2407msletters2
For weeks the news has carried reports of record heatwaves in the northern hemisphere that are expected to continue throughout August (' Scorched by burning questions ', July 24). Wildfires are raging in Greece and California at the same time as torrential rain and flash flooding have caused havoc and destruction in South Korea, Colorado, India and Italy. Extreme weather events are occurring worldwide exactly as predicted by climate scientists decades ago. It is particularly galling to know that we are a decade behind in our climate mitigation action due to climate deniers and obstructors within the previous Coalition governments, who deliberately blocked action to transition from fossil-fuelled energy to renewables by casting doubt on the science and highlighting the cost of doing so. As Sean Kelly points out, the same negative tactics are now being used against the Voice. 'If it ain't broke don't fix it', and 'if you don't know, vote no' are conservative mantras designed to prevent progressive action that is well overdue. Whether this opposition to change is genuine or politically based, it is costing future generations dearly and will be judged harshly by them.
Alan Marel, North Curl Curl
Thanks, Sean Kelly for your well-articulated warning to Australia; your headline says it all and we must act, now, or be damned. The climate change impacts we are already suffering can't be denied or ignored any longer by our inactive 'leaders'.
Barry Laing, Castle Cove
The climate crisis we're facing is a collective crime - the world has long ignored the need for urgent action and we're paying the price. The Voice is our moment and as Australians, we own this opportunity to make a positive change, it's a request so simple that it shouldn't need asking. Yes to engagement, Yes to commencing reparations long overdue. It's the first step. Should No be our response, we will walk alone with the weight of that decision.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Can Jim Chalmers reap a healthy crop with the help of his big worm farm?
One observer describes next week's economic roundtable this way: "Chalmers has opened a can of worms - and everybody has got a worm". Even those close to the roundtable are feeling overwhelmed by the extent of the worm farm. There are many hundreds of submissions, five Productivity Commission reports, Treasury background papers, and stakeholders in the media spruiking their opinions ahead of the event. Business, unions and the welfare sector have largely settled into their predictable wish lists. In areas such as the housing crisis, it's actually not difficult to say what should be done - you hardly need this meeting to tell you. It just seems near impossible to get the relevant players (whether they be states, local councils, the construction industry) to do it, or be able to do it. On issues of deregulation generally, when it comes to specifics, a lot is contested. As the ACTU's Sally McManus, who'll be at the roundtable, says, "one person's regulations are another person's rights". As much as Treasurer Jim Chalmers might like to project the sunny side of Australia's situation, independent economist Chris Richardson (who will be at the summit's day three tax session) puts it more bluntly. "We have a problem: the average Australian saw their living standards rise by just 1.5% over the past decade," he posted on X. "That's embarrassingly shy of the 22% lift in living standards enjoyed across the rich world as a whole, and way below what Australians achieved in times past. "You'd have hoped that both sides would have talked about tackling that challenge at the last election, but they didn't." Richardson is hoping the roundtable can achieve "enough consensus to change some things", which the government can use as a springboard. But he's worried the meeting could underperform, given its "lead-up hasn't seen much consensus", Economist Richard Holden from UNSW says to be successful, the roundtable needs to get "broad agreement on some version of the 'Abundance agenda' [a reference to a currently fashionable book focusing on loosening regulatory blocks] - especially as it applies to housing. "In addition, to be successful would require that big issues like federation and tax reform are referred to Treasury for serious consideration and to present the government with options by year's end." There are two approaches for a government that wants to promote economic reform. It can, as then treasurer Paul Keating did at the 1985 tax summit, put up a model and see how much it can make fly. Or it can, as Chalmers is doing, ask a wide range of participants for their ideas, and then decide how much of what emerges to pursue - in terms of what has wide support and what fits the government's agenda. The closer we get to the meeting, the harder it becomes to anticipate its likely import (or lack of). Signposts are there, but they could be false signals, or ignored later. Despite all the talk about tax, the government - specifically the Prime Minister - has flagged it doesn't have the stomach for radical reform. Certainly