'We don't need that': US rapper Kanye West barred from visiting Australia
On July 2, Mr Burke said West had a history of offensive comments, and his staff re-examined the record producer's visa after he released a song in May 2025 titled Heil Hitler.
"Officials still looked at the law and said you're going to have a song and promote that sort of Nazism, we don't need that in Australia," Mr Burke said.
He said the visa wasn't for the purpose of concerts, and any future concert visa would be assessed.
"Every visa application gets reassessed by my officials each time so I'm not taking away the way the act operates," he said.
"Some people say 'oh, don't you believe in freedom of speech', and for Australian citizens, yeah, you've got full freedom of speech, but we have enough problems in this country already without deliberately importing bigotry."
It comes as West and his Australian wife, Bianca Censori, faced speculation they had separated two years after they were married.
The rapper married the Melbourne-born architect in a private ceremony in December 2022.
The Department of Home Affairs was contacted for comment.
Controversial US rapper Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, has been barred from visiting Australia, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke let slip in an interview with the ABC.
On July 2, Mr Burke said West had a history of offensive comments, and his staff re-examined the record producer's visa after he released a song in May 2025 titled Heil Hitler.
"Officials still looked at the law and said you're going to have a song and promote that sort of Nazism, we don't need that in Australia," Mr Burke said.
He said the visa wasn't for the purpose of concerts, and any future concert visa would be assessed.
"Every visa application gets reassessed by my officials each time so I'm not taking away the way the act operates," he said.
"Some people say 'oh, don't you believe in freedom of speech', and for Australian citizens, yeah, you've got full freedom of speech, but we have enough problems in this country already without deliberately importing bigotry."
It comes as West and his Australian wife, Bianca Censori, faced speculation they had separated two years after they were married.
The rapper married the Melbourne-born architect in a private ceremony in December 2022.
The Department of Home Affairs was contacted for comment.
Controversial US rapper Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, has been barred from visiting Australia, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke let slip in an interview with the ABC.
On July 2, Mr Burke said West had a history of offensive comments, and his staff re-examined the record producer's visa after he released a song in May 2025 titled Heil Hitler.
"Officials still looked at the law and said you're going to have a song and promote that sort of Nazism, we don't need that in Australia," Mr Burke said.
He said the visa wasn't for the purpose of concerts, and any future concert visa would be assessed.
"Every visa application gets reassessed by my officials each time so I'm not taking away the way the act operates," he said.
"Some people say 'oh, don't you believe in freedom of speech', and for Australian citizens, yeah, you've got full freedom of speech, but we have enough problems in this country already without deliberately importing bigotry."
It comes as West and his Australian wife, Bianca Censori, faced speculation they had separated two years after they were married.
The rapper married the Melbourne-born architect in a private ceremony in December 2022.
The Department of Home Affairs was contacted for comment.
Controversial US rapper Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, has been barred from visiting Australia, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke let slip in an interview with the ABC.
On July 2, Mr Burke said West had a history of offensive comments, and his staff re-examined the record producer's visa after he released a song in May 2025 titled Heil Hitler.
"Officials still looked at the law and said you're going to have a song and promote that sort of Nazism, we don't need that in Australia," Mr Burke said.
He said the visa wasn't for the purpose of concerts, and any future concert visa would be assessed.
"Every visa application gets reassessed by my officials each time so I'm not taking away the way the act operates," he said.
"Some people say 'oh, don't you believe in freedom of speech', and for Australian citizens, yeah, you've got full freedom of speech, but we have enough problems in this country already without deliberately importing bigotry."
It comes as West and his Australian wife, Bianca Censori, faced speculation they had separated two years after they were married.
The rapper married the Melbourne-born architect in a private ceremony in December 2022.
