WA Children and Community Services Act 2004 Section 124A defines ‘sexual abuse’. Section 124B(1) requires a mandated reporter who in the course of their work ‘believes on reasonable grounds that a child (i) has been the subject of sexual abuse that occurred on or after commencement day; or (ii) is the subject of ongoing sexual abuse’ to report it. Focus is ‘abuse’ explicitly Sexual abuse
Emotional abuse: For consistency across jurisdictions we used this term to categorise psychological abuse, which is the term used in New South Wales. Normally refers to acts by caregivers causing the child to suffer significant emotional deprivation or trauma involving the necessary level of harm (see eg the definitions in the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s Child protection Australia annual report). Domestic violence: Exposure of a child to domestic violence involving the necessary level of harm. Neglect: The major category named ‘neglect’ in the NSW data system, which would include caregivers failing to provide minimum conditions necessary for the child’s health and physical and emotional development, involving the necessary level of harm. In NSW this clearly included medical neglect, educational neglect, supervisory neglect, and failure to provide necessaries. We excluded other categories recorded in the data which could possibly be included in this category, such as drug/alcohol use by carer. Physical abuse: The major category named ‘physical abuse’ in the NSW data system. Normally refers to caregivers inflicting intentional physical harm on the child, beyond lawful corporal punishment, involving the necessary level of harm. Sexual abuse: The major category named ‘sexual abuse’ in the NSW data system. Normally refers to the involvement of a child who cannot give true consent in sexual activity with an adult or a more powerful person, for the other person's sexual gratification or gain. Further details on the methodology and research project are in Appendix 1. Key data findings and interpretations: New South Wales Key legislative changes and hypotheses 1 January 2003: Large range of reporter groups; large penalty; duty applied to concerns for safety, welfare or wellbeing of a child due to a suspicion that a child was ‘at risk of harm’, a broad concept which was perhaps not defined with a clear qualification of significant harm; applied to: ‘basic physical or psychological needs’ not being met; ‘necessary’ medical care not being provided; ‘physical or sexual abuse’; exposure to domestic violence with risk of serious physical or psychological harm; serious psychological harm
ROSH reports of Neglect are almost equal between major mandated reporter groups (32,674), and other reporter groups (33,856). indicates relatively high level of reporting of Neglect by the public 1.20 Number of ROSH reports of physical by year, by reporter group, ROSH report numbers annually are stable over this period p.a). Education personnel report by far the highest number of Physical Abuse cases, double those of police and health practitioners. ROSH reports by major mandated reporter groups (38,021) are one third higher than those made by other reporter groups (29,982). Stabilisation of Physical Abuse ROSH report numbers, and at a lower level than pre-2010, indicates substantial impact of 2010 changes including DR. Reporting pattern by other reporter groups indicates relatively high level of reporting of Physical Abuse by the public 1.21 Number of ROSH reports of sexual abuse by year, by reporter group ROSH report numbers slightly increase over this period, from 12,757 to 16,376. Police are the highest mandated reporter group (8,021), closely followed by Education personnel (7,773) and health practitioners (6,513). Reports are almost equal between major mandated reporter groups (22,307), and other reporter groups (20,933). Pattern of increased Sexual Abuse ROSH reports over this three year period is different to other reported issues. Suggests Sexual Abuse ROSH reports are, appropriately, not made to DR. Perhaps also indicates heightened awareness of Sexual Abuse and possible impact of other contextual factors eg awareness-raising changes 1.22 Number of ROSH reports of emotional abuse by year, and number of substantiations (all reporter groups combined) Over the year period ROSH report numbers are stable (19,681-21,100) of 60,799 ROSH reports 9,649 substantiated reports substantiation numbers double (2,208-4,180) SR is 16%, the lowest of all four Increased substantiation numbers over the period may be a product of more resources being available for investigations, but further research is necessary to explore the contributing factors.
Physical reports marked increase (4,325 to 6,817); Sexual Abuse reports increase (2,268 to 3,079). Substantiations increased over the three year period: Emotional (299 to 563); Neglect (608 to 1,007); Physical (946 to 1,315), Sexual (632 to 714). Abuse, Neglect, Physical Abuse and remained stable for Sexual Abuse. Substantiation increases are positive and may indicate more resources available for investigations, and possibly improved reporter practice (further research required to explore reasons). The duty to report failure to attend an education facility gave a higher profile to educational neglect. More active engagement between schools and the Department regarding educational neglect may be associated with the increase in substantiations of neglect in this period.
