The government will move to ban people from appealing if their working with children check is denied, after media reports highlighting cases where sex offenders and other criminals had been granted the checks on appeal.

So the article only seems to raise these two cases, and it’s not clear to me that either of these two people hurt any kids after appealing their check.

Is it just me or is this cooked? The right to appeal decisions seems fundamental to help reduce malfunctions or biases in a system. If the appeals process is too lax (doesn’t seem like it?) then strength it sure but wtf is this move?

  • johnwicksdog@aussie.zoneEnglish
    0·
    20 hours ago

    I assume a working with children check wouldn’t have a high standard of evidence and a candidate probably doesn’t need a conviction to fail the test. E.g., it would be enough for a previous employer to say “Oh yeah we couldn’t prove it but we had some serious complaints that he was fiddling kids”. If that is the case, I really don’t feel comfortable with this direction. If its more of a case where theres some established quantifiable criteria that would never reasonably pass appeal, then sure… but I don’t get what this solves except to save resources.

    It strikes me as opportunistic politics to appeal to the emotion of voters–which is just tacky when we are talking about something as serious as peoples careers and child safety.