Housing approvals in WA drop by 7.5 per cent and put the State's ambitious new homes goal at risk
The Commonwealth has put bonus funding on the table for States that meet their share of the 1.2 million new homes five-year housing accord target.
Nationally, building approvals grew by 3.2 per cent in May, but this was mainly driven by strong growth in Victoria and NSW, new data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics showed.
Approvals in WA dropped 7.5 per cent from a month earlier.
Federal Housing Minister Clare O'Neil saw green shoots in the data, with her office saying momentum was building nationally towards the targets.
'These positive trends show we're on the right track, but we'll keep doing the hard work so more Australians have access to affordable, secure housing,' a spokesperson from her office said.
But shadow minister Andrew Bragg said the improvement was 'marginal'.
The Property Council estimates WA will fall about 9.4 per cent short of its target to build about 129,700 new homes by mid-2029 if current building trends continue.
Separate forecasts from the Master Builders show the State will be 3.4 per cent shy of its target – although this would drop to about 12 per cent below if building approval rates don't pick up.
Master Builders WA chief executive Matt Stanton said the State was among the closest in the country to meeting its housing target.
But a hurdle is Perth's long cultural and lifestyle attachment to lower-density living, with apartments and townhouses playing little role in the city's development.
'If we're going to meet demand on housing supply with the fastest growing population of any state and also an economy that's firing pretty close to on-all-cylinders, then we do need a higher and medium density construction … to make up a greater part of new developments moving forward,' he said.
Property Council WA chief executive Nicola Brischetto said approvals too often didn't translate into building actually starting, so the data tended to be a bit volatile.
'The biggest barriers are the availability of builders, cost of construction, and the economic viability of many apartment projects,' she said.
'Workforce continues to be the biggest challenge … It's the physically being able to get stuff done, but also, when you've got a constrained labour market, that will put pressure on prices and drive costs up.'
Ms Brischetto commended the WA Government for having concentrated heavily on easing workforce shortages but said now there also needed to be a focus on boosting productivity, through using more pre-fabricated and modular construction or adopting AI for scheduling and ordering.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
35 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
36 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.
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Lions series won't be won on penalties and collapsed scrums
Every week or so in the ongoing culture wars, it is nothing if not amusing to see the conservative commentariat whip themselves into a lather over some minor matter or other that normal people barely blink at. Take your pick: If someone hasn't 'cancelled Christmas'; they've allowed a transgender student to participate in normal school activities; or maybe even said it is ludicrous to still start sessions of parliament with the Lord's Prayer when few Australians still believe a man in a white smock above the clouds is listening anyway. You know the drill. Manna from heaven! Cue: nasty cartoons, thunderous editorials, raging rants on what sadly passes for talkback these days and stern admonitions that Australia as we know it is coming to an end and everyone will soon learn the lesson, 'go woke, go broke.' Look, the practitioners of this twaddle have to pay the bills like the rest of us, and the obvious truth of it – for I know some of the Sydney practitioners – is that not one of them in person would evince anything remotely like the rage they howl into their microphones. It is mere performative pap, to bring in enough raging old white men and their wives that they can corral what they're pleased to call an 'audience'. This week's classic example is the news that there will be no cricket played on Australia Day. Why not? See all of the above. It's because, I TELL YOU, the raging Commo, leftie, mongrel dogs are brainwashing our children into thinking that, just maybe, we can come up with a better day to celebrate our nation than the one that signals the beginning of death and destruction to many First Nations people! How very dare they?? Etc, etc, etc. And coming up after the break, we'll monster someone else, so do stay with us! But actually, no. As so often, the truth is a little simpler. Cue, instead, the Cricket Australia spokesperson: 'We had the choice to play the [Big Bash] final on either the Monday night [26th January] or the Sunday night [25th January]. The decision was taken that the night before a public holiday would attract better crowd and ratings, so landed on 25 January. Nothing to do with Australia Day. If it rains, we have Australia day as our reserve day so we would play then if needed.' A simple explanation. But you can't froth at that. The celebration of Australia Day on 26 January will eventually come to an end, anyway, and so it should – irrespective of what Cricket Australia has to say about it. Tell em, Steve Smith, the way you did last year: 'I was speaking to Scott Boland about this just the other day and as Australians, you want all Australians to celebrate that day. All Australians don't [with] the way it is at the moment. Maybe that is the way forward, [changing it] to have all Australians celebrating on that day.' Standing joke Meantime? Meantime, let's hear from the recently retired architect, Peter Cole – one of the key designers of the Great Southern Stand at the MCG, which was finished in 1992, won a design award in 2020 and was renamed the Shane Warne Stand a couple of years