Hong Kong lawmakers ask for closure of potential loophole that could let some professionals escape penalty for failure to report child abuse

Hong Kong lawmakers have urged the government to provide better definitions of five types of professions required to report suspected child abuse cases under proposed legislation, while some have also questioned why certain roles, such as private tutors, are excluded altogether.

Lawmakers scrutinising the Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse Bill on Saturday said they feared some people who worked with children, although given professional status, might not be fully covered by descriptions in the draft legislation.

The five affected jobs are audiologists, clinical psychologists, dietitians, educational psychologists and speech therapists.

Lawmakers said it could leave a loophole for some to escape prosecution for failure to report child abuse by changing their job titles to something else.

“To give an example, the bill mentions a person who claims to practise as a dietitian,” legislator Lai Tung-kwok said.

“I have looked online – in mainland China, these people are not called dietitians, they are called public dietitians and are separated into four levels.

“If someone calls themselves a public dietitian, because there is no registration system in Hong Kong and they can claim to be one, you would not be able to prosecute them.”

An audiologist is defined in the draft as a person who claims to practise as an audiologist, or publishes his or her name as one.

But other types of jobs, such as pharmacists, are defined by reference to government ordinances.

Lai raised his concerns with government officials at a Legislative Council bills committee meeting, saying the potential loophole was available to the four other categories with similar phrasing in the legislation.

The use of a Chinese phrase that means “a person who claims”, rather than a definition from the lawbooks for professionals such as pharmacists, was blamed for the potential prosecution problem.

The proposed law includes penalties of up to three months in jail and a HK$50,000 (US$6,390) fine for offenders in specific categories.

Medical sector lawmaker Dr David Lam Tzit-yuen agreed the titles of the five jobs could easily be changed, making prosecution difficult.

“We hope you can make the definition broad enough, as this can help the children,” Lam said to the officials.

“If your definition is so narrow and the person changes their title, you can still prosecute them, but you do not decide whether they are guilty, the judge does it.

“If you have the option to adjust the bill today, is it better than arguing your case in-front of the judge?”

Health Bureau officials said the five roles were not regulated using government ordinances but managed through associations or voluntary registration.

Principal Assistant Secretary for Health Derek Lee Tung-yan said the government had already consulted various sectors when the draft was released and that authorities understood there were different opinions on interpretation.

Undersecretary for Labour and Welfare Ho Kai-ming said authorities had listened to the concerns and promised officials would look at whether amendments to the draft were required.

“We will find these five types of professionals, but how can we describe them clearly so we can protect children? We need to go back to consider this,” he added.

Lawmakers also questioned the list of professionals covered by the draft.

Judy Chan Kapui asked why private tutorial services were not included.

“A lot of the professionals we are talking about, say pharmacists or doctors, the time they are with children must be shorter than the time it takes for a tutorial session,” she said. “Why are we regulating some, but not others?”

Education officials at the meeting said the list was designed to target people who had frequent contact with children and members of professions that were regulated to some extent.

They said tutorial centres were a non-necessary service, unlike regular schools, so the coverage of teachers in the draft would provide a sufficient “safety net”.

The government has to provide a response on whether it would make amendments to the bill by June 7.

Lawmakers will have time to decide whether another meeting of the bills committee is needed before the proposed legislation is put to a Legco vote.