not this term. Anthony Albanese said last week, "The only tax policy that we're implementing is the one that we took to the election". This doesn't rule out new initiatives this term - the phrasing is carefully in the present tense - but from what we know of the PM's approach, they would likely be limited rather than sweeping. Independent economist Saul Eslake said that a few weeks ago, he was optimistic the summit would give Chalmers the licence to spend some of the vast political capital the election yielded. "But the Prime Minister has made it clear he is not getting that licence. The government is not prepared to venture much beyond its limited mandate from the election. "The best that can be hoped for is a willingness to have an adult conversation with the electorate between now and the next election with a view to seeking a bold mandate in 2028," Eslake says. Predictably, the roundtable is putting the spotlight on the Albanese-Chalmers relationship. This can be summed up in a couple of ways. The PM is more cautious when it comes to economic reform, the treasurer is more ambitious. In political terms, it's that "old bull, young bull" syndrome. The different styles are clear. The "old bull" is blunt, sounding a touch impatient, for example, when he's asked about tax. The "young bull" is publicly deferential to his leader. One of the most potentially significant discussions at the roundtable will be around AI. Unlike many well-worn issues, this is a relatively new and quickly changing area of policy debate. There are varying views within government about whether firm or light guardrails are needed and whether they should be in a separate new act or just via changes to existing laws. READ MORE GRATTAN: Chalmers is in favour of light-touch regulation. The unions are not on the same page as Chalmers' regulatory preference, and they want a say for workers. The unions were the winners from the 2022 jobs and skills summit - the government delivered to them in spades at the meeting, and later. It's not clear they are in as strong a position this time. Their big claim for the roundtable - a four-day working week - has already been dismissed by the government. The ACTU doesn't seem much fussed by the rejection - it is on a long march on that one. Regardless of the diversity of views among those rubbing shoulders in the cabinet room next week, one man will stand out as something of an oddity. Ted O'Brien, shadow treasurer, invited as a participant, will be as much an observer. O'Brien might say he wants to be constructive, but his role means he will want to be critical. But he has to tread carefully. Others in the room, and outside observers, will be making judgments about him. For O'Brien, the gathering should be a networking opportunity more than an occasion for performative display. One observer describes next week's economic roundtable this way: "Chalmers has opened a can of worms - and everybody has got a worm". Even those close to the roundtable are feeling overwhelmed by the extent of the worm farm. There are many hundreds of submissions, five Productivity Commission reports, Treasury background papers, and stakeholders in the media spruiking their opinions ahead of the event. Business, unions and the welfare sector have largely settled into their predictable wish lists. In areas such as the housing crisis, it's actually not difficult to say what should be done - you hardly need this meeting to tell you. It just seems near impossible to get the relevant players (whether they be states, local councils, the construction industry) to do it, or be able to do it. On issues of deregulation generally, when it comes to specifics, a lot is contested. As the ACTU's Sally McManus, who'll be at the roundtable, says, "one person's regulations are another person's rights". As much as Treasurer Jim Chalmers might like to project the sunny side of Australia's situation, independent economist Chris Richardson (who will be at the summit's day three tax session) puts it more bluntly. "We have a problem: the average Australian saw their living standards rise by just 1.5% over the past decade," he posted on X. "That's embarrassingly shy of the 22% lift in living standards enjoyed across the rich world as a whole, and way below what Australians achieved in times past. "You'd have hoped that both sides would have talked about tackling that challenge at the last election, but they didn't." Richardson is hoping the roundtable can achieve "enough consensus to change some things", which the government can use as a springboard. But he's worried the meeting could underperform, given its "lead-up hasn't seen much consensus", Economist Richard Holden from UNSW says to be successful, the roundtable needs to get "broad agreement on some version of the 'Abundance agenda' [a reference to a currently fashionable book focusing on loosening regulatory blocks] - especially as it applies to housing. "In addition, to be successful would require that big issues like federation and tax reform are referred to Treasury for serious consideration and to present the