8. How we approach compliance
BCS employs a range of compliance actions designed to encourage consistent and continued compliance with the WWC Act which may be undertaken in different circumstances, depending on the level of risk involved. We recognise that a majority of the community sees the safety of children as paramount and that most people covered by the blue card system aim to meet their obligations. Those who do not comply with the system represent an actual or perceived risk to children and may be subject to enforcement actions by the QPS.
If non-compliance is identified, our first priority is the safety and wellbeing of children and young people. To prioritise, we use the risk matrix and other risk assessment tools to assess our response and ensure it is proportionate to the actual or potential risk to children and young people.
| Likelihood | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rare | Unlikely | Possible | Likely | Almost Certain | ||
Consequences | Major | Moderate | High | High | Critical | Critical |
| Significant | Moderate | Moderate | High | High | Critical | |
| Moderate | Low | Moderate | Moderate | High | High | |
| Minor | Very low | Low | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | |
| Insignificant | Very low | Very low | Low | Moderate | Moderate | |
© Material sourced from Government of South Australia 2014 under Creative Commons Australia Attribution 3.0 License
Other matters which impact compliance action include the attitude, willingness to comply and compliance history of an organisation or individual.
We recognise that while the majority of organisations and individuals aim to comply with the WWC Act, they may unintentionally become confused about their obligations. Our role is to educate these organisations and individuals about the risks of failing to adhere to their obligations and to enable them to become compliant. We also recognise that there is a group of organisations and individuals that take a chance or become careless in meeting their obligations. In these instances, targeted education is delivered by compliance officers or the BCOL.
Where individuals or organisations intentionally ignore, fail to comply with or avoid their obligations, they are referred to the QPS for enforcement action. In serious cases, where compliance cannot be addressed by other means, or the risk is substantial, enforcement is a key tactic in our compliance model.
Case study 1 - Reward
BCS spoke with an organisation that wanted assistance with assessing the effectiveness of their child and youth risk management strategy. An incident occurred where a staff member was able to follow clear steps in the organisation’s procedure manual when a child disclosed they were being bullied. As a result, the child felt supported and the bullying was addressed immediately. Although the procedure was a success, the organisation were assessing if there was anything else they could do to provide a safer, more supportive environment. BCS recognised this organisation’s efforts with a written commendation outlining strategies where they excelled and suggestions where further improvements could be made. The parents, children and staff noted that the organisation is taking the safety and wellbeing of children seriously and always striving for improvement.
Case study 2 - Educate
BCS identified an organisation which had failed to link a number of blue card holders when they commenced work with the organisation. The organisation was advised of the important reasons behind this obligation and their organisational records were audited to ensure all blue and exemption card holders were linked to their organisation. The organisation rectified all issues immediately and has since remained compliant with the blue card system.
Case study 3 - Enforce
BCS located a business operator providing home-based child care to children without a blue card. BCS advised the business operator of their obligations and provided an opportunity for the business to cease operation until a blue card was obtained. They did not comply and were referred to the QPS. As a result, the business owner was prosecuted and fined $1,000 with a conviction recorded.