The Department of Home Affairs was contacted for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
43 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Tax reform isn't hard. Slug multinationals and subsidise the things we want more of
Taxes are the price we pay for civilisation, but they are also a tool we can use to change the shape of our economy, not just its size. As the Treasurer embarks upon a national tax reform debate, it's important that the Australian public thinks about what we actually want to tax and how much. Who is paying too little tax? Are we taxing the right things? These are all democratic questions as much as economic ones. Taxes are just one of the ways that governments raise the revenue needed to provide the hospitals, schools, roads, aged care and social safety nets Australians rely on. The more tax a government collects, the bigger the public sector it can sustain. But who we choose to tax and how much has profound implications for fairness and equity. The fact is, Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. Australia raises very little tax revenue compared to similar countries. If Australia were to collect the same amount of revenue from taxation as the OECD average, the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. Think what an additional $140 billion a year could deliver for your local emergency room, primary school, aged care facility or national park. Economists will tell you that we should tax the things we want less of and subsidise the things we want more of. In Norway, they tax the bejesus out of the gas industry and subsidise young people to attend university for free. In Australia, we subsidise the gas industry and charge our kids a fortune to get a university degree. We are one of the richest countries on Earth, yet our unemployment benefits are so low that those without a job are forced to skip meals and visits to the doctor and dentist. In fact, they are so low that they make it harder for those looking for work to find it because they don't have money to do basic things like travelling to interviews or buying professional clothing to present well at an interview. Australia spends less on the aged pension than most OECD nations, but we spend a hell of a lot giving superannuation tax concessions that mainly benefit the very wealthiest Australians. It makes no sense, but it's actually straightforward to fix. The decision to tax (or not) grog, cigarettes, wealth, gas exports, or greenhouse gas emissions has an enormous impact on public health, the gap between rich and poor and just how much extreme heat and weather we'll experience due to climate change. As many Australians have been struggling with the rise in the cost of living in recent years, the Labor government redesigned the stage three income tax cuts to make them fairer, ensuring that low- and middle-income earners received $84 billion more in benefits over the next decade than Scott Morrison would have delivered. While Morrison prioritised the highest income earners in the country, Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers had different priorities. We all pay GST, but private health insurance and private schools fees are exempt - is that fair? Private schools often include activities like swimming and music lessons as part of the curriculum, meaning they are included in the GST-free school fees. But parents who send their kids to public schools and pay extra for private swimming or music lessons, pay GST on them. Scott Morrison negotiated a GST top-up deal with WA - a resource-rich state - but smaller and poorer states like Tasmania miss out on additional revenue they need. But is the GST the best way the Commonwealth can support the states to provide schools and hospitals? Could we be charging multinational gas companies more to export our gas overseas? Should we bring back an inheritance tax? Do we want to maintain an income tax system where almost 100 millionaires paid no income tax? How we choose to answer these questions could make Australia fairer, or it could entrench inequality for generations to come. Helpfully, the Australia Institute developed five key principles to help evaluate what a good tax looks like. Using these principles, measures like a super profits or windfall taxes make a lot of sense. As does a carbon tax and reducing tax concessions for property investors. The tax debate is always awash with the voices of the self-interested. The Business Council of Australia will only ever push for lower taxes on companies. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: While also regularly calling on the government to reduce the budget deficit. Budget restraint is important except when it comes to the tax they should pay. Australia currently collects more money from students paying HECS than it does from gas companies paying the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax and the gas export industry would like to keep it that way, after all in some cases Australia is giving its gas away to them for free. Post-World War II, when the economy grew, everyone benefited, with the bottom 90 per cent of Australians sharing around 90 per cent of the benefits of growth. But in the decade after the GFC, up to the pandemic, that trend radically reversed, and the top 10 per cent pocketed 93 per cent of the benefits. That makes it clear that Australians can't afford to leave the economists from the banks and the powerful business lobby groups to lead the tax reform debate. If Australians want an economy that delivers for a majority of its people, we must make it clear to our leaders we expect fairness to be at the heart of any reforms. Taxes are the price we pay for civilisation, but they are also a tool we can use to change the shape of our economy, not just its size. As the Treasurer embarks upon a national tax reform debate, it's important that the Australian public thinks about what we