government with options by year's end." There are two approaches for a government that wants to promote economic reform. It can, as then treasurer Paul Keating did at the 1985 tax summit, put up a model and see how much it can make fly. Or it can, as Chalmers is doing, ask a wide range of participants for their ideas, and then decide how much of what emerges to pursue - in terms of what has wide support and what fits the government's agenda. The closer we get to the meeting, the harder it becomes to anticipate its likely import (or lack of). Signposts are there, but they could be false signals, or ignored later. Despite all the talk about tax, the government - specifically the Prime Minister - has flagged it doesn't have the stomach for radical reform. Certainly not this term. Anthony Albanese said last week, "The only tax policy that we're implementing is the one that we took to the election". This doesn't rule out new initiatives this term - the phrasing is carefully in the present tense - but from what we know of the PM's approach, they would likely be limited rather than sweeping. Independent economist Saul Eslake said that a few weeks ago, he was optimistic the summit would give Chalmers the licence to spend some of the vast political capital the election yielded. "But the Prime Minister has made it clear he is not getting that licence. The government is not prepared to venture much beyond its limited mandate from the election. "The best that can be hoped for is a willingness to have an adult conversation with the electorate between now and the next election with a view to seeking a bold mandate in 2028," Eslake says. Predictably, the roundtable is putting the spotlight on the Albanese-Chalmers relationship. This can be summed up in a couple of ways. The PM is more cautious when it comes to economic reform, the treasurer is more ambitious. In political terms, it's that "old bull, young bull" syndrome. The different styles are clear. The "old bull" is blunt, sounding a touch impatient, for example, when he's asked about tax. The "young bull" is publicly deferential to his leader. One of the most potentially significant discussions at the roundtable will be around AI. Unlike many well-worn issues, this is a relatively new and quickly changing area of policy debate. There are varying views within government about whether firm or light guardrails are needed and whether they should be in a separate new act or just via changes to existing laws. READ MORE GRATTAN: Chalmers is in favour of light-touch regulation. The unions are not on the same page as Chalmers' regulatory preference, and they want a say for workers. The unions were the winners from the 2022 jobs and skills summit - the government delivered to them in spades at the meeting, and later. It's not clear they are in as strong a position this time. Their big claim for the roundtable - a four-day working week - has already been dismissed by the government. The ACTU doesn't seem much fussed by the rejection - it is on a long march on that one. Regardless of the diversity of views among those rubbing shoulders in the cabinet room next week, one man will stand out as something of an oddity. Ted O'Brien, shadow treasurer, invited as a participant, will be as much an observer. O'Brien might say he wants to be constructive, but his role means he will want to be critical. But he has to tread carefully. Others in the room, and outside observers, will be making judgments about him. For O'Brien, the gathering should be a networking opportunity more than an occasion for performative display. One observer describes next week's economic roundtable this way: "Chalmers has opened a can of worms - and everybody has got a worm". Even those close to the roundtable are feeling overwhelmed by the extent of the worm farm. There are many hundreds of submissions, five Productivity Commission reports, Treasury background papers, and stakeholders in the media spruiking their opinions ahead of the event. Business, unions and the welfare sector have largely settled into their predictable wish lists. In areas such as the housing crisis, it's actually not difficult to say what should be done - you hardly need this meeting to tell you. It just seems near impossible to get the relevant players (whether they be states, local councils, the construction industry) to do it, or be able to do it. On issues of deregulation generally, when it comes to specifics, a lot is contested. As the ACTU's Sally McManus, who'll be at the roundtable, says, "one person's regulations are another person's rights". As much as Treasurer Jim Chalmers might like to project the sunny side of Australia's situation, independent economist Chris Richardson (who will be at the summit's day three tax session) puts it more bluntly. "We have a problem: the average Australian saw their living standards rise by just 1.5% over the past decade," he posted on X. "That's embarrassingly shy of the 22% lift in living standards enjoyed across the rich world as a whole, and way below what Australians achieved in times past. "You'd have hoped that both