Police Clearance.

[peterb666]

If you are in the habit of photographing Junior Sport in NSW I suggest you read the following link, and click on and read the facts sheet.
http://www.kids.nsw.gov.au/kids/work...oyedpeople.cfm

Of particular interest is the point that as of 1st May 2010 you may run the risk of a $22,000.00 fine if someone gets nasty and you don't have a Police clearance Certificate. For $80.00 for 3 years it is a good bit of insurance.

This certificate is not required to photograph children. It is used to demonstate to clients who seek to pay you to work with children that you are not banned by law from working with children. That is very clear in the linked information.

Looking through the content on the site, on the Facts Sheet page it says...

Who needs a Certificate
You will need to get a certificate if:

•you are self employed
•and you work in one of the settings defined in the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998 as child-related work settings
•and your work requires that you have direct unsupervised contact with children (under 18)
•and you are over 18 yourself.

If you meet those requirements or needing to have a certificate and you don't have one you fined $2,200 (not $22,000).

It also goes on to say...

From 1 May 2010 self employed people who work with children, such as music and dance tutors, sports coaches and nannies, will need a certificate that says they are not banned from working with children in NSW.

If you are not receiving payment or do not intend to sell your photos, you are not self empolyed.

[Bill44]

This certificate is not required to photograph children. It is used to demonstate to clients who seek to pay you to work with children that you are not banned by law from working with children. That is very clear in the linked information.

Looking through the content on the site, on the Facts Sheet page it says...



If you meet those requirements or needing to have a certificate and you don't have one you fined $2,200 (not $22,000).

It also goes on to say...



If you are not receiving payment or do not intend to sell your photos, you are not self empolyed.

It depends on how you read, and fully read, the facts sheet.
In one place it says $2,200.00 and in another it says $22,000.00. If you read the application form it also covers volunteers.

One point that I'm trying to get across here is how long will the "I'm only photographing my daughter" excuse stand up to a challenge when there are other girls in the shot. Particularly when, as in netball, there are a lot of quite revealing shots when the girls jump for a ball.

[IanB]

It will not be long before we will need a licence similar to firearm licences just to own a camera

[Bill44]

It will not be long before we will need a licence similar to firearm licences just to own a camera

.........and you can blame the paedophiles and perverts for it, not the Government which is offering a measure of protection to genuine photographers by making available the appropriate licences, and yes I'm angry too that society has degraded to the point where they are necessary.

[Scotty72]

No, I think we can blame the scare-mongers and over-reactors. (as well as the crims)

Quite literally, the chances of your child being sexually interfered with by a stranger is tiny. But some carry on like it is a statistical likelihood ?????

In fact.. most abuse is by male relatives... Perhaps govts can issue blue cards that allow you to become an uncle etc.

Scotty

[Redgum]

.........and you can blame the paedophiles and perverts for it, not the Government which is offering a measure of protection to genuine photographers by making available the appropriate licences, and yes I'm angry too that society has degraded to the point where they are necessary.

Bill, Scotty is right. Many paedophiles/perverts are not discovered until they've committed scores of offences and sometimes over 20/30 years. These people have no records and their request and receipt of a blue card would be no different to you and I. In fact, many of these people are in prominent public positions and trusted community leaders. The bluecard serves no purpose and appears only to fund government coffers. No one is suggesting we shouldn't be vigilant but the debate shouldn't focus on fear but an alternative method for discovering those people who shouldn't have access to our children.

[ricktas]

No, I think we can blame the scare-mongers and over-reactors. (as well as the crims)

Quite literally, the chances of your child being sexually interfered with by a stranger is tiny. But some carry on like it is a statistical likelihood ?????

In fact.. most abuse is by male relatives... Perhaps govts can issue blue cards that allow you to become an uncle etc.

Scotty

Correct, but the media hype would have us believe that there is a 'dirty old man' on every street in the country, which is simply not true.

Most people can go their entire lives and not encounter a paedophile in real life ,the closest they get would be seeing a news article about one. Yet the media hype has reached the point that everyone is suspicious of everyone else. And then the government and media cry fowl when an elderly person's body is discovered in their house months after they died and they say we are not caring enough and should talk to our neighbours etc.

A blue card offers at least a level of 'protection' and having one does no harm.

How many paedophiles are caught by being out photographing children? Most are known to their victim or they do the grab on a street, by luring a child into a car etc. A blue card is not going to help then.

[Scotty72]

How many paedophiles are caught by being out photographing children? Most are known to their victim or they do the grab on a street, by luring a child into a car etc. A blue card is not going to help then.

With all respect Rick, that is so untrue (grabbed off the streets)

About 3 years ago, I went to a child protection seminar as part of my work.

Random snatching off the street are such a rare thing as to be statistically insignificant.

