

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.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-01/federal-court-sydney-wissam-haddad-lectures-social-media/105480506 is mentioned here, but it the framing is a bit different and the ruling a little more detailed. (Probably a better source out there but I’m also on my phone)