actually want to tax and how much. Who is paying too little tax? Are we taxing the right things? These are all democratic questions as much as economic ones. Taxes are just one of the ways that governments raise the revenue needed to provide the hospitals, schools, roads, aged care and social safety nets Australians rely on. The more tax a government collects, the bigger the public sector it can sustain. But who we choose to tax and how much has profound implications for fairness and equity. The fact is, Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. Australia raises very little tax revenue compared to similar countries. If Australia were to collect the same amount of revenue from taxation as the OECD average, the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. Think what an additional $140 billion a year could deliver for your local emergency room, primary school, aged care facility or national park. Economists will tell you that we should tax the things we want less of and subsidise the things we want more of. In Norway, they tax the bejesus out of the gas industry and subsidise young people to attend university for free. In Australia, we subsidise the gas industry and charge our kids a fortune to get a university degree. We are one of the richest countries on Earth, yet our unemployment benefits are so low that those without a job are forced to skip meals and visits to the doctor and dentist. In fact, they are so low that they make it harder for those looking for work to find it because they don't have money to do basic things like travelling to interviews or buying professional clothing to present well at an interview. Australia spends less on the aged pension than most OECD nations, but we spend a hell of a lot giving superannuation tax concessions that mainly benefit the very wealthiest Australians. It makes no sense, but it's actually straightforward to fix. The decision to tax (or not) grog, cigarettes, wealth, gas exports, or greenhouse gas emissions has an enormous impact on public health, the gap between rich and poor and just how much extreme heat and weather we'll experience due to climate change. As many Australians have been struggling with the rise in the cost of living in recent years, the Labor government redesigned the stage three income tax cuts to make them fairer, ensuring that low- and middle-income earners received $84 billion more in benefits over the next decade than Scott Morrison would have delivered. While Morrison prioritised the highest income earners in the country, Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers had different priorities. We all pay GST, but private health insurance and private schools fees are exempt - is that fair? Private schools often include activities like swimming and music lessons as part of the curriculum, meaning they are included in the GST-free school fees. But parents who send their kids to public schools and pay extra for private swimming or music lessons, pay GST on them. Scott Morrison negotiated a GST top-up deal with WA - a resource-rich state - but smaller and poorer states like Tasmania miss out on additional revenue they need. But is the GST the best way the Commonwealth can support the states to provide schools and hospitals? Could we be charging multinational gas companies more to export our gas overseas? Should we bring back an inheritance tax? Do we want to maintain an income tax system where almost 100 millionaires paid no income tax? How we choose to answer these questions could make Australia fairer, or it could entrench inequality for generations to come. Helpfully, the Australia Institute developed five key principles to help evaluate what a good tax looks like. Using these principles, measures like a super profits or windfall taxes make a lot of sense. As does a carbon tax and reducing tax concessions for property investors. The tax debate is always awash with the voices of the self-interested. The Business Council of Australia will only ever push for lower taxes on companies. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: While also regularly calling on the government to reduce the budget deficit. Budget restraint is important except when it comes to the tax they should pay. Australia currently collects more money from students paying HECS than it does from gas companies paying the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax and the gas export industry would like to keep it that way, after all in some cases Australia is giving its gas away to them for free. Post-World War II, when the economy grew, everyone benefited, with the bottom 90 per cent of Australians sharing around 90 per cent of the benefits of growth. But in the decade after the GFC, up to the pandemic, that trend radically reversed, and the top 10 per cent pocketed 93 per cent of the benefits. That makes it clear that Australians can't afford to leave the economists from the banks and the powerful business lobby groups to lead the tax reform debate. If Australians want an economy that delivers for a majority of its people, we must make it clear to our leaders we expect fairness to be at the heart of any reforms. Taxes are the price we pay for civilisation, but they are also a tool we can use to change the shape of our economy, not just its size. As the Treasurer embarks upon a national tax reform debate, it's important that the Australian public thinks about what we actually want to tax and how much. Who is paying too little tax? Are we taxing the right things? These are all democratic questions as much as economic ones. Taxes are just one of the ways that governments raise the revenue needed to provide the hospitals, schools, roads, aged care and social safety nets Australians rely on. The more tax a government collects, the bigger the public sector it can sustain. But who we choose to tax and how much has profound implications for fairness and equity. The