Joan Squelch

Rights, responsibilities and regulation – the three Rs of education: a consideration of the state's control over parental choice in education

Education is both a right and a responsibility. International instruments such as the International covenant on civil and political rights and the International convention on the rights of the child affirm the right of all children to education. This right is spelt out in the education legislation of all states and territories in Australia. Education is not only free but is compulsory for all children between certain ages. The obligation is imposed on parents (in accordance with definitions contained therein) to ensure that their children are both enrolled at and attend school. However, parental choice of education provider is allowed within each jurisdiction by way of state, private or church schools, all of which are registered and regulated to varying degrees by the state. The legislation of each jurisdiction also makes some degree of provision for parents who choose to opt out their children from any formal education setting and to educate them at home. Home education is also subject to state regulati...

Back to school for parents: implementing responsible parenting agreements and orders in Western Australia

Managing student behaviour is a primary task of principals and teachers, but it is not their responsibility alone. Parents are also responsible for their childrens behaviour inside and outside school. As primary educators and caregivers parents have a duty of care and are responsible for nurturing, disciplining and socializing their children. In the wake of growing concerns about the apparent increase in antisocial behaviour inside and outside schools, the Government of Western Australia is planning to introduce the use of responsible parenting agreements and orders, modelled largely on UK policy. The aim of responsible parenting agreements and orders is to provide a statutory mechanism for directing parents to take responsibility for their children. The goal is to reduce truancy, antisocial behaviour and juvenile crime and to improve childrens socialization and school performance. The Childrens Court will be given power to issue orders that impose certain requirements on parents regarding the upbringi...

The Limits of Working with Children Cards in Protecting Children

Abstract In 2006 Western Australia passed legislation that introduced a system to check criminal records and issue permits to those who wish to work with children. In 2007, the legislation was described by the minister responsible as a “powerful system that would prevent harm to children”. This paper explores that system and identifies limits to its effectiveness. The paper concluded that unless the systems limits are fully appreciated there is a possibility of a paradoxical outcome, whereby childrens lives will be less safe. It also raises the question of whether in the area of record checking a national approach is not preferable to each state and territory developing its own system.

Acting in the best interests of the child: a case study on the consequences of competing child protection legislation in Western Australia

With a focus on the case of CEO, Department for Child Protection v. John Citizen (2007) WASC 312, this article examines the legal issues that the case presents for child-care workers and child welfare organisations when acting in the best interests of a child. This complex case raises a number of issues regarding the issuing of assessment notices (working with children cards), what constitutes the ‘best interests of the child’ and the interplay between potentially conflicting pieces of child welfare and child protection legislation. The first part of the article provides an introduction to the working with children legislation in Western Australia and an overview of the history and facts of the Citizen case. The second part reviews the courts decision, and is followed by a discussion of the consequences of competing legislation that, on the one hand, deemed John Citizen a suitable child carer and, on the other, denied him an assessment notice that would allow him to care for children.