this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2025
33 points (100.0% liked)

Australia

4337 readers
270 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

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:

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
 

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 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] johnwicksdog@aussie.zone 5 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours 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.

[–] tangeli@piefed.social 19 points 1 day 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?

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 8 points 1 day ago

It's cool to assume guilt now.

[–] Tenderizer@aussie.zone 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] skribe@aussie.zone 13 points 1 day ago

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.