fact is, Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. Australia raises very little tax revenue compared to similar countries. If Australia were to collect the same amount of revenue from taxation as the OECD average, the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. Think what an additional $140 billion a year could deliver for your local emergency room, primary school, aged care facility or national park. Economists will tell you that we should tax the things we want less of and subsidise the things we want more of. In Norway, they tax the bejesus out of the gas industry and subsidise young people to attend university for free. In Australia, we subsidise the gas industry and charge our kids a fortune to get a university degree. We are one of the richest countries on Earth, yet our unemployment benefits are so low that those without a job are forced to skip meals and visits to the doctor and dentist. In fact, they are so low that they make it harder for those looking for work to find it because they don't have money to do basic things like travelling to interviews or buying professional clothing to present well at an interview. Australia spends less on the aged pension than most OECD nations, but we spend a hell of a lot giving superannuation tax concessions that mainly benefit the very wealthiest Australians. It makes no sense, but it's actually straightforward to fix. The decision to tax (or not) grog, cigarettes, wealth, gas exports, or greenhouse gas emissions has an enormous impact on public health, the gap between rich and poor and just how much extreme heat and weather we'll experience due to climate change. As many Australians have been struggling with the rise in the cost of living in recent years, the Labor government redesigned the stage three income tax cuts to make them fairer, ensuring that low- and middle-income earners received $84 billion more in benefits over the next decade than Scott Morrison would have delivered. While Morrison prioritised the highest income earners in the country, Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers had different priorities. We all pay GST, but private health insurance and private schools fees are exempt - is that fair? Private schools often include activities like swimming and music lessons as part of the curriculum, meaning they are included in the GST-free school fees. But parents who send their kids to public schools and pay extra for private swimming or music lessons, pay GST on them. Scott Morrison negotiated a GST top-up deal with WA - a resource-rich state - but smaller and poorer states like Tasmania miss out on additional revenue they need. But is the GST the best way the Commonwealth can support the states to provide schools and hospitals? Could we be charging multinational gas companies more to export our gas overseas? Should we bring back an inheritance tax? Do we want to maintain an income tax system where almost 100 millionaires paid no income tax? How we choose to answer these questions could make Australia fairer, or it could entrench inequality for generations to come. Helpfully, the Australia Institute developed five key principles to help evaluate what a good tax looks like. Using these principles, measures like a super profits or windfall taxes make a lot of sense. As does a carbon tax and reducing tax concessions for property investors. The tax debate is always awash with the voices of the self-interested. The Business Council of Australia will only ever push for lower taxes on companies. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: While also regularly calling on the government to reduce the budget deficit. Budget restraint is important except when it comes to the tax they should pay. Australia currently collects more money from students paying HECS than it does from gas companies paying the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax and the gas export industry would like to keep it that way, after all in some cases Australia is giving its gas away to them for free. Post-World War II, when the economy grew, everyone benefited, with the bottom 90 per cent of Australians sharing around 90 per cent of the benefits of growth. But in the decade after the GFC, up to the pandemic, that trend radically reversed, and the top 10 per cent pocketed 93 per cent of the benefits. That makes it clear that Australians can't afford to leave the economists from the banks and the powerful business lobby groups to lead the tax reform debate. If Australians want an economy that delivers for a majority of its people, we must make it clear to our leaders we expect fairness to be at the heart of any reforms. Taxes are the price we pay for civilisation, but they are also a tool we can use to change the shape of our economy, not just its size. As the Treasurer embarks upon a national tax reform debate, it's important that the Australian public thinks about what we actually want to tax and how much. Who is paying too little tax? Are we taxing the right things? These are all democratic questions as much as economic ones. Taxes are just one of the ways that governments raise the revenue needed to provide the hospitals, schools, roads, aged care and social safety nets Australians rely on. The more tax a government collects, the bigger the public sector it can sustain. But who we choose to tax and how much has profound implications for fairness and equity. The fact is, Australia is one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world. Australia raises very little tax revenue compared to similar countries. If Australia were to collect the same amount of revenue from taxation as the OECD average, the Commonwealth would have had an extra $140 billion in revenue in 2023-24. Think what an additional $140 billion a year could deliver for your local emergency room, primary school, aged care facility or national park. Economists will tell you that we