This was supported by NSW Crime Stats for that year (2006 or 7). There were only 3 random child (< 16 years) snatching for that year. In a state of over 6,000,000 people with approx 1.5 - 2 million children... your child is more likely to be killed by a bee. Far, far, far more likely to be killed in a motor accident.

Yes, there are paedaphiles out there... but almost always, it is NOT a stranger... it is someone known to the child - most likely a male relative.

Yes, children to get approached by men in cars - but, overwhelmingly, kids know not to get in.

Finally, high school aged girls often report stalking - usually turns out to be them being paranoid AND occasionally they report being taken - this almost always turns out to be false report (eg they are late for curfew and dream up an excuse to avoid trouble)

Scotty

[OzzieTraveller]

G'day all
Several nights ago I was reported to Police for allegedly photographing children at a neighbourhood fun fair. I was threatened and violently abused by a member of the public and on the verge of being arrested by the constabulary

The fact that it was at night, the camera on a tripod, me and equipment right out on public display, and the photographs taken with the permission of the site manager made no difference

Three things come to me from this:-
1) Like others above, I have been photographing at public events for over 40 years, safely and with permission, BUT
2) The media have blown up the issue that some parents have become so paranoaic it is no longer funny, SO
3) I will be applying for a police-check-clearance and having it with me in future.

I do not want to go thru this again. It has deeply shaken me and I feel devastated

By the way, a selection of the fun-fair images are on my Flickr site at " www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/ "
Regards, Phil

[kiwi]

Im very sorry to hear this Phil, a very similar thing has happened to me and it is very hurtful

[farmer_rob]

G'day all
Several nights ago I was reported to Police for allegedly photographing children at a neighbourhood fun fair. I was threatened and violently abused by a member of the public and on the verge of being arrested by the constabulary...

Very sorry to hear this. What were they planning to charge you with when they arrested you? Did you consider reporting the person who threatened and abused you? What you were doing is not illegal, but I believe what he was doing was.

[Analog6]

Scotty, I thought that was what Rick said, a relative is far more common in the role of abuser.

Just last weekend I heard a woman tell her child not to go in the men's public toilet because 'dirty old men' hid in there to grab little children! Give the kid a phobia for life (he was about 3, I think). He looked terrified.

[Scotty72]

G'day all
Several nights ago I was reported to Police for allegedly photographing children at a neighbourhood fun fair. I was threatened and violently abused by a member of the public and on the verge of being arrested by the constabulary

Regards, Phil

Firstly, so sorry to hear that. Hope you are ok.

I too would be very interested to know what charge the cop was dreaming up to arrest you for. Photography isn't illegal and you couldn't be accused of trespass.

Have you reported this police officer? Have you reported the assault on you?

Mate, if you feel like donating $$$ to the state treasury, go ahead.. but it wont make a scrap of difference. As a teacher, I undergo police checks and carry my NS### card as prrof of occupation. This has done nothing to calm people down.

People behave in the way they did to you because they are in an irrational, paranoid mood. Do you honestly think these same people will be made instantly rational by a pice of paper?

The cop who harassed you must have known that you were doing nothing wrong - he was just reacting to the mob (thinking the easiest way to keep the peace is to get rid of you - not address the ignorance of the mob - a lzy way to police - but common)- again, would a piece of paper suddenly make him 'challenge the mob mentality'?

In fact, IMHO, by getting a blue card, you are caving into - an worsening this mob mentality.

Scotty, I thought that was what Rick said, a relative is far more common in the role of abuser.

Just last weekend I heard a woman tell her child not to go in the men's public toilet because 'dirty old men' hid in there to grab little children! Give the kid a phobia for life (he was about 3, I think). He looked terrified.

Oh, I guess I mis-understood his words.

Most are known to their victim or they do the grab on a street, by luring a child into a car etc.

To me, it sounded like he meant that one or the other - as if they were about the same.

In fact, grabs of the street are so extremely rare (literally more like to be killed by a bee / eaten by a shark)... In well over 90% of cases, it is a male relative.

And, what a terrible mother to do that to her own child... scare the pants off him. Surely, her waiting outside the door (as I do with my little girl) is ok.

Scotty

[peterb666]

I agree totally with Scotty72 on this with one minor exception, while police are supposed to know the law, quite often perceptions and assumptions replace fact. If you feel that the police officer did the wrong thing, DO contact your local police station and report the issue.

A few years ago, when my wife was doing her driving licence test in my car, an off duty police officer using a mobile phone ran into the back of my car when my wife stopped at a give way sign. The police officer tried to make my wife concede it was her fault which lasted until the driving test instructer intervened.

