Alex Johnston closing in on an all-time record & where to next for Selwyn Cobbo?
Interviews and feature reports from NITV. A mob-made podcast about all things Blak life.
The Point: Referendum Road Trip Live weekly on Tuesday at 7.30pm Join Narelda Jacobs and John Paul Janke to get unique Indigenous perspectives and cutting-edge analysis on the road to the referendum. Watch now
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
41 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Australian Human Rights Commission calls for end to NDAs in workplace sexual harassment cases
The Australian Human Rights Commission has called on the government to restrict the use of confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements in workplace sexual harassment cases, and hit employers with civil penalties if they fail to take proactive steps to prevent discrimination and sexual harassment. The two recommendations were made in the independent body's Speaking from Experience report into combating workplace sexual harassment. Out of the 11 recommendations, the body said Australian laws should mirror legislation in Ireland that prevent workplaces from imposing NDAs and confidentiality agreements on victims, which are commonly used as a condition of receiving compensation for harassment. Sex Discrimination Commissioner Anna Cody said while the use of the contracts were 'decreasing' she said lawyers and HR departments were still 'unaware that they are optional'. 'We're saying restrict them so they're not used unless the person who's experienced the workplace sexual harassment requests it,' she told NewsWire. 'I think they are mostly used to protect the reputation of the harasser and of the employer but I think (we need to remember) that employers will gain their reputation from taking action against harassers.' The report also called on the Albanese government to amend the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 to be amended to include civil penalties for employers who breach their positive duty, or their legal obligation to eliminate, as far as possible, all forms of sexual discrimination, workplace sexual harassment, sex based harassment and victimisation. It said this may 'place greater responsibility' on workplaces and organisation to address workplace sexual harassment,' and put the onus on regulators to enforce laws, while also shift 'the responsibility away from individuals to bring legal action'. Dr Cody said the penalties would ideally be financial in nature and give regulators another 'tool' to hold employers to account. 'If we had to go to court and there was still non compliance, it just adds it's an additional possibility that we could be seeking in terms of them complying with their duties under the Sex Discrimination Act and the positive duty within that,' she said. The 88-page report, which included interviews with more than 300 Australian workers with lived experience, included a total of 11 recommendations aimed at reducing barriers to information, safety and to workers accessing support after facing harassment. It also called for removing impediments for victim-survivors being heard and barriers to justice and accountability. Among the recommendations were also demands for a specialist organisation to deliver 'accessible and culturally appropriate education and outreach on workplace sexual harassment,' plus a national media campaign to drive cultural and behavioural change. Speaking about the report more broadly, Dr Cody called on law-makers to listen and act on the advice given by the victim-survivors who were interviewed. 'We've listened to over 300 people and really learned deeply about the different ways in which workplace sexual harassment happens,' she said. 'Harassers really do focus on those who are most marginalised in a workplace, such as culturally, racially marginalised people, LGBT+ people, First Nations people and we really need to understand that the ways in which that happens,' she said.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Childcare subsidy program leaks hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud and errors
Australia's $14 billion childcare subsidy program is haemorrhaging hundreds of millions of dollars each year due to fraud, overpayments and administrative errors, according to a landmark report from the auditor-general. The report paints a disturbing picture of a system with serious oversight gaps and estimates more than $2.6 billion has been lost from incorrect payments in the five years to 2024. It describes oversight and governance of the subsidy program as "partly effective," and monitoring and enforcement as not being properly managed. The report notes that Services Australia was unable to track childcare-related tip-offs and relied on incomplete income data, while the Department of Education, despite holding broad enforcement powers, lacked clear policies on when or how to act. "Which means it is not able to assess whether decisions to take enforcement action are fair, impartial, consistent, or proportional," the report says. In 2023-24 alone, the auditor-general estimated $484 million in incorrect payments, including fraud and non-compliance. The education department identified but failed to investigate 970 potential overpayments, and it withdrew 42 per cent of fines issued, recovering less than 1 per cent of $6.4 million in outstanding debts. With the subsidy program worth more than $13 billion a year, experts warn the real losses could be much higher than reported. The childcare subsidy is one of the government's fastest growing payments programs, supporting 1.45 million children in approved care. By 2028, annual spending is set to surge by another $3.2 billion to almost $17 billion a year. Early Childhood Education Minister Jess Walsh defended the government's record, saying Labor had delivered the highest provider claim accuracy rate on record at 96.4 per cent, up from 93 per cent before it came to government. More