TAS Believes, or suspects, on reasonable grounds, or knows Any sexual abuse; physical or emotional injury or other abuse, or neglect, to extent that the child has suffered, or is likely to suffer, physical or psychological harm detrimental to the child's wellbeing; or the child's physical or psychological development is in jeopardy Past and present only VIC Belief on reasonable grounds (both regarding the injury or abuse, and the presence of a protective parent) Child has suffered, or is likely to suffer, significant harm as a result of physical injury or sexual abuse and the child's parents have not protected, or are unlikely to protect, the child from harm of that type Both WA Belief on reasonable grounds Not specified: any sexual abuse Past and present only Cth Suspects on reasonable grounds Not specified: any assault or sexual assault; serious psychological harm; serious neglect Both
1.5.5. South Australia 1.5.5.1. Original position at 1 January 2003: South Australia Children’s Protection Act 1993 In South Australia at 1 January 2003, the Children’s Protection Act 1993 (SA) s 11(1) imposed a broad range of mandatory reporting duties for all four classical forms of abuse and neglect. ‘Abuse or neglect’ was defined in s 6(1) to include: (a) sexual abuse; or (b) physical or emotional or neglect, to the extent that: (i) the child has suffered, or is likely to suffer, physical or psychological injury detrimental to the child’s wellbeing; or (ii) the child’s physical or psychological development is in jeopardy Therefore, there was a significance threshold for all types of abuse/neglect other than sexual abuse. Section 11(1)(a) imposed the reporting duty on a designated person who ‘suspects on reasonable grounds that a child has been or is being abused or neglected’. In addition, s 10 included within the concept of ‘abuse or neglect’ ‘a reasonable likelihood, in terms of s 6(2)(b), of the child being killed, injured, abused or neglected by a person with whom the child resides’. Therefore, there was also a qualified duty to report suspected risk of future abuse/neglect. Section 11(1) imposed the duty when the suspicion was formed in the course of the person’s work (whether paid or voluntary) or of carrying out official duties. Immunity was conferred by s 12. Confidentiality was conferred by s 13. The penalty for noncompliance was $2500. Section 11(2) imposed the duty on a broad range of professionals: medical practitioners (ab) pharmacists registered or enrolled nurses dentists psychologists police community corrections officers social workers teachers in any educational institution including a kindergarten approved family day care providers
similarly, a child who requires medical treatment for a severe infection and who has not received it would not be described as having been physically injured by such neglect, but as having been neglected with a consequent impact on their physical development or health. If this interpretation is correct, these situations would fall within subsection (f) and they would not need to be reported under subsection (c).
VIC In Victoria, ‘reports’ or ‘intakes’ are ‘caller-defined’ meaning that most intakes will be initially classified as ‘notifications’. However, Victoria adopts a more stringent approach to this than in Tasmania and the ACT. Intakes are recorded as ‘notifications’ when the reporter either expresses significant concern for the wellbeing of a child, or believes that a child is in need of protection. This may have the effect, relative to other jurisdictions which do not employ this approach, of somewhat inflating the number of ‘notifications’. The agency then determines whether the ‘notification’ has sufficient information to require an investigation. We requested only data on notifications of child abuse and neglect. Because of the approach taken in Victoria to defining ‘notifications’, we received this data, but it will reflect an inflated number of initial notifications. We did not request data on reports made under Victoria’s differential response system (ChildFIRST) as the study is focused on reports of child abuse and neglect of a higher level of seriousness. NSW In NSW, all initial ‘reports’ or ‘intakes’ are first screened by the agency to determine if they meet the threshold of ‘risk of significant harm’. These reports are the NSW ‘notifications’; those that do not meet the threshold are classed as ‘child concern reports’. Hence, ‘reports’ or ‘intakes’ are ‘agency-defined’: the child protection agency determines at intake whether the intake is a child concern report or a child protection notification. The agency then determines whether the ‘notification’ has sufficient information to require an investigation. We requested only data on notifications of child abuse and neglect. We did not request data on reports made under New South Wales’s differential response system (child wellbeing units) as the study is focused on reports of child abuse and neglect of a higher level of seriousness. We were provided only with data on reports of significant harm for 2010-2012, and earlier summary tables showing partial data on reports of significant harm. NT In the Northern Territory, ‘reports’ or ‘intakes’ are ‘agency-defined’: the child protection agency determines at intake whether the intake is a child concern report or a child protection notification. The agency then determines whether the ‘notification’ has sufficient information to require an investigation. We requested and obtained only data on ‘reports of child abuse and neglect’ and therefore obtained data on notifications.