this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2025

36 points (100.0% liked)

Australia

4370 readers

206 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
Politics, post it to Australian Politics
World News/Events, post it to World News
A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

lodion@aussie.zone

Fluid@aussie.zone

bestusername@aussie.zone

eatham@aussie.zone

Nath@aussie.zone

NSW to ban people from appealing if working with children check denied (www.abc.net.au)

submitted 2 weeks ago by naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/australia@aussie.zone

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

So the article only seems to raise these two cases, and it's not clear to me that either of these two people hurt any kids after appealing their check.

Is it just me or is this cooked? The right to appeal decisions seems fundamental to help reduce malfunctions or biases in a system. If the appeals process is too lax (doesn't seem like it?) then strength it sure but wtf is this move?

top 21 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] tangeli@piefed.social 20 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

and a teacher who was charged but never convicted of sexually abusing a foster child.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 2 weeks ago

Premier Chris Minns said he was "very distressed" at the reports.

But he's very distressed at the reports! Won't somebody please think of the children!

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

It's cool to assume guilt now.

[–] Tenderizer@aussie.zone 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This seems like a really stupid solution and I have no idea what the government's thinking.

[–] skribe@aussie.zone 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They're not thinking. They're in kneejerk mode, because of what happened in Victoria. Personally, I'd be surprised if the proposed legislation survived any examination by the courts.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I mean, they ran through a bunch of terror laws based on the explosive caravan hoax, and nobody's talking about repealing those despite that.

For the child care stuff, the only things that I've heard that make sense are exchanging information between states so someone can't just hop over the border to continue working with children (something proposed a decade ago after a previous royal commission), and having 2 pairs of eyes on the kids at any time. Everything else seems counterproductive.

As for improving the working with children checks themselves, I guess we need to wait and see how this guy managed to get one, if there were previous complaints, etc.

[–] johnwicksdog@aussie.zone 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I assume a working with children check wouldn't have a high standard of evidence and a candidate probably doesn't need a conviction to fail the test. E.g., it would be enough for a previous employer to say "Oh yeah we couldn't prove it but we had some serious complaints that he was fiddling kids". If that is the case, I really don't feel comfortable with this direction. If its more of a case where theres some established quantifiable criteria that would never reasonably pass appeal, then sure... but I don't get what this solves except to save resources.

It strikes me as opportunistic politics to appeal to the emotion of voters--which is just tacky when we are talking about something as serious as peoples careers and child safety.

[+] rowinofwin@aussie.zone -13 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I work in industry. I have met people who are also in industry and give me the massive creeps. I think the current process is about making sure the most obvious cases are screened out, so if you have a criminal record or workplace reportable incident. It is not about making sure kids are never harmed, it is about the low hanging fruit.

In my opinion it is not enough. There absolutely should be an appeal process, but also the process for the initial application should be more stringent.

I also think people such as myself, a mid 30s male, should not be considered safe by default. While I know I would never harm a child there is no real way to screen out someone who would without accidentally screening out me too.

Statistically women are the outlier offenders, around 5% or less for known sexual abuse. It could be that the number is a little more even or less even based on reporting gaps, but I think it is fairly clearly not close to even. For some reason men seem to be fairly vile towards those they are supposed to care for. We need to fix men by fixing our culture and in the interim, maybe we need to consider whether current men are fit for this industry.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

What in the gender essentialist fuck? You cannot bar all men from jobs involving kids. You need a working with children check to run an extracurricular class, what are you smoking?

[–] Pot8o@aussie.zone 3 points 1 week ago

Well, in general most crimes are committed by men so we should probably just throw them all in jail. That way they wont even need a WWC. No more crimes, no WWC needed - win,win!

[–] SaneMartigan@aussie.zone 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I needed a WWC for a council park worker job, probably in case there's kids at the playground while we're whipper snipping or whatevs.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sorry champ, can't have you raping the kids. Considered more male appropriate work like investment banking? Leave those jobs that involve contributing to society in community to us girls.

[–] SaneMartigan@aussie.zone 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

champ? NSFW - vioolence/language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViI8FUU9lHM

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago

See? outing your barely repressed antisocial violent urges.

[–] Catfish@aussie.zone 1 points 1 week ago

I also need one for a job where I have zero direct contact with children. It's annoying, a cost and data exposure I don't need, and achieves nothing.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Statistically, women are more likely to just straight up kill kids so there goes your harm mitigation theory.

[–] TimePencil@infosec.exchange -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

@Taleya

"Statistically"

I would like to see those specific statistics.

Please tell me where I can see them.

@rowinofwin

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Here ya go

Page 17 has the comparison table you're after.

[–] TimePencil@infosec.exchange 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

@Taleya

Thanks.

However, that report relates to 'filicide', and this thread is discussing 'working with children'.

Are you aware of any studies that show that women (who are NOT the mother of a child victim) "are more likely to just straight up kill kids".

The report you provided seems related to 'domestic violence', and unrelated to the 'child care' sector.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The original claims were not restricted to childcare, so i'm not playing move the goalposts.

[–] TimePencil@infosec.exchange -1 points 1 week ago

@Taleya

I've not moved the goal posts.

This thread relates to 'working with children' and policies regarding background checks of those who do.

One toot read, in part, "Statistically women are the outlier offenders, around 5% or less for known sexual abuse."

You replied, "Statistically, women are more likely to just straight up kill kids so there goes your harm mitigation theory."

I asked for more information regarding your "statistics" and you provided a report related to 'filicide' in the context of 'domestic violence'. This is outside the scope of any "working with children" checks.

You wrote, "The original claims were not restricted to childcare..."

I haven't moved the goal posts at all.

This isn't a game. I am genuinely interested if you know of any statistical evidence that women, in a capacity for which they require a "working with children" background check, "are more likely to just straight up kill kids".