ago. It is now reported to be facing a wrecker's ball, as they move to replace it with a slightly bigger one. Cole was quoted this week: 'As it is relatively rare for the MCG to reach full capacity, such a marginal increase is hard to justify when you consider the huge cost and disruption that the demolition and rebuild of the southern stand would mean. It ... [would result in a] probable bill of about a billion dollars. It doesn't pass the pub test.' Vast new stadiums never do. But they keep being built. Who thinks that is sane? Farewell to the king of sports A month ago – as discussed – this masthead lost to cancer Johnny Shakespeare, the long-time artist whose work adorned this page for so long. Yesterday – in much happier circumstances, as he is simply taking a break – we lost our sports editor, Ian Fuge, who has been running the show for more than two decades! Normally, dear reader, I wouldn't bring you into it, but in the spirit of the bloke on the stage asking the conductor of the orchestra to take a bow, indulge me this one time, as Ian has been such a beloved figure at Herald sport for so long. I keep in touch with nearly all my former sports editors, and they agree with me: on the Mount Rushmore of SMH Sport supremos, he's the one with the finely chiselled features, in prime position, right in the middle, with a twinkle in your eye and a 'Maaaaaate ... !' on his lips. He's been a joy to work for, and with, with great sporting instincts and superb managerial skills. And the stuff you've read in this column, and across the Herald's sports pages for so long, have been immeasurably stronger for his fine professional, and personal input. Maestro, take a bow. And thank you. What They Said Daniil Medvedev, a semi-finalist in the past two Wimbledon tournaments, frustrated during his first-round match loss to French journeyman, Benjamin Bonzi, who was playing the game of his life: ' Pourquoi ne pas jouer comme ça tous les jours, gagner des millions, être riche? Why not play like this every day, win millions, be rich? No, he decides to do it once a year.' Not fair! Pat Cummins on Cameron Green at No.3: 'If you haven't done it before, you don't have that confidence, but Greeny doesn't have to look too far at this level to see where he's done well at this level.' Carlton legend Stephen Kernahan on the club's woes: 'I back our club and coach, and our players will have to work their arse off and fight their way out of it.' Carlton have not been in a grand final this century. St Kilda coach Ross Lyon: 'As Luke Ball said to me, 'You look backwards, you get depressed; you look forward, you get anxious – so stay in the moment'.' Western Force and Wallabies hard man Tom Robertson on how much he'd love to play against the Lions: 'It would mean the world. I haven't played a Test since 2022, and it's a whole lot of your career rugby-wise. I'd give my left testicle to do it again, but we'll see how we go.' Teammate Dylan Pietsch not willing to go the same lengths: 'I don't have kids yet.' Sally Bolton, the chief executive of the All England Club on the new lines-robots: 'It's not a money‑saving exercise. The technology investment we've had to make to deliver electronic line calling is not insignificant. It's about evolving the tournament and making sure that we're providing the most effective possible line calling.' Retiring West Coast Eagle Dom Sheed on his shot for goal that won a grand final: 'I just thought, 'Keep it nice and straight, hopefully it floats through'. It's just one of those moments you either get right or you don't, and I was lucky that I got it right.' Nathan Lyon on passing on the singing of the Australian team song to Alex Carey: 'I feel like Alex is the perfect candidate and I kind of feel I've run my race with it. It's time for someone else to put their touch on it. He was pretty taken aback by it ... it was cool.' Aussie tennis player Alexei Popyrin on his first-round exit from Wimbledon to a player ranked No.461: 'After today's match, I just felt numb – I didn't feel sad, I didn't feel happy, I just felt numb. And that's not a feeling that I've ever had before. I think that just shows the fact that I understand why this result happened, because I was under-prepared and demotivated going into Wimbledon.' What is the difference between demotivated and unmotivated? Discuss. (It's interesting.) NSW State of Origin player Liam Martin on if he had to play against himself: 'I'd hate me. I'd think I was the biggest bloody grub and Derek there is.' Derek? I'm told it is a modern version of being a 'Nimrod' – which I'm told is a latter version of a 'doofus'. As you were. Naomi Osaka on Nick Kyrgios being in her players' box at Wimbledon: 'Oh, he was there? I did not hear anything, OK. Oh, my God. I jokingly told someone, 'Hey, I know Nick's around, maybe he wants to come to my match'. I kind of zone out most of the time. That's a little embarrassing that he was there. I guess it is cool that he was there.' Al-Hilal coach Simone Inzaghi after eliminating Manchester City from the Club World Cup: 'We had to do something extraordinary because we all know Manchester City, that team. We had to climb Mount Everest without oxygen, and we made it.' Loading Social media comment on Australia's pace attack: '37, 35, 34, 32, is the age of Lyon, Starc, Hazlewood and Cummins. Too old to be continuing much longer? However, they do have 553, 389, 283 and 302 test wickets equalling 1527 in total. Insane.' Team of the Week Maya Joint. The young Australian tennis player won the Eastbourne title. Molly Picklum. Aussie surfer on top of the women's World Surfing League standings after winning in Saquarema, Brazil. NSW and Queensland. Play Origin III this Wednesday. NSW will win 20-6, and so take the series. You heard it here first. British & Irish Lions. Take on the Waratahs tonight, in what should be a cracker. Oscar Piastri. Took the silver medal at the Austrian Grand Prix. Still leads the standings. Next stop, Britain.