should tax the things we want less of and subsidise the things we want more of. In Norway, they tax the bejesus out of the gas industry and subsidise young people to attend university for free. In Australia, we subsidise the gas industry and charge our kids a fortune to get a university degree. We are one of the richest countries on Earth, yet our unemployment benefits are so low that those without a job are forced to skip meals and visits to the doctor and dentist. In fact, they are so low that they make it harder for those looking for work to find it because they don't have money to do basic things like travelling to interviews or buying professional clothing to present well at an interview. Australia spends less on the aged pension than most OECD nations, but we spend a hell of a lot giving superannuation tax concessions that mainly benefit the very wealthiest Australians. It makes no sense, but it's actually straightforward to fix. The decision to tax (or not) grog, cigarettes, wealth, gas exports, or greenhouse gas emissions has an enormous impact on public health, the gap between rich and poor and just how much extreme heat and weather we'll experience due to climate change. As many Australians have been struggling with the rise in the cost of living in recent years, the Labor government redesigned the stage three income tax cuts to make them fairer, ensuring that low- and middle-income earners received $84 billion more in benefits over the next decade than Scott Morrison would have delivered. While Morrison prioritised the highest income earners in the country, Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers had different priorities. We all pay GST, but private health insurance and private schools fees are exempt - is that fair? Private schools often include activities like swimming and music lessons as part of the curriculum, meaning they are included in the GST-free school fees. But parents who send their kids to public schools and pay extra for private swimming or music lessons, pay GST on them. Scott Morrison negotiated a GST top-up deal with WA - a resource-rich state - but smaller and poorer states like Tasmania miss out on additional revenue they need. But is the GST the best way the Commonwealth can support the states to provide schools and hospitals? Could we be charging multinational gas companies more to export our gas overseas? Should we bring back an inheritance tax? Do we want to maintain an income tax system where almost 100 millionaires paid no income tax? How we choose to answer these questions could make Australia fairer, or it could entrench inequality for generations to come. Helpfully, the Australia Institute developed five key principles to help evaluate what a good tax looks like. Using these principles, measures like a super profits or windfall taxes make a lot of sense. As does a carbon tax and reducing tax concessions for property investors. The tax debate is always awash with the voices of the self-interested. The Business Council of Australia will only ever push for lower taxes on companies. READ MORE EBONY BENNETT: While also regularly calling on the government to reduce the budget deficit. Budget restraint is important except when it comes to the tax they should pay. Australia currently collects more money from students paying HECS than it does from gas companies paying the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax and the gas export industry would like to keep it that way, after all in some cases Australia is giving its gas away to them for free. Post-World War II, when the economy grew, everyone benefited, with the bottom 90 per cent of Australians sharing around 90 per cent of the benefits of growth. But in the decade after the GFC, up to the pandemic, that trend radically reversed, and the top 10 per cent pocketed 93 per cent of the benefits. That makes it clear that Australians can't afford to leave the economists from the banks and the powerful business lobby groups to lead the tax reform debate. If Australians want an economy that delivers for a majority of its people, we must make it clear to our leaders we expect fairness to be at the heart of any reforms.
The Advertiser
43 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
It is shameful governments waited so long to roll out childcare safety measures
Australians have rightly been outraged and dismayed this week following shocking revelations about babies and toddlers allegedly being sexually abused in childcare centres in Melbourne. In response, we have heard ministers in the Australian and Victorian governments commit to implementing some long-delayed measures that had been recommended by various royal commissions and inquiries of the past. While this is a positive outcome, there is much more to do to build safer childcare in this country. Those royal commissions and inquiries have told us what is needed to keep children safe. Many of us are now asking why it has taken so long for governments across the federation to act on serious child safeguarding gaps? The risks to child safety have been known for decades, and the evidence-based recommendations have been sitting on a shelf. Over the last few years, we have been collectively horrified by the notorious case of Ashley Griffith who abused children in childcare centres in Queensland and NSW. And now we have these terrible allegations coming out of Melbourne. How did we end up in this place where governments knew what to do to help fix the problems and keep our children safe, but did not act? To answer these questions, it is necessary to understand that the federation structure splits responsibilities across different levels of government, and that there is no one accountable for child safety and wellbeing in the Australian government. In contrast, we have had ministers for women for decades, and "women and women's safety" is listed as a key priority for national