sides would have talked about tackling that challenge at the last election, but they didn't." Richardson is hoping the roundtable can achieve "enough consensus to change some things", which the government can use as a springboard. But he's worried the meeting could underperform, given its "lead-up hasn't seen much consensus", Economist Richard Holden from UNSW says to be successful, the roundtable needs to get "broad agreement on some version of the 'Abundance agenda' [a reference to a currently fashionable book focusing on loosening regulatory blocks] - especially as it applies to housing. "In addition, to be successful would require that big issues like federation and tax reform are referred to Treasury for serious consideration and to present the government with options by year's end." There are two approaches for a government that wants to promote economic reform. It can, as then treasurer Paul Keating did at the 1985 tax summit, put up a model and see how much it can make fly. Or it can, as Chalmers is doing, ask a wide range of participants for their ideas, and then decide how much of what emerges to pursue - in terms of what has wide support and what fits the government's agenda. The closer we get to the meeting, the harder it becomes to anticipate its likely import (or lack of). Signposts are there, but they could be false signals, or ignored later. Despite all the talk about tax, the government - specifically the Prime Minister - has flagged it doesn't have the stomach for radical reform. Certainly not this term. Anthony Albanese said last week, "The only tax policy that we're implementing is the one that we took to the election". This doesn't rule out new initiatives this term - the phrasing is carefully in the present tense - but from what we know of the PM's approach, they would likely be limited rather than sweeping. Independent economist Saul Eslake said that a few weeks ago, he was optimistic the summit would give Chalmers the licence to spend some of the vast political capital the election yielded. "But the Prime Minister has made it clear he is not getting that licence. The government is not prepared to venture much beyond its limited mandate from the election. "The best that can be hoped for is a willingness to have an adult conversation with the electorate between now and the next election with a view to seeking a bold mandate in 2028," Eslake says. Predictably, the roundtable is putting the spotlight on the Albanese-Chalmers relationship. This can be summed up in a couple of ways. The PM is more cautious when it comes to economic reform, the treasurer is more ambitious. In political terms, it's that "old bull, young bull" syndrome. The different styles are clear. The "old bull" is blunt, sounding a touch impatient, for example, when he's asked about tax. The "young bull" is publicly deferential to his leader. One of the most potentially significant discussions at the roundtable will be around AI. Unlike many well-worn issues, this is a relatively new and quickly changing area of policy debate. There are varying views within government about whether firm or light guardrails are needed and whether they should be in a separate new act or just via changes to existing laws. READ MORE GRATTAN: Chalmers is in favour of light-touch regulation. The unions are not on the same page as Chalmers' regulatory preference, and they want a say for workers. The unions were the winners from the 2022 jobs and skills summit - the government delivered to them in spades at the meeting, and later. It's not clear they are in as strong a position this time. Their big claim for the roundtable - a four-day working week - has already been dismissed by the government. The ACTU doesn't seem much fussed by the rejection - it is on a long march on that one. Regardless of the diversity of views among those rubbing shoulders in the cabinet room next week, one man will stand out as something of an oddity. Ted O'Brien, shadow treasurer, invited as a participant, will be as much an observer. O'Brien might say he wants to be constructive, but his role means he will want to be critical. But he has to tread carefully. Others in the room, and outside observers, will be making judgments about him. For O'Brien, the gathering should be a networking opportunity more than an occasion for performative display. One observer describes next week's economic roundtable this way: "Chalmers has opened a can of worms - and everybody has got a worm". Even those close to the roundtable are feeling overwhelmed by the extent of the worm farm. There are many hundreds of submissions, five Productivity Commission reports, Treasury background papers, and stakeholders in the media spruiking their opinions ahead of the event. Business, unions and the welfare sector have largely settled into their predictable wish lists. In areas such as the housing crisis, it's actually not difficult to say what should be done - you hardly need this meeting to tell you. It just seems near impossible to get the relevant players (whether they be states, local councils, the construction industry) to