This seems like a really stupid solution and I have no idea what the government's thinking.
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)
Australia
4996 readers
27 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:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
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
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.
and a teacher who was charged but never convicted of sexually abusing a foster child.
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
It's cool to assume guilt now.
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!
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.
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?
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!
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.
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.
Statistically, women are more likely to just straight up kill kids so there goes your harm mitigation theory.
"Statistically"
I would like to see those specific statistics.
Please tell me where I can see them.
Page 17 has the comparison table you're after.
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.
The original claims were not restricted to childcare, so i'm not playing move the goalposts.
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".
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.