Connect with us
https://tickernews.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AmEx-Thought-Leaders.jpg

Ticker Views

Parents of kids in daycare are terrified following Melbourne abuse allegations. What can they do?

Published

on

Parents of kids in daycare are terrified following Melbourne abuse allegations. What can they do?

Danielle Arlanda Harris, Griffith University

Parents have been left reeling by news a male Melbourne childcare worker has been charged with 70 counts related to the alleged sexual abuse of young children in his care.

The charges include sexual penetration and producing child abuse material for use through a carriage service. The man has tested positive for a sexually transmitted disease, with more than 1,200 children now needing to be tested.

If you’ve got a child in daycare, or are planning to enrol them in one soon, you might be wondering: what can I do to reduce the risk of this happening to my child at care?

I’ve researched prevention of child sexual abuse for decades. Here are my main recommendations for parents.

Scrutinise the childcare centre

You need to make sure you know who is looking after your kids. Ask yourself:

  • who is playing with them during the day?
  • who are their main carers?
  • who helps them with naptime and toileting or nappy change?

High staff turnover at the centre should be a warning sign for employers and parents alike. You want to go to a place where the employees have been there for decades. Obviously, that is not always possible but it is something to look for.

Don’t be distracted with shiny play equipment; look for places where the staff are actually interacting with the children.

Ask the childcare centre the uncomfortable questions. Both the director and regular staff should be able to answer questions such as:

  • what is your recruitment policy and process?
  • what would you do if you saw a colleague kiss a child or touch a child inappropriately?
  • what is your child protection plan?
  • what do you do if a parent or child alleges there’s been an incident? What exact steps will you follow?
  • how do you ensure no worker is ever left alone with a child?

Any resistance to answering questions about policies and protocol should be a red flag. Trust your gut.

What to look for

Go to the childcare centre for a spot visit at an unexpected time.

That means going when it’s not drop-off or pick-up time. Everyone can put on a show at 8am and 5pm but go at 2pm or 3pm when the staff are starting to flag and the children are grumpy.

Any resistance is a problem. A good centre will let you visit any time.

You want glass walls for nappy change areas, or a really clear line of sight so nobody is able to be in there unseen.

Kids are most likely to be abused during nappy change, toileting and nap time. Look closely at these places and understand the workflow in those areas.

Look for nooks and crannies – any secret spaces that have been created.

At naptime, everyone should be sleeping out in the open; there should be no closed areas.

No worker should be alone with a child, ever. This should be made very clear to you when you ask the childcare centre about their safety policies.

Childcare workers should not have their personal phones with them on the floor. The centre should have one phone for the whole place but the staff should not have their personal phones on them at any time. There is no need for it and it creates risk.

What should I say to my kids?

It’s really important to talk to your children, even if they are very young. Give them the language to talk about this and understand what’s appropriate and what’s not.

Use proper anatomical terms for body parts so they have the language to disclose if something happens.

Let them know they can speak up and make sure they understand the steps to disclose.

For example, when you do a nappy change, narrate what you are doing so they understand what a “normal” nappy change is and can learn the words for these steps.

Ask: what’s it like when Mister James wipes your bottom? What did he do? Tell them: if you don’t like the way he wipes your bottom you can tell Miss Tracy or me.

It is never too early to start talking about this stuff and they’ll pick it up faster than you realise. If you’re not talking with your children about this stuff, you’re not preventing child sexual abuse.

Talk about “safe touching” and “unsafe touching”. Make sure they know they don’t have to hug someone if they don’t want to. They can always say no and they can give a high five instead. They need to learn: my body, my rules.

Talk with your child about what it’s like at naptime and at nappy change time at daycare.

And if your child seems like they really don’t want to talk to a particular instructor, that can be a warning sign.

Systemic change is needed

Obviously, childcare workers are poorly paid and we need to overhaul the system. Higher pay would mean people could stay longer in one job and would reduce staff turnover.

The working with children check is just one piece in a large and complicated puzzle. It just means that on the day that person applied for the job they hadn’t been convicted of an offence.

But the fact is a lot of people don’t have a choice but to send their child to daycare when they are pre-verbal.

So parents need to have uncomfortable conversations with childcare staff (and with their kids); lean into the discomfort and ask the questions anyway.

Danielle Arlanda Harris, Associate Professor in Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Ticker Views

Lunar Gateway faces delays and funding debate amid Artemis ambitions

Published

on

What’s the point of a space station around the Moon?

Berna Akcali Gur, Queen Mary University of London

The Lunar Gateway is planned space station that will orbit the Moon. It is part of the Nasa‑led Artemis programme. Artemis aims to return humans to the Moon, establishing a sustainable presence there for scientific and commercial purposes, and eventually reach Mars.

However, the modular space station now faces delays, cost concerns and potential US funding cuts. This raises a fundamental question: is an orbiting space station necessary to achieve lunar objectives, including scientific ones?

The president’s proposed 2026 budget for Nasa sought to cancel Gateway. Ultimately, push back from within the Senate led to continued funding for the lunar outpost. But debate continues among policymakers as to its value and necessity within the Artemis programme.

Cancelling Gateway would also raise deeper questions about the future of US commitment to international cooperation within Artemis. It would therefore risk eroding US influence over global partnerships that will define the future of deep space exploration.

Gateway was designed to support these ambitions by acting as a staging point for crewed and robotic missions (such as lunar rovers), as a platform for scientific research and as a testbed for technologies crucial to landing humans on Mars.

It is a multinational endeavour. Nasa is joined by four international partners, the Canadian Space Agency, the European Space Agency (Esa), the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and the United Arab Emirates’ Mohammed Bin Rashid Space Centre.

Schematic of the Lunar Gateway.
The Lunar Gateway.
Nasa

Most components contributed by these partners have already been produced and delivered to the US for integration and testing. But the project has been beset by rising costs and persistent debates over its value.