than $300 million in savings had already been delivered through fraud investigations, strengthened audits, better data analytics and legislative changes. "The government doesn't tolerate crooks ripping off the Child Care Subsidy. We will always look for ways to continue to improve the integrity of the system," Walsh said. "Our integrity measures have delivered additional provider audits, more fraud investigations, improved targeting through better data analytics as well as education and support to the sector." The minister confirmed the department had accepted all seven recommendations of the auditor-general's report, and urged the public to report wrongdoing via the department's anonymous tip-off portal. Those recommendations include fixing oversight gaps, strengthening internal policies, publishing a joint compliance strategy, improving intelligence on risks and tip-offs, and upgrading critical systems. And since the audit commenced, a joint governance board was established between Services Australia and the Department of Education to maintain strategic oversight of regulatory activities across both agencies. This will ensure both agencies have a joined up view of the integrity activity underway across the breadth of the subsidy, and provide senior oversight and decision making on key cross cutting issues. But as costs rise and private operators chase profits, some experts say it is time to do something more radical and change the funding model. It comes against a backdrop of a major ABC investigation into the $20 billion childcare industry which exposed a sector in crisis, plagued by systemic failures, secrecy and a rising number of serious incidents at some of the country's largest for-profit providers. It triggered a parliamentary inquiry in NSW, spearheaded by Greens politician Abigail Boyd, and the release of tens of thousands of pages of regulatory documents, which include cases of inappropriate discipline, lack of supervision, unqualified educators and poor paperwork including expired Working With Children Checks and a failure to understand policies. The documents also reveal alleged subsidy fraud including centres over-enrolling children by up to 40 per cent to claim extra funding — an illegal and dangerous practice. Childcare advocate and consultant Lisa Bryant said the report's findings came as no surprise, given the sheer scale and complexity of the subsidy system. "The childcare subsidy is mind-numbingly complex," she said. "It's beyond human understanding how the payments are calculated. Families don't understand how the money and hours are calculated and providers are also frustrated … it's no wonder money is going astray," she said. Bryant said a simpler solution would be to fund childcare providers directly, much like schools, instead of processing subsidies for more than a million families. "If the government paid providers directly, it would have a stronger policy lever," she said "It could link funding to service quality and stop the funding if they don't meet the standards." Bryant said the subsidies should be directed to the centres themselves, similar to how schools work, and if they don't provide quality services, the government has a lever to withdraw the funds. Georgie Dent, the chief executive of The Parenthood, a parent advocacy organisation representing more than 80,000 parents, carers and supporters, said the system's failures are costing children and families dearly. "When almost half a billion dollars is lost to fraud or incorrect payments in a single year, it's not just a technical glitch, it's a policy failure," she said. "This is public money intended to support children's development, family workforce participation and economic productivity. We cannot afford to have it fall through the cracks." Dent said the findings make the case for funding reform clear. "We need a direct and transparent link between funding and the quality, accessibility and integrity of early childhood education services," she said. "Strong governance, clear accountabilities and aligned incentives are not optional, they are the foundation of public trust and better outcomes for children." Greens MP Abigail Boyd said the auditor-general's report revealed a deeply flawed system where billions of taxpayer dollars were being handed to early learning providers without the proper compliance and regulatory systems in place. "It's no wonder that so many large for-profit companies view the Australian early childhood sector as such a lucrative investment," she said. Boyd warned that injecting more money into the current model won't fix its structural failures: "We need a significant overhaul to ensure that everyone can have faith in this critical sector." Chey Carter, former educator and now industry consultant at Divergent Education, says she isn't surprised there is so much leakage in the system. She says she spent time working with a Child Care System management provider and saw firsthand the mass level of confusion directors face when managing childcare subsidy payments. "The support line was flooded with basic questions, how to fix overcharging, apply CCS correctly, or reconcile enrolments. These weren't one-off mistakes; they were routine," she said. "To be eligible for CCS, providers must have fraud prevention policies and procedures in place but if we look at the policy from 'Childcare Desktop' a nationally used childcare policy provider — it states: 'staff will attend regular training to assist in the identification of fraud and corruption'. I can guarantee that the majority of the ECEC workforce have never attended such training." It seems without deeper reform including linking funding to quality and tightening accountability and oversight, the childcare system will continue to bleed public money while failing the children it's meant to serve.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Australia's social media ban has been designed on the fly. Is it time to delay take-off?
