Who are vulnerable people in the ACT?

by DHCS Facilitator 18 Aug 2009, 4:24pm

One of the key challenges in developing a background checking system is to indentify the groups that checking will aim to protect. The discussion paper proposes that ‘vulnerable people’ will include all children (people under the age of 18) as well as certain vulnerable adults. Advice received from key stakeholders during preliminary consultations has indicated that simply listing broad groupings of adults as ‘vulnerable’ would be considered patronising or offensive to some people in the ACT. An alternative option would be to link extant vulnerability with the receipt of social services that are associated with alleviating any disadvantage or vulnerability. Under this type of definition, adults would only be considered vulnerable upon the acceptance or use of such services. The following definition is proposed in the discussion paper: • “Vulnerable Adult” refers to people aged 18 or over that access services in the ACT, as defined under Regulations, to alleviate the effects of physical, social, financial and/or psychological disadvantage. The range of services that could be considered for inclusion is addressed in a separate question. Do you have any views on who should be considered vulnerable in the ACT community?
 

Ic_relatesdoc Relates to document: Discussion Paper: A Working with Vulnerable People Checking System for the ACT

Playschool Comment 1 19 Aug 2009, 10:49 PM

I agree that the term "Vulnerable People" is a little offensive. Is there a nicer term? Is there anyone out there in this category who would like to put forward a potential name for this check?

DHCS Facilitator Comment 1.1 DHCS Facilitator 15 Sep 2009, 11:51 AM

Is the term "vulnerable people" offensive?

Are there any suggestions for alternative terminology?

MBN Comment 1.1.1 16 Sep 2009, 11:32 AM

"Vulnerable people" is a good term. It accurately explains why someone may need their support people to be checked. They are in a vulnerable position. Lets not get caught up in ensuring the PC crowd are happy with a word that doesn't offend anyone. If that is the case then, as usual, nothing else will move forward and everyone spends all their time trying to sound more important than the next person by coming up with a name that everyone likes ( which will never happen anyway).

potter Comment 2 4 Oct 2009, 12:00 PM

I query the definition of adult as being 18 and over.

Under 'Exemptions' (p34 in the discussion paper, it is stated that "checking should not be required for volunteers aged less than 18 years."

Also "employees under the age of 18 would be subject to checking..."

There is an inconsistency here. Is it being assumed that an employee under 18 is more like an adult than a volunteer under 18, and therefore more likely to commit abuse of a vulnerable person?

I think the upper age limit for child should be 16, if not 15, which is the minimum school leaving age. I think a person of 16–18 is quite capable of abusing a vulnerable person – I am NOT saying they are more likely to. Children these days are growing up much earlier than in previous generations. They become independent earlier, yet the official age for attaining adulthood remains at 18. When there is serious consideration being given to lowering the voting age to 16, it seems inappropriate to insist they are still children at 17.

c49742528a584211ef91361d1415e2cacb29528d