I believe that in the Victorian WWC Act it states there is no fee for the background check if it involves religious organizations. Maybe someone can double check me on this.
Barbara
Australia: Victorian Child Protection Inquiry Hears Evidence Against Watch Tower Society
by AndersonsInfo 80 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
Paralipomenon
I doubt that the WTS would foot the bill for these checks. Likely they would make the expense the responsibility of the congregation.
I'm wondering if the resistance stems from the action creating a direct liability link from Elder's actions to that of the parent WTS corporation.
It really makes zero sense why they would push back against this. As far as laws go this one makes perfect sense.
-
MrMonroe
They see their "vital, life-saving work" as a mission from God that transcends Caesar's law. In the fantasy world of their own invention, every brother and sister can be trusted because they are all pure Christians -- and opening themselves to the mere possibility that some might fail a WWC check would sully that concept, reducing them to being no different to any worldly group.
They claim that that law does not apply to them, throwing up the straw-man argument that they do not conduct Sunday schools. Yet every JW knows there are multiple occasions when adults are in unsupervised close contact with unrelated minors -- in cars, on witnessing territory, in home Bible studies, in convention preparation and Kingdom Hall cleaning groups.
Without people like Steven Unthank pushing this issue, nothing will happen. Victoria's Department of Justice and Victoria Police seem strangely uninterested in acting. Why?
-
sizemik
There's obviously a lot of interest here . . .
If you want to take the time to read the Victorian Working With Children Act 2005 and see how it effects the JW's you can find it here . . .
The Act allows for full discretion as to the payment of fees . . . I am not aware of any ammendments providing a statutory waiver of fees for religious organisations . . .
(4) A power conferred by this Act to make
regulations providing for the imposition of fees
may be exercised by providing for all or any of
the following matters—
(a) specific fees;
(b) maximum or minimum fees;
(c) maximum and minimum fees;
(d) the payment of fees either generally or under
specified conditions or in specified
circumstances;
(e) the reduction, waiver or refund, in whole or
in part, of the fees.
...................................................................
There seems little doubt the WTS has committed a criminal offence under the Act . . . it's a question of the messy business of bringing a prosecution against an Organisation. Prosecution of this nature has not to my knowledge ever been applied using the Act, so it's foreign ground even to the authorities and prosecutors . . . so it may take time.
Remember though there are two main issues here . . . the need for the WTS to conform to the law . . . and the existence of criminal behaviour on the part of the WTS to this point. The latter is more the focus of SU . . . he wants a prosecution . . . and he may yet get it.
-
AndersonsInfo
I read the following on Steven Unthank's blog, http://www.jwnews.net/
There is NO FEE for the Working with Children Check ("Assessment Notice") for volunteers who work with children within "religious organisations".
I couldn't find a link to where Steven took this information from but I'll keep looking.
Barb
-
AndersonsInfo
I couldn't find any specific information about religious volunteers being exempt from the fee, but I did find the following:
How much will a WWC Check cost in Victoria?
In Victoria, applicants that will be undertaking ‘child-related work’ for remuneration or gain are required to pay a non-refundable application fee of $77.80 to undertake a WWC Check. This amount was current at the time of writing this fact sheet, however is of course subject to changefrom time-to-time.
Volunteer applicants for the WWC Check are not required to pay an application fee, and will receive a ‘volunteer assessment notice’. A person is still identified as a ‘volunteer’ even where they receivereimbursement for expenses they incur as part of their role in the organisation, however, as soon asa volunteer becomes a paid employee or contractor, they are required reapply for an employee WWC Check as the volunteer check will no longer be adequate.
Remember: Make sure that all unpaid staff list that that they are ‘volunteers’ on their WWC Check form as this will exempt them from any application fee. If they move into paid work at a later date, they will need to reapply under the ‘employee’ category.
-
sizemik
Nice work Barb . . . and thanks for that.
I guess the significant aspect of no fee liability is that there remains no reasonable excuse as to why WTS has, and continues to blatantly refuse their legal obligations under the Act. The only possible reason remaining is that there exist a strong potential for public embarrassment they wish to keep hidden, and possible future organisational disruption in complying.
There remains their criminal liabilty for refusing to comply with the Act to date . . . which if persued and publicised could prove the most effective deterrent for prospective members . . . here's hoping.
My understanding from the legal advisory source you posted, as well as the Act itself, is that it will obligate all JW's working in the "preaching and teaching" work to undergo the check. This could even make it a legal requirement synonymous with baptism or even prior to engaging in prosyletising. I'm sure whatever transpires, the WTS legal juggernaut will have it's work cut out in the months ahead.
-
Broken Promises
When Barb speaks, pay attention.
We are not into sensationalism.
Um, who's "we"?
Secondly, all Barb has done is post a "news release" from Steve Unthank, someone whose methods of getting information across has been questioned before. Unless Barb Anderson has more to add, I'd hardly say that she's 'spoken'.
And people wonder why some get the idea of an apostate heirarchy.
-
alanv
Broken promises. I presume you understand that some people know more about a subject than others. Barbera and some others on this site have worked very closely with the governing body in the past. Will they be better informed than someone who just reads about it? Of course they will.
In any facet of life, there are ones who know the subject better than the ordinary man in the street. So nothing whatsoever to do with a heirarchy, just common sense to pay attention to someone who has a lot more experience on the subject than us. (been there got the teashirt!)
-
doofdaddy
In any facet of life, there are ones who know the subject better than the ordinary man in the street.
I agree with BP because
A. I am Australian and am familiar with Australian law and yes I read SU's site and the relevent State Law which is the same/similar as NSW.
B. Work under this Act (in NSW) and continue to arrange staff and volunteers under that Act.
C. Have been in front of a parliamentary enquiry. All are Hansard recorded, no big deal (read SU'S self congratulatory rave above for details).
d. The Act is a dog's breakfast and is difficult to police. At best, there will be recommendations to tighten the Act.