Nile Supports Child Protection

The Rev Fred Nile MLC, Leader of the Christian Democratic Party, has supported the ‘Young Persons (Care and Protection) Amendment Bill’ that was debated in the NSW Upper House on Tuesday 5th September, but has called on the Government to do more to protect the State’s children from paedophiles and to lower the age for the prohibition of names of children from 18 to 16 years.

“I support the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Amendment Bill. One of the most important responsibilities of the Government is to ensure care and protection for children. Obviously that primary care should come from their parents, but the Government plays an important role in providing parents with support in carrying out their role. Unfortunately, in our modern society children are more at risk than they have been at any other time. Paedophile networks are growing and men from all levels of society are involved in that activity.

Recently in Adelaide a magistrate was arrested for paedophile activity, and teachers and, sadly, even clergymen have been involved. Children must be afforded the necessary protection. Controversy over the Lewthwaite issue highlights the concerns that parents have. They believe their children are more at risk, which is why there is pressure for new laws such as Megan's law and Nicole's law. There are a number of positive aspects in this bill. It regulates out-of-school hours care services; supports the Children's Court by strengthening and clarifying its existing functions; and protects and clarifies the rights of children and young persons to legal representation” Rev Fred Nile stated.

“The bill contains a strange provision that strengthens protection for reporters. The term "reporter" is used in the legislation describe someone who reports a case involving a child at risk or a child that has been abused. In the past the term that was used was "notifier". I believe that the term "notifier" should be restored, as the term "reporter" could be confused with role of newspaper reporters who cover court cases and play an important role in informing the public. As this terminology has nothing to do with child protection, I ask the Government to consider replacing the word "reporter" with the word "notifier".

The bill will ensure that children using out-of-school hours care services are cared for in an environment that provides for the child's safety, welfare and wellbeing. An important law reform introduced by the bill is the regulation of out-of-school hours care services. Currently in New South Wales some 1,500 out-of-school hours care services provide care for more than 37,000 children each year—a major area of activity. The bill provides a broad definition of out-of-school hours services that includes attendance by school-aged children; attendance by children who are enrolled in a school but are not yet attending school; and attendance by school-attending children being cared for during school holidays.

The bill ensures that a child who exhibits sexually abusive behaviour and has not been criminally convicted for such behaviour is not prevented from accessing a court-ordered therapeutic program relating to the sexually abusive behaviour. I hope that program is successful and that children do not repeat that type of behaviour. One matter that concerns me is the provision relating to the general prohibition of the publication of identifying information and names of children and young persons who are involved in care proceedings to out-of-court proceedings, such as counselling and preliminary conferences connected to the care proceedings. This amendment furthers the protection of children and young persons before the Children's Court to non-court proceedings.

The Government has lowered the age of consent from 18 to 16. So 16-year-olds are now to be treated as adults, whereas the old-fashioned concept was that children up to the age of 18 should be protected by this prohibition. I do not think that is justified, and I urge the Government to consider lowering the age to 16. That would be consistent with other laws in New South Wales that recognise the changes in teenagers' development, both physically and socially. Some 16- and 17-year-olds involved in recent rape and murder cases are basically adults, so why should they have the legislative protection that is intended for real children? I think such protection is justified in the case of children, but not for those aged between 16 and 18 years. I ask the Government to consider reviewing the prohibition on the disclosure of identifying information. I support the bill”, stated Rev Nile