As it was possible that there may be a future dispute, I completed a Police Traffic Incident Report of the accident. The very helpful desk officer asked if I wanted to lodge a complaint about the policeman driving the car which I declined as I didn't expect any further problem on that occassion.

From time to time, police will do things that are not right. It doesn't happen very often, but if there has been any issue, I would follow it up.

Unfortuatley, many adults act irrationally these days. I blame the media for this. I don't think it is something that is going to be resolved easily. Might I suggest that for those in NSW, if you feel pasionate enough about it, write a letter to your local MP and raise the issue of photography rights. Maybe even suggest a lower cost non-commercial scheme for amatuer phtographers. This $80/3yr scheme is meant for commerical photographers.

[Bill44]

Yes it is intended for commercial photographers (and volunteers if you read the application form). The price is no problem for me, I clear that much from 1 team shoot.

[Colinc1]

I work as a cleaner,a police clearance certificate is not strictly necessary,
but for many clients and prospective clients, a certificate seems to give
the clients peace of mind, and also increases my prospect of winning the
contract/s.

And it is also a tax deductible expense, so, no, i dont mind spending the $$ every year
for a new one.

[Scotty72]

Yes it is intended for commercial photographers (and volunteers if you read the application form). The price is no problem for me, I clear that much from 1 team shoot.

Unfortunately, the attitude of, "I'm alright thanks, Jack." isn't going to make things better.

Many volunteers may be grandmas and granddads on pensions who might really miss $80. Are we suggesting as a society that only people of means should be allowed to photograph their own kids?

There is also the priciple to consider of photographer doesn't imply terrorist ; nor should we need a blue card to 'prove' our 'innocence'.

Scotty

I remember fondly the times of yore... you know, when people were presumed innocent unless otherwise proved guiltly by twelve persons, good and true.

[Bill44]

Unfortunately, the attitude of, "I'm alright thanks, Jack." isn't going to make things better.

Many volunteers may be grandmas and granddads on pensions who might really miss $80. Are we suggesting as a society that only people of means should be allowed to photograph their own kids?

There is also the priciple to consider of photographer doesn't imply terrorist ; nor should we need a blue card to 'prove' our 'innocence'.

Scotty

I remember fondly the times of yore... you know, when people were presumed innocent unless otherwise proved guiltly by twelve persons, good and true.

Scotty I'm a little offended that you are inferring that I have an "I'm all right" attitude. If this were the case I wouldn't have bothered to post the information as a "Heads Up" for the general notice of those affected by the incoming regulations.

I agree that in an ideal world we shouldn't need such a certificate, but largely thanks to the media we have been forced into the situation. The certificate is merely a means to try and cover your asre. It was interesting to note the program on SBS last night about Werewolves, it actually highlighted paedophilia going back to the 1500's.

[abitfishy]

The way I interpret the requirements its not relevant for 99% of people......

Note: whose work meets our definition of child-related employment,

You are in child related-employment when:

you work in settings listed in the Commission’s legislation; and
your work primarily involves contact with children; and
your work involves direct contact with children; and
your contact is not directly supervised by a person having the capacity to direct you in the course of your employment – for example the person who has engaged you has the capacity to direct you, but other people around you do not.

The way I read primarily involves contact with children is if your area of specialisation was school groups, kids sports matches PRIMARILY. If you are a 'photographer' and sometimes take school groups, sports etc, its not required in my view. Specifically the last point about supervision, I would say in the majority of these cases you would have at least a club official/coach who would have the authority (for one of a better word) to supervise you.

I would say it is however relevant if you have a studio or what somewhere else where you may be ALONE with a child.

Thats not to say its a bad idea for peace of mind, not to mention a selling point if you can say you have a Working with Children police check certificate.

[Redgum]

The way I interpret the requirements its not relevant for 99% of people......

The way I read primarily involves contact with children is if your area of specialisation was school groups, kids sports matches PRIMARILY. If you are a 'photographer' and sometimes take school groups, sports etc, its not required in my view. Specifically the last point about supervision, I would say in the majority of these cases you would have at least a club official/coach who would have the authority (for one of a better word) to supervise you.

Thats not to say its a bad idea for peace of mind, not to mention a selling point if you can say you have a Working with Children police check certificate.

Unfortunately, that's not fact. Two things come to mind, having had a blue card since they came out in Queensland many years ago...
One, as a photographer many of the hundreds of schools I visit insist on seeing a blue card before entering the school grounds or having any idea of the purpose of my visit. They know I'm a photographer.
Two, a recent case of a school bus driver in Queensland that had a blue card but had molested 23 children over 30 years and finally convicted. Blue cards cannot provide security or peace of mind and parents should be vigilant (as they always have been) without paranoia. Collective attention and peer support are the best tools and government sponsored money making schemes provide little assistance.