You might've heard of policy on the run, but what about policy from the cockpit? It's something Australia's eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant appears to be contending with when it comes to the federal government's social media ban. Speaking to the National Press Club yesterday she said while confident it will be able to be implemented by December this year that "we may be building the plane a little bit as we're flying it". Inman Grant has provided the government with advice on its plan to ban under 16s from social media platforms, which she describes as "one of the most complex and novel pieces of legislation" they've ever had to handle. Her office will be responsible for producing regulatory guidelines once the ban is finalised. Put more bluntly, the government have handed her a proverbial sandwich in the form of a huge, unwieldy scheme that affects some of the community's most vulnerable, governs an ever-changing online landscape and requires facing off against some of the most powerful companies in the world. Oh and if that wasn't enough, imagine a big countdown clock, like in the TV show 24, with less than six months to go until the ban is meant to come into force. Easy! In November when the government put forward its proposal, YouTube was exempt under the banner of educational material and WhatsApp allowed under the carve-out for messaging services. Now eSafety is calling for YouTube to be banned too and says WhatsApp poses its own challenges — thanks to hosting channels and advertising — though it remains exempt for now. YouTube Kids could still be an option, but the commissioner says that's still being assessed. Either way, teenagers likely won't be too happy about that, as one of them put it in our comments when we reported on the initial exemption: "If I have to watch YouTube kids ima crash out" [sic.] The unofficial motto of the Albanese government has been slow and steady, with the prime minister repeatedly saying that if you want reform to happen you need to bring the community with you. As far as big changes go this is a doozy and according to the government's own research it has substantial community support. But when it comes to the specifics of how this ban is actually implemented there are a number of unanswered questions and community support is mixed when it comes to age checking methods. Aside from whether YouTube Kids will be allowed, Crikey's Cam Wilson reports that not all is well within the advisory group for the trial of the program. Tim Levy, managing director of children's safety technology company Qoria which put forward technology for the trial, has stepped down from the expert panel saying key questions and issues have not been addressed. Other experts have also questioned why key data from the trial is not being released publicly, though a spokesperson said it would be released once the full report is handed to the government in July. And that's not the only issue. The ABC revealed that the face scanning technology being trialled misidentified kids as young as 15 as being in their 20s and 30s. The software consultancy program running the trial said the system is far from perfect but does show promise however Lisa Given, professor of information sciences at RMIT University, told the ABC such errors in misidentification show the ban isn't viable. It would be remiss to not mention that neither the government nor the eSafety Commissioner are proposing that this ban will utilise just one type of age-detection tech nor that it will be 100 per cent foolproof. After all, they're up against teenagers who've been told they can't do something: one of the most determined and innovative groups on the planet (just ask 13-year-old Claudia who learned how to code to customise a Tumblr profile she wasn't allowed to have). With so many key factors seemingly up in the air, there are questions to be asked about why the deadline for the new rules to be implemented hasn't been shifted. Ask anyone who works in, around or with government, it's not exactly known for getting things done quickly. The opposition support a ban but say there are currently more questions than answers, which is not exactly what a government that wants to bring people along on reform would like to be hearing. Of course, the once-again-a-Coalition isn't really in a position to throw its weight around having just suffered one of its most humiliating defeats ever. But on the flip side, does that mean the government should power on full steam ahead? Such a comfortable majority gives it the flexibility to admit that sometimes things take a bit longer than expected. Politicians are loath to ever admit things haven't gone 100 per cent to plan, both to avoid criticism from their opponents and a media class fixated on anything that could be construed as a backflip or back down. It's not a great environment to actually develop and implement policy in, encouraging the worst, most stubborn instincts rather than encouraging flexibility, questioning or humility. When you add a looming deadline to that mix it's not a recipe for anyone's best work. But questions and disagreements over exactly how this ban will be implemented give Labor a chance to stretch that muscle and follow-through on Anthony Albanese's commitment last term to "change the way we do politics in this country." Inman Grant says she's confident everything will be ready to go by December, but with so many questions about how this ban will work it might be time for the government to clear a runway for a temporary landing.