do it, or be able to do it. On issues of deregulation generally, when it comes to specifics, a lot is contested. As the ACTU's Sally McManus, who'll be at the roundtable, says, "one person's regulations are another person's rights". As much as Treasurer Jim Chalmers might like to project the sunny side of Australia's situation, independent economist Chris Richardson (who will be at the summit's day three tax session) puts it more bluntly. "We have a problem: the average Australian saw their living standards rise by just 1.5% over the past decade," he posted on X. "That's embarrassingly shy of the 22% lift in living standards enjoyed across the rich world as a whole, and way below what Australians achieved in times past. "You'd have hoped that both sides would have talked about tackling that challenge at the last election, but they didn't." Richardson is hoping the roundtable can achieve "enough consensus to change some things", which the government can use as a springboard. But he's worried the meeting could underperform, given its "lead-up hasn't seen much consensus", Economist Richard Holden from UNSW says to be successful, the roundtable needs to get "broad agreement on some version of the 'Abundance agenda' [a reference to a currently fashionable book focusing on loosening regulatory blocks] - especially as it applies to housing. "In addition, to be successful would require that big issues like federation and tax reform are referred to Treasury for serious consideration and to present the government with options by year's end." There are two approaches for a government that wants to promote economic reform. It can, as then treasurer Paul Keating did at the 1985 tax summit, put up a model and see how much it can make fly. Or it can, as Chalmers is doing, ask a wide range of participants for their ideas, and then decide how much of what emerges to pursue - in terms of what has wide support and what fits the government's agenda. The closer we get to the meeting, the harder it becomes to anticipate its likely import (or lack of). Signposts are there, but they could be false signals, or ignored later. Despite all the talk about tax, the government - specifically the Prime Minister - has flagged it doesn't have the stomach for radical reform. Certainly not this term. Anthony Albanese said last week, "The only tax policy that we're implementing is the one that we took to the election". This doesn't rule out new initiatives this term - the phrasing is carefully in the present tense - but from what we know of the PM's approach, they would likely be limited rather than sweeping. Independent economist Saul Eslake said that a few weeks ago, he was optimistic the summit would give Chalmers the licence to spend some of the vast political capital the election yielded. "But the Prime Minister has made it clear he is not getting that licence. The government is not prepared to venture much beyond its limited mandate from the election. "The best that can be hoped for is a willingness to have an adult conversation with the electorate between now and the next election with a view to seeking a bold mandate in 2028," Eslake says. Predictably, the roundtable is putting the spotlight on the Albanese-Chalmers relationship. This can be summed up in a couple of ways. The PM is more cautious when it comes to economic reform, the treasurer is more ambitious. In political terms, it's that "old bull, young bull" syndrome. The different styles are clear. The "old bull" is blunt, sounding a touch impatient, for example, when he's asked about tax. The "young bull" is publicly deferential to his leader. One of the most potentially significant discussions at the roundtable will be around AI. Unlike many well-worn issues, this is a relatively new and quickly changing area of policy debate. There are varying views within government about whether firm or light guardrails are needed and whether they should be in a separate new act or just via changes to existing laws. READ MORE GRATTAN: Chalmers is in favour of light-touch regulation. The unions are not on the same page as Chalmers' regulatory preference, and they want a say for workers. The unions were the winners from the 2022 jobs and skills summit - the government delivered to them in spades at the meeting, and later. It's not clear they are in as strong a position this time. Their big claim for the roundtable - a four-day working week - has already been dismissed by the government. The ACTU doesn't seem much fussed by the rejection - it is on a long march on that one. Regardless of the diversity of views among those rubbing shoulders in the cabinet room next week, one man will stand out as something of an oddity. Ted O'Brien, shadow treasurer, invited as a participant, will be as much an observer. O'Brien might say he wants to be constructive, but his role means he will want to be critical. But he has to tread carefully. Others in the room, and outside observers, will be making judgments about him. For O'Brien, the gathering should be a networking opportunity more than an occasion for performative display.