cabinet, which is where the prime minister and state and territory leaders work together on "issues of national significance". The complete absence of visibility and accountability for child safety and wellbeing at the national level has allowed the risks to remain unaddressed and the solutions not implemented. This is despite endless media exposés and tragic stories of abuse of children. We cannot allow the federation to be an excuse for not acting urgently on the safety and wellbeing of our children. The latest scandal is taking place in childcare centres, but this is not just an issue for the early childhood education and care sector. The failure to prioritise child safety and wellbeing and implement child safeguarding measures affects all children everywhere: in schools, after-school care, out-of-home care, youth detention, sporting clubs and holiday programs. Anywhere you find children, there will be child safety risks that must be addressed. Former royal commissioner Robert Fitzgerald said this week that it was "shameful" that we have failed to implement the detailed recommendations to strengthen child safety from a decade ago. He is correct, and now we need to face up to why this has been allowed to happen. It is shameful that the advice of experts continues to be ignored and the risks to the safety and wellbeing of our children are neglected. We don't need more royal commissions and inquiries. We know what to do. Core recommendations in our Help Way Earlier! report tabled in Parliament last year were about governments across our federation working together on reform and making child wellbeing a national priority, at national cabinet. READ MORE: Right now, there is an absence of national leadership and co-ordination. Child wellbeing is not a priority for national cabinet, and there is no cabinet minister for children. These gaps have allowed a lack of accountability to persist, leading to critical reforms not being implemented. For our youngest children, we need a childcare industry with stronger regulation, independent monitoring and oversight, and comprehensive enforceable child safeguarding measures. Everyone involved needs to make child safety their number one priority, from the boardroom to the sandpit. This week has shown that the public wants more than just cheaper childcare. We demand safer childcare. And importantly, our children, our youngest citizens, must not be sidelined and kept waiting for critical reforms that we know will help to keep them safe. The new term of Parliament is the opportunity to demonstrate to the Australian public that child safety and wellbeing will be a national priority from now on. Australians have rightly been outraged and dismayed this week following shocking revelations about babies and toddlers allegedly being sexually abused in childcare centres in Melbourne. In response, we have heard ministers in the Australian and Victorian governments commit to implementing some long-delayed measures that had been recommended by various royal commissions and inquiries of the past. While this is a positive outcome, there is much more to do to build safer childcare in this country. Those royal commissions and inquiries have told us what is needed to keep children safe. Many of us are now asking why it has taken so long for governments across the federation to act on serious child safeguarding gaps? The risks to child safety have been known for decades, and the evidence-based recommendations have been sitting on a shelf. Over the last few years, we have been collectively horrified by the notorious case of Ashley Griffith who abused children in childcare centres in Queensland and NSW. And now we have these terrible allegations coming out of Melbourne. How did we end up in this place where governments knew what to do to help fix the problems and keep our children safe, but did not act? To answer these questions, it is necessary to understand that the federation structure splits responsibilities across different levels of government, and that there is no one accountable for child safety and wellbeing in the Australian government. In contrast, we have had ministers for women for decades, and "women and women's safety" is listed as a key priority for national cabinet, which is where the prime minister and state and territory leaders work together on "issues of national significance". The complete absence of visibility and accountability for child safety and wellbeing at the national level has allowed the risks to remain unaddressed and the solutions not implemented. This is despite endless media exposés and tragic stories of abuse of children. We cannot allow the federation to be an excuse for not acting urgently on the safety and wellbeing of our children. The latest scandal is taking place in childcare centres, but this is not just an issue for the early childhood education and care sector. The failure to prioritise child safety and wellbeing and implement child safeguarding measures affects all children everywhere: in schools, after-school care, out-of-home care, youth detention, sporting clubs and holiday programs. Anywhere you find children, there will be child safety risks that must be addressed. Former royal commissioner Robert Fitzgerald said this week that it was "shameful" that we have failed to implement the detailed recommendations to strengthen child safety from a decade ago. He is correct, and now we need to face up to why this has been allowed to happen. It is shameful that the advice of experts continues to be ignored and the risks to the safety and wellbeing of our children are neglected. We don't need more royal commissions and inquiries. We know what to do. Core recommendations in our Help Way Earlier! report tabled in Parliament last year were about governments across our federation working together on reform and making child wellbeing a national priority, at national cabinet. READ MORE: Right