If cancelled, the US abandonment of the most multinational component of the Artemis programme, at a time when trust in such alliances is under unprecedented strain, could be far reaching.

It will be assembled module by module, with each partner contributing components and with the possibility of additional partners joining over time.

Strategic aims

Gateway reflects a broader strategic aim of Artemis, to pursue lunar exploration through partnerships with industry and other nations, helping spread the financial cost – rather than as a sole US venture. This is particularly important amid intensifying competition – primarily with China.

China and Russia are pursuing their own multinational lunar project, a surface base called the International Lunar Research Station. Gateway could act as an important counterweight, helping reinforce US leadership at the Moon.

In its quarter-century of operation, the ISS has hosted more than 290 people from 26 countries, alongside its five international partners, including Russia. More than 4,000 experiments have been conducted in this unique laboratory.

In 2030, the ISS is due to be succeeded by separate private and national space stations in low Earth orbit. As such, Lunar Gateway could repeat the strategic, stabilising role among different nations that the ISS has played for decades.

However, it is essential to examine carefully whether Gateway’s strategic value is truly matched by its operational and financial feasibility.

It could be argued that the rest of the Artemis programme is not dependant on the lunar space station, making its rationales increasingly difficult to defend.

Some critics focus on technical issues, others say the Gateway’s original purpose has faded, while others argue that lunar missions can proceed without an orbital outpost.

Sustainable exploration

Supporters counter that the Lunar Gateway offers a critical platform for testing technology in deep space, enabling sustainable lunar exploration, fostering international cooperation and laying the groundwork for a long term human presence and economy at the Moon. The debate now centres on whether there are more effective ways to achieve these goals.

Despite uncertainties, commercial and national partners remain dedicated to delivering their commitments. Esa is supplying the International Habitation Module (IHAB) alongside refuelling and communications systems. Canada is building Gateway’s robotic arm, Canadarm3, the UAE is producing an airlock module and Japan is contributing life support systems and habitation components.

Gateway’s Halo module at a facility in Arizona operated by aerospace company Northrop Grumman.
Nasa / Josh Valcarcel

US company Northrop Grumman is responsible for developing the Habitat and Logistics Outpost (Halo), and American firm Maxar is to build the power and propulsion element (PPE). A substantial portion of this hardware has already been delivered and is undergoing integration and testing.

If the Gateway project ends, the most responsible path forward to avoid discouraging future contributors to Artemis projects would be to establish a clear plan to repurpose the hardware for other missions.

Cancellation without such a strategy risks creating a vacuum that rival coalitions, could exploit. But it could also open the door to new alternatives, potentially including one led by Esa.

Esa has reaffirmed its commitment to Gateway even if the US ultimately reconsiders its own role. For emerging space nations, access to such an outpost would help develop their capabilities in exploration. That access translates directly into geopolitical influence.

Space endeavours are expensive, risky and often difficult to justify to the public. Yet sustainable exploration beyond Earth’s orbit will require a long-term, collaborative approach rather than a series of isolated missions.

If the Gateway no longer makes technical or operational sense for the US, its benefits could still be achieved through another project.

This could be located on the lunar surface, integrated into a Mars mission or could take an entirely new form. But if the US dismisses Gateway’s value as a long term outpost without ensuring that its broader benefits are preserved, it risks missing an opportunity that will shape its long term influence in international trust, leadership and the future shape of space cooperation.The Conversation

Berna Akcali Gur, Lecturer in Outer Space Law, Queen Mary University of London

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

South Korea introduces AI job protection legislation

South Korea is proposing laws to protect jobs from AI, balancing innovation with workers’ rights amid rising automation.

Published

on

South Korea is proposing laws to protect jobs from AI, balancing innovation with workers’ rights amid rising automation.


South Korean lawmakers are taking bold steps to protect workers from the growing impact of AI on employment. The proposed legislation aims to safeguard jobs and support workers transitioning into new roles as machines increasingly enter the workforce.

Professor Karen Sutherland of Uni SC joins Ticker to break down what these changes mean for employees and industries alike. She explains how the laws are designed to balance technological innovation with workers’ rights, and why proactive measures are crucial as AI adoption accelerates.

With major companies like Hyundai Motor introducing advanced robots, labour unions have raised concerns about fair treatment and the future of human labour. Experts say South Korea’s approach is faster and more comprehensive than similar initiatives in the United States and European Union, aiming to secure livelihoods while improving the quality of life for displaced workers.

Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker

#AIJobs #SouthKorea #FutureOfWork #Automation #TechPolicy #LaborRights #WorkforceInnovation #Ticker


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

U.S. ambassador responds to NATO criticism at Munich Security Conference

At Munich Security Conference, U.S. NATO ambassador discussed defense autonomy, hybrid warfare, and transatlantic cooperation amid rising tensions.

Published

on

At Munich Security Conference, U.S. NATO ambassador discussed defense autonomy, hybrid warfare, and transatlantic cooperation amid rising tensions.


At the Munich Security Conference, the U.S. ambassador to NATO faced tough questions on global order as European allies explored greater defense autonomy amid rising geopolitical tensions. The discussion highlighted the challenges NATO faces in maintaining unity while responding to evolving threats.

The ambassador addressed criticisms directly, emphasizing the importance of transatlantic cooperation and NATO’s role in ensuring international security. European nations voiced concerns about independent defense capabilities and the impact of hybrid warfare from Russia on regional stability.

Oz Sultan from Sultan Interactive Group provides analysis.

Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker

#MunichSecurityConference #NATO #GlobalSecurity #DefenseAutonomy #Geopolitics #TransatlanticAlliance #HybridWarfare #USForeignPolicy


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Trending Now