Integrity Code consultation

Closes 1 Nov 2024

Minimum standard 3 – Proactive safeguarding measures

Minimum standard 3 requires an organisation to put in place measures to safeguard children, young people, and vulnerable adults.

The purpose of this minimum standard is to help prevent some of the risks to children, young people, and vulnerable adults.

To comply, the organisation must have and implement policies to:

  • require safety checks for “specified persons”, including a background check and setting criteria for when a person is disqualified from working with children, young people and vulnerable adults
  • ensure specified persons complete relevant training
  • specify safe practices in relation to: coaching, training and instructing, one-on-one interactions, taking, sharing or storing images, transport and travel, overnight stays and accommodation and changing rooms.

We have developed a draft model policy for minimum standard 3. This is available here: haveyoursay.sportintegrity.nz/resources/

Definitions

  • children and young people means people who are under the age of 18 years
  • vulnerable adult means a person who is unable, by reason of age, disability, health status, impairment, or any other cause (for example, detention), to withdraw themselves from the care or charge of another person.

The definition of specified persons

Specified persons are defined similarly to “children’s workers” under the Children’s Act 2014. That is, it covers those people who have regular or overnight contact with children, young people or vulnerable adults that takes place without a parent, guardian, or another adult present.

We are interested in your feedback on the definition of specified persons and whether it is fit for purpose. This includes whether the definition is too narrow (eg, it doesn’t capture enough of the people who have contact with children, young people or vulnerable adults) or is too broad (eg, it captures a large number or range of people unnecessarily).

We are trying to strike a balance between ensuring that the definition captures people who are most likely to be in situations where harm can occur, and making sure it is not impractical or overly difficult for clubs and organisations to implement.

Safety checks for specified persons

A safety check is a process for assessing whether a person is suitable to work with children, young people, and vulnerable adults. Its purpose is to reduce the risk of harm.

Completing a safety check can sometimes be time consuming, but it helps flag any immediate or serious risks. Clause 11 gives the example of a Police vet or a Ministry of Justice criminal records check. However, there is flexibility to allow for another type of check if that is more appropriate for the organisation.

Clause 11 requires the organisation to set criteria in its policy for when a person will be disqualified from working with children. It does not say categorically when a person must not be allowed to work with children, young people, or vulnerable adults. This is because a previous conviction might have nothing to do with a person’s suitability to work with vulnerable people, or be so far in the past as to no longer indicate a particular risk. Equally, a lack of a conviction does not necessarily mean that a person is safe – hence the requirements for robust safety practices that apply to everyone in the organisation.

An organisation will still be required to exercise its own good judgement, but under the Integrity Code it can do so within a robust framework for assessing risk.

Training requirements for specified persons

Organisations will be required to have and implement policies requiring specified persons to complete safeguarding training:

  • prior to starting their role, or as soon as reasonably practicable after starting
  • and then at least annually after that. 

Clause 11 - Safeguarding children, young people and vulnerable adults

Your browser does not support inline PDF viewing. Please download the PDF.

19. Do you think that the definition of specified persons is fit for purpose?
20. Do you agree with the requirement for safety checks for specified persons?
21. Do you think the training requirements for specified persons are suitable?
22. Does the requirement to specify safe practices cover the situations you expect? Is there anything missing?
23. What support should we provide to help organisations meet the training requirements for specified persons?
24. Should minimum standard 3 require organisations to have a safeguarding officer?

More information

During development of the Integrity Code, we considered a variety of measures for safeguarding children, young people and vulnerable adults drawing on evidence and best practice. In addition to the requirements set out in minimum standard 3, we considered requiring organisations to have a:

  • safeguarding officer to lead and coordinate the actions an organisation takes to prevent harm to children, young people and vulnerable adults and to promote their overall wellbeing
  • child protection policy to identify and report suspected child abuse or harm.

On balance, we decided not to include these requirements. We received feedback on early drafts of the Integrity Code from organisations who were concerned about the ability to implement the requirement for a safeguarding officer, particularly in small or predominantly volunteer-run sports or activities.

We consider that having a child protection policy depends on, to some extent, having a safeguarding officer (eg, being the main contact person for people who suspect abuse or harm of a child).

25. Should minimum standard 3 require organisations to have a child protection policy?