now, there is an absence of national leadership and co-ordination. Child wellbeing is not a priority for national cabinet, and there is no cabinet minister for children. These gaps have allowed a lack of accountability to persist, leading to critical reforms not being implemented. For our youngest children, we need a childcare industry with stronger regulation, independent monitoring and oversight, and comprehensive enforceable child safeguarding measures. Everyone involved needs to make child safety their number one priority, from the boardroom to the sandpit. This week has shown that the public wants more than just cheaper childcare. We demand safer childcare. And importantly, our children, our youngest citizens, must not be sidelined and kept waiting for critical reforms that we know will help to keep them safe. The new term of Parliament is the opportunity to demonstrate to the Australian public that child safety and wellbeing will be a national priority from now on. Australians have rightly been outraged and dismayed this week following shocking revelations about babies and toddlers allegedly being sexually abused in childcare centres in Melbourne. In response, we have heard ministers in the Australian and Victorian governments commit to implementing some long-delayed measures that had been recommended by various royal commissions and inquiries of the past. While this is a positive outcome, there is much more to do to build safer childcare in this country. Those royal commissions and inquiries have told us what is needed to keep children safe. Many of us are now asking why it has taken so long for governments across the federation to act on serious child safeguarding gaps? The risks to child safety have been known for decades, and the evidence-based recommendations have been sitting on a shelf. Over the last few years, we have been collectively horrified by the notorious case of Ashley Griffith who abused children in childcare centres in Queensland and NSW. And now we have these terrible allegations coming out of Melbourne. How did we end up in this place where governments knew what to do to help fix the problems and keep our children safe, but did not act? To answer these questions, it is necessary to understand that the federation structure splits responsibilities across different levels of government, and that there is no one accountable for child safety and wellbeing in the Australian government. In contrast, we have had ministers for women for decades, and "women and women's safety" is listed as a key priority for national cabinet, which is where the prime minister and state and territory leaders work together on "issues of national significance". The complete absence of visibility and accountability for child safety and wellbeing at the national level has allowed the risks to remain unaddressed and the solutions not implemented. This is despite endless media exposés and tragic stories of abuse of children. We cannot allow the federation to be an excuse for not acting urgently on the safety and wellbeing of our children. The latest scandal is taking place in childcare centres, but this is not just an issue for the early childhood education and care sector. The failure to prioritise child safety and wellbeing and implement child safeguarding measures affects all children everywhere: in schools, after-school care, out-of-home care, youth detention, sporting clubs and holiday programs. Anywhere you find children, there will be child safety risks that must be addressed. Former royal commissioner Robert Fitzgerald said this week that it was "shameful" that we have failed to implement the detailed recommendations to strengthen child safety from a decade ago. He is correct, and now we need to face up to why this has been allowed to happen. It is shameful that the advice of experts continues to be ignored and the risks to the safety and wellbeing of our children are neglected. We don't need more royal commissions and inquiries. We know what to do. Core recommendations in our Help Way Earlier! report tabled in Parliament last year were about governments across our federation working together on reform and making child wellbeing a national priority, at national cabinet. READ MORE: Right now, there is an absence of national leadership and co-ordination. Child wellbeing is not a priority for national cabinet, and there is no cabinet minister for children. These gaps have allowed a lack of accountability to persist, leading to critical reforms not being implemented. For our youngest children, we need a childcare industry with stronger regulation, independent monitoring and oversight, and comprehensive enforceable child safeguarding measures. Everyone involved needs to make child safety their number one priority, from the boardroom to the sandpit. This week has shown that the public wants more than just cheaper childcare. We demand safer childcare. And importantly, our children, our youngest citizens, must not be sidelined and kept waiting for critical reforms that we know will help to keep them safe. The new term of Parliament is the opportunity to demonstrate to the Australian public that child safety and wellbeing will be a national priority from now on. Australians have rightly been outraged and dismayed this week following shocking revelations about babies and toddlers allegedly being sexually abused in childcare centres in Melbourne. In response, we have heard ministers in the Australian and Victorian governments commit to implementing some long-delayed measures that had been recommended by various royal commissions and inquiries of the past. While this is a positive outcome, there is much more to do to build safer childcare in this country. Those royal commissions and inquiries have told us what is needed to keep children safe. Many of us are now asking why it has taken so long for governments across the federation to act on serious