Street
• Disability Services Commission
• Bethany Community Support
• Drummond Street Services
• Bravehearts
• E W Tipping
• Break Thru People Solutions
• EACH Social and Community Health
• Broken Rites
• Eastern Health
• Care Leavers Australia Network (CLAN)
• Ethnic Communities Council
• Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne
(including views of Catholic Education
Commission Victoria)
• Family Life
• Catholic Social Services Victoria
• Former Department of Health13
• CatholicCare Melbourne
• Former Department of State Development,
Business and Innovation (Compliance and
Programs, Child Employment)14
• CatholicCare Sandhurst
• Centacare Catholic Diocese of Ballarat Inc.
• cohealth
• Former Department of Education and Early
Childhood Development12
• Centre against Against Sexual Assault –
Ballarat
• Foundation House
• Centre against Against Sexual Assault –
Barwon
• The Royal Children’s Hospital
• Centre against Against Sexual Assault –
Loddon Campaspe
11
Consultations were conducted by DHS and DEECD,
jointly with the CCYP. This appendix does not represent all
stakeholders invited to attend consultations or provide
written feedback.
• Frankston City Council
• Girl Guides Victoria
12
As of 1 January 2015, Department of Education and
Training.
13
As of 1 January 2015, Department of Health and Human
Services.
14
As of 1 January 2015, the Department of Economic
Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources.
Betrayal of Trust implementation: Child safe standards and capacity building consultation report
Page 21
• Glastonbury Community Services
• Scouts Victoria
• Goulburn Valley Family Care
• Seventh Day Adventist Schools Australia
• Hope Street
• SHINE for Kids
• Peninsula Health
• Sport and Recreation Victoria
• Independent Education Union
• Steiner Education Australia
• Independent Schools Victoria
• Take Two, Berry Street
• inTouch Multicultural Centre Against Family
Violence
• The Salvation Army
• Islamic Council of Victoria
• Jesuit Social Services
• The Salvation Army, Crossroads Youth &
Family Services
• Jewish Care Victoria
• Tzedek
• Jewish Community Council of Victoria
• Ladder
• Uniting Church in Australia, Synod of Victoria
and Tasmania
• Latrobe Regional Hospital
• VANISH
• Lentara UnitingCare
• VicSport (Sports Federation of Victoria)
• Lighthouse Foundation
• Victoria Police
• Lions Australia
• Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency
• Local Learning and Employment Network
• Lutheran Education South Eastern Region
• Victorian Aboriginal Education Association
Inc.
• Mackillop Family Services
• Victorian Children’s Council
• Melbourne's Leading Nanny Agency
• Victorian Cooperative on Children's Services
for Ethnic Groups
• Mercy Health
• Modern Language Teachers Association
Victoria
• The Salvation Army Westcare
• Victorian Ecumenical System of Schools Ltd
• Victorian Managed Insurance Authority
• Monash Health
• Victorian Multicultural Commission
• Municipal Association of Victoria
• Victorian Refugee Health Network
• National Disability Services Victoria
• Victorian Registration and Qualification
Authority
• North Western Mental Health
• Office of Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship
• Office of the Public Advocate
• OMEP Australia
• VincentCare
• Volunteering Victoria
• Waverley Emergency Adolescent Care
• Wesley Mission Victoria
• OzChild
• Permanent Care and Adoptive Families
• Plenty Valley Community Health
• Psychiatric Disability Services of Victoria
(VICSERV) Inc.
• White Lion
• Whitehorse City Council
• Wimmera Uniting Care
• Women's Domestic Violence Crisis Service
• Quantum
• World Education Program Australia Limited
• Ramahyuck District Aboriginal Corporation
• Yarra City Council
• Rotary Youth Exchange Victoria
• YMCA Australia
• Royal Women’s Hospital
• YMCA Victoria
• Rumbalara Aboriginal Cooperative
Shepparton
• Youth Affairs Council of Victoria
• Save the Children
• Youth Support and Advocacy Service.
Page 22
• Youth Disability Advocacy Service
Betrayal of Trust implementation: Child safe standards and capacity building consultation report
Organisations that provided
written submissions
• Berry Street
• Centre for Excellence in Child and Family
Welfare
• Jubilee Housing Services
• Melbourne Archdiocese
• Melbourne City Mission
• No To Violence
• Office for Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship
• Centre for Multicultural Youth
• Save the Children Australia
• Child Wise
• South Eastern Centre Against Sexual
Assault
• Christian Schools Australia
• City of Greater Geelong
• cohealth
• Commission for Children and Young People,
including the including the Commissioner for
Aboriginal Children and Young People
• Council of Australian Student Exchange
Organisations
• Ethnic Communities' Council of Victoria
• Goulburn Valley Family Care Inc.
• Jesuit Social Services
• Statewide Children’s Resource Program
• VICSEG (Victorian Cooperative on
Children’s Services for Ethnic Groups)
• VicSRC (Victorian Student Representative
Council)
• VicSport (Sports Federation of Victoria)
• Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency
• Victorian Aboriginal Children & Young
People’s Alliance
• Volunteering Victoria.
Betrayal of Trust implementation: Child safe standards and capacity building consultation report
Page 23