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Legal top guns target national working with kids scheme
Current working with children check laws are "hopeless", the prime minister concedes, as Australia's top legal advisors meet to consider a national scheme. Federal Attorney-General Michelle Rowland is meeting with state and territory counterparts in Sydney on Friday to discuss setting up a national system for working with children checks. Calls for a unified system have been growing following multiple reports of abuse in childcare centres. In one instance, a Victorian childcare worker was still allowed to retain his working with children check and work in the industry despite a major provider substantiating grooming allegations. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the reports were shocking and indicated more needed to be done to fix working with children checks. "It's hopeless, and we need to do better, quite clearly, and these revelations are a wake-up call for state and territory governments in terms of the regulations," he told ABC Radio on Friday. "The reports that we've seen recently have shocked parents and every parent's worst nightmare. That's why we are taking action at the national level." Recommendations for a national working with children check scheme were made in the findings of the 2017 royal commission into child sexual abuse. Ms Rowland conceded the reform had not happened quickly enough. "All representatives of states and territories are united in the goal of making this system better and making it safer for children, which should be our top priority," she told ABC Radio. "I acknowledged this has taken too long, but I wish to reassure Australians that ... this is top of the agenda. "What this will mean is that someone who is banned in one state or territory is banned in all states and territories." Ms Rowland said a lack of a national scheme for working with children checks put young people at risk. The attorney-general said she was hopeful a national scheme would be in place within 12 months. It comes as a NSW parliamentary inquiry on Thursday was told childcare centres were not checking whether staff were allowed to work with children before they were hired. The inquiry was also told banned worker were able to work in the industry for years without oversight. Liberal senator Jane Hume said a national scheme should have been implemented with "more urgency" when the coalition were last in government. "This is the right approach, to get a nationally uniform approach to working with children checks," she told Seven's Sunrise program. Laws passed by the federal parliament in July will strip funding from childcare centres not meeting compliance. Education ministers will also meet next week to consider further child safety laws for childcare centres. Among the measures being considered are use of CCTV in centres, as well as mandatory child safety training. Current working with children check laws are "hopeless", the prime minister concedes, as Australia's top legal advisors meet to consider a national scheme. Federal Attorney-General Michelle Rowland is meeting with state and territory counterparts in Sydney on Friday to discuss setting up a national system for working with children checks. Calls for a unified system have been growing following multiple reports of abuse in childcare centres. In one instance, a Victorian childcare worker was still allowed to retain his working with children check and work in the industry despite a major provider substantiating grooming allegations. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the reports were shocking and indicated more needed to be done to fix working with children checks. "It's hopeless, and we need to do better, quite clearly, and these revelations are a wake-up call for state and territory governments in terms of the regulations," he told ABC Radio on Friday. "The reports that we've seen recently have shocked parents and every parent's worst nightmare. That's why we are taking action at the national level." Recommendations for a national working with children check scheme were made in the findings of the 2017 royal commission into child sexual abuse. Ms Rowland conceded the reform had not happened quickly enough. "All representatives of states and territories are united in the goal of making this system better and making it safer for children, which should be our top priority," she told ABC Radio. "I acknowledged this has taken too long, but I wish to reassure Australians that ... this is top of the agenda. "What this will mean is that someone who is banned in one state or territory is banned in all states and territories." Ms Rowland said a lack of a national scheme for working with children checks put young people at risk. The attorney-general said she was hopeful a national scheme would be in place within 12 months. It comes as a NSW parliamentary inquiry on Thursday was told childcare centres were not checking whether staff were allowed to work with children before they were hired. The inquiry was also told banned worker were able to work in the industry for years without oversight. Liberal senator Jane Hume said a national scheme should have been implemented with "more urgency" when the coalition were last in government. "This is the right approach, to get a nationally uniform approach to working with children checks," she told Seven's Sunrise program. Laws passed by the federal parliament in July will strip funding from childcare centres not meeting compliance. Education ministers will also meet next week to consider further child safety laws for childcare centres. Among the measures being considered are use of CCTV in centres, as well as mandatory child safety training. Current working with children check laws are "hopeless", the prime minister concedes, as Australia's top legal advisors meet to consider a national scheme. Federal Attorney-General Michelle Rowland is meeting with state and territory counterparts in Sydney on Friday to discuss setting up a national system for working with children checks. Calls for a unified system have been growing following multiple reports of abuse in childcare centres. In one instance, a Victorian childcare worker was still allowed to retain his working with children check and work in the industry despite a major provider substantiating grooming allegations. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the reports were shocking and indicated more needed to be done to fix working with children checks. "It's hopeless, and we need to do better, quite clearly, and these revelations are a wake-up call for state and territory governments in terms of the regulations," he told ABC Radio on Friday. "The reports that we've seen recently have shocked parents and every parent's worst nightmare. That's why we are taking action at the national level." Recommendations for a national working with children check scheme were made in the findings of the 2017 royal commission into child sexual abuse. Ms Rowland conceded the reform had not happened quickly enough. "All representatives of states and territories are united in the goal of making this system better and making it safer for children, which should be our top priority," she told ABC Radio. "I acknowledged this has taken too long, but I wish to reassure Australians that ... this is top of the agenda. "What this will mean is that someone who is banned in one state or territory is banned in all states and territories." Ms Rowland said a lack of a national scheme for working with children checks put young people at risk. The attorney-general said she was hopeful a national scheme would be in place within 12 months. It comes as a NSW parliamentary inquiry on Thursday was told childcare centres were not checking whether staff were allowed to work with children before they were hired. The inquiry was also told banned worker were able to work in the industry for years without oversight. Liberal senator Jane Hume said a national scheme should have been implemented with "more urgency" when the coalition were last in government. "This is the right approach, to get a nationally uniform approach to working with children checks," she told Seven's Sunrise program. Laws passed by the federal parliament in July will strip funding from childcare centres not meeting compliance. Education ministers will also meet next week to consider further child safety laws for childcare centres. Among the measures being considered are use of CCTV in centres, as well as mandatory child safety training. Current working with children check laws are "hopeless", the prime minister concedes, as Australia's top legal advisors meet to consider a national scheme. Federal Attorney-General Michelle Rowland is meeting with state and territory counterparts in Sydney on Friday to discuss setting up a national system for working with children checks. Calls for a unified system have been growing following multiple reports of abuse in childcare centres. In one instance, a Victorian childcare worker was still allowed to retain his working with children check and work in the industry despite a major provider substantiating grooming allegations. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the reports were shocking and indicated more needed to be done to fix working with children checks. "It's hopeless, and we need to do better, quite clearly, and these revelations are a wake-up call for state and territory governments in terms of the regulations," he told ABC Radio on Friday. "The reports that we've seen recently have shocked parents and every parent's worst nightmare. That's why we are taking action at the national level." Recommendations for a national working with children check scheme were made in the findings of the 2017 royal commission into child sexual abuse. Ms Rowland conceded the reform had not happened quickly enough. "All representatives of states and territories are united in the goal of making this system better and making it safer for children, which should be our top priority," she told ABC Radio. "I acknowledged this has taken too long, but I wish to reassure Australians that ... this is top of the agenda. "What this will mean is that someone who is banned in one state or territory is banned in all states and territories." Ms Rowland said a lack of a national scheme for working with children checks put young people at risk. The attorney-general said she was hopeful a national scheme would be in place within 12 months. It comes as a NSW parliamentary inquiry on Thursday was told childcare centres were not checking whether staff were allowed to work with children before they were hired. The inquiry was also told banned worker were able to work in the industry for years without oversight. Liberal senator Jane Hume said a national scheme should have been implemented with "more urgency" when the coalition were last in government. "This is the right approach, to get a nationally uniform approach to working with children checks," she told Seven's Sunrise program. Laws passed by the federal parliament in July will strip funding from childcare centres not meeting compliance. Education ministers will also meet next week to consider further child safety laws for childcare centres. Among the measures being considered are use of CCTV in centres, as well as mandatory child safety training.
AU Financial Review
an hour ago
- AU Financial Review
Profit season shows AI's arrival. Middle Australia is right to worry
Next week's economic roundtable is supposed to give Australians hope for their kids' prosperity. But will it address the threat that artificial intelligence may wipe out the middle class?
