Mandatory Reporting of Abuse: Legal Obligation and Ethical Dilemma

Running Head: MANDATORY REPORTING OF ABUSE 1
Mandatory Reporting of Abuse
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

MANDATORY REPORTING OF ABUSE 2
Introduction
Mandatory reporting of abuse is the legal obligation of reporting any case of
mistreatment against a person and mostly applies for children. The mandatory reporting of abuse
is because of the intrinsic right of life that is attached to all individuals (adults and children) in
Australia (Deverson, 2016). There are various laws that protect this reporting. However, the
issue has conflicting aspects of the law with ethics especially when the abused person wants his
or her privacy preserved.
The child protection legislation (1970) has been enacted by the Australian parliament to
protect children from child abuse as they are at a vulnerable state of being unable to report abuse.
The legislation requires that all cases of abuse or suspected cases of the same be reported to the
authorities. The certain people attached with that role are either families, doctors or police
officers. According to the Northern Territory amendment of the child protection legislation in
2009, all persons are mandated to report any case or suspected case of abuse and failure to do so
is an offence (Northern Territory Government, 2018).
Section 27 of the Care and Protection of Children Act 2007 (NT) (‘CAPCA’) provides for
any person acting in good faith in making a report under the previous section 26 (that states that
the section takes effect regardless of any other provision of the act or another law of territory) is
not in any beach of a professional code of conduct (Northern Territory Government, 2018).
There are arguments against the mandatory reporting laws that are reasonably concerned
about the increase in the number of unsubstantiated reports plus the effects of the reports on the
complicating the case with too much work.
The other conflicting argument is attached to the obligation of lawyers and medical
providers in breaking their confidentiality requirements with their clients. There is a missing gap
in the correct interpretation of the section 26 of the CAPCA. This is however not the case in the
Northern Territory whereby the Law Society of the territory provides The Guidelines of legal
Practitioners (2009) that do away with the confidentiality duty of the lawyers that gives the
client legal privilege and therefore allowing the lawyer to report an case of abuse against their
client’s will. However, in other territories lawyers are not obliged to disclose any case of
suspicious abuse or neglect, unless the client allows it. The professional ethos mandates lawyers
to keep the information by the client purely confidential and reporting without consent of the
client is a violation of the professional conducts rules