child safeguarding gaps? The risks to child safety have been known for decades, and the evidence-based recommendations have been sitting on a shelf. Over the last few years, we have been collectively horrified by the notorious case of Ashley Griffith who abused children in childcare centres in Queensland and NSW. And now we have these terrible allegations coming out of Melbourne. How did we end up in this place where governments knew what to do to help fix the problems and keep our children safe, but did not act? To answer these questions, it is necessary to understand that the federation structure splits responsibilities across different levels of government, and that there is no one accountable for child safety and wellbeing in the Australian government. In contrast, we have had ministers for women for decades, and "women and women's safety" is listed as a key priority for national cabinet, which is where the prime minister and state and territory leaders work together on "issues of national significance". The complete absence of visibility and accountability for child safety and wellbeing at the national level has allowed the risks to remain unaddressed and the solutions not implemented. This is despite endless media exposés and tragic stories of abuse of children. We cannot allow the federation to be an excuse for not acting urgently on the safety and wellbeing of our children. The latest scandal is taking place in childcare centres, but this is not just an issue for the early childhood education and care sector. The failure to prioritise child safety and wellbeing and implement child safeguarding measures affects all children everywhere: in schools, after-school care, out-of-home care, youth detention, sporting clubs and holiday programs. Anywhere you find children, there will be child safety risks that must be addressed. Former royal commissioner Robert Fitzgerald said this week that it was "shameful" that we have failed to implement the detailed recommendations to strengthen child safety from a decade ago. He is correct, and now we need to face up to why this has been allowed to happen. It is shameful that the advice of experts continues to be ignored and the risks to the safety and wellbeing of our children are neglected. We don't need more royal commissions and inquiries. We know what to do. Core recommendations in our Help Way Earlier! report tabled in Parliament last year were about governments across our federation working together on reform and making child wellbeing a national priority, at national cabinet. READ MORE: Right now, there is an absence of national leadership and co-ordination. Child wellbeing is not a priority for national cabinet, and there is no cabinet minister for children. These gaps have allowed a lack of accountability to persist, leading to critical reforms not being implemented. For our youngest children, we need a childcare industry with stronger regulation, independent monitoring and oversight, and comprehensive enforceable child safeguarding measures. Everyone involved needs to make child safety their number one priority, from the boardroom to the sandpit. This week has shown that the public wants more than just cheaper childcare. We demand safer childcare. And importantly, our children, our youngest citizens, must not be sidelined and kept waiting for critical reforms that we know will help to keep them safe. The new term of Parliament is the opportunity to demonstrate to the Australian public that child safety and wellbeing will be a national priority from now on.
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
‘Oh my god, let it go!': The ABC show getting (almost) too close to dangerous animals
ABC nature journalist Dr Ann Jones, best known for her ornithological series, The Secret Lives of Urban Birds and Meet the Penguins, has revealed her wilder side. In the new six-part series, Dr Ann's Secret Lives, she swaps the gentle art of backyard bird-watching for the choppy seas off Queensland and Western Australia, and the jungles of Borneo, chasing bull sharks, sea snakes, orangutans, sea turtles, dugongs and pangolins. The scientists dedicated to monitoring their survival are as much a focus as the animals. 'We don't exist separate to nature,' says Jones, who lives with a strictly indoor Maine Coon cat named Bubbles and a freshwater prawn called Prawn Connery. 'All natural history documentaries are made on the back of research from people, like those featured in this program,' says Jones. 'I think it's important to not shy away from how we get information, which sometimes means that you're uncomfortable. But that's how we find out things that will protect the species.' In the series, marine ecologist Nicolas Lubitz remarks that the work of biologists is, '95 per cent boredom, 5 per cent chaos'. Jones agrees: 'The majority of the work that a scientist does will be based in an office or a lab, in front of a computer. And so what you see [in the series] is the high point of the year when they actually spend time with the animals. Fieldwork is addictive. I think it fuels the rest of their year.' In the first episode, Jones joins Lubitz and his team on a perilous expedition tagging bull sharks off the coast of Townsville, during which she becomes visibly distressed as the thrashing fish is roped. 'I was scared, but I expected to worry more about myself,' says Jones. 'But the way in which they subdue a shark is by catching it and then turning it upside down, and then it goes into a sleepy state. And to see this animal so completely vulnerable – I'm just a complete softie. And this is probably why I'm a broadcaster and not a scientist. I'm just like, 'Oh my god, let it go! Let it go!'' In Moreton Bay near Brisbane, the seagrass-munching dugong stole her heart. 'They were surprisingly muscular. They have really dense whiskers, triple the thickness of a cat whisker. And their breath smells like grass.'
