Cross-examination of accused murderer Erin Patterson continues
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
17 minutes ago
- ABC News
Bill to criminalise AI child abuse apps to be introduced to parliament
A bill to criminalise the use of AI tools purpose-built to create child sexual abuse material is set to be introduced to parliament. Independent MP Kate Chaney, who will introduce the bill, says the urgent issue cannot wait for the government's wider response to artificial intelligence. While it is an offence to possess or share child abuse material, there is no criminal prohibition on downloading or distributing the wave of emerging AI generators designed to create the illegal material. The tools are becoming easier to access online, with some of the most popular visited millions of times. Their spread is diverting police resources and allowing material to be created offline, where it is harder to track. A roundtable convened last week to address the issue recommended swift action to make the tools illegal, prompting Ms Chaney's bill. "[This] clearly needs to be done urgently and I can't see why we need to wait to respond to this really significant and quite alarming issue," Ms Chaney said. "I recognise the challenges of regulating AI — the technology is changing so fast it's hard to even come up with a workable definition of AI — but while we are working on that holistic approach, there are gaps in our existing legislation we can plug to address the highest-risk-use cases like this, so we can continue to build trust in AI." Ms Chaney said she had met with Attorney-General Michelle Rowland, who she said recognised there was a gap in the law. The MP for Curtin's bill would create a new offence for using a carriage service to download, access, supply or facilitate technologies that are designed to create child abuse material. A new offence for scraping or distributing data with the intention of training or creating those tools would also be created. The offences would carry a maximum 15-year term of imprisonment. A public defence would be available for law enforcement, intelligence agencies and others with express authorisation to be able to investigate child abuse cases. "There are a few reasons we need this," Ms Chaney said. "These tools enable the on-demand, unlimited creation of this type of material, which means perpetrators can train AI tools with images of a particular child, delete the offending material so they can't be detected, and then still be able to generate material with word prompts. "It also makes police work more challenging. It is [getting] harder to identify real children who are victims. "And every AI abuse image starts with photos of a real child, so a child is harmed somewhere in the process." The federal government continues to develop its response to the explosion in the use of AI tools, including by enabling the tools where they are productive and useful. It is yet to respond to a major review of the Online Safety Act handed to the government last year, which also recommended that so-called "nudify" apps be criminalised. Members of last week's roundtable said there was no public benefit to consider in the case of these child abuse generators, and there was no reason to wait for a whole-of-economy response to criminalise them. Former police detective inspector Jon Rouse, who participated in that roundtable, said Ms Chaney's bill addressed an urgent legislative gap. "While existing Australian legislation provides for the prosecution of child sexual abuse material production, it does not yet address the use of AI in generating such material," Professor Rouse said. Colm Gannon, Australian chief of the International Centre for Mission and Exploited Children, said there was a strong consensus that the AI tools had no place in society and Ms Chaney's bill was a "clear and targeted step to close an urgent gap". In a statement, Attorney-General Michelle Rowland said the foremost priority of any government was "to keep our most vulnerable safe". "As Attorney-General, I am fully committed to combating child sexual exploitation and abuse in all settings, including online, and the government has a robust legislative framework in place to support this," Ms Rowland said. "Keeping young people safe from emerging harms is above politics, and the government will carefully consider any proposal that aims to strengthen our responses to child sexual exploitation and abuse." Ms Chaney said regulating AI must become a priority for the government this term. "This is going to have to be an urgent focus for this government, regulating the AI space," she said. "Existing laws do apply to AI, and so we need to plug the gaps in those so they continue to be fit-for-purpose. "We do also need a coordinated approach and a holistic approach so we can balance individual rights with productivity, global governance and trust in information and institutions. "The challenge is the technology moves fast and government does not move fast, so we need to get it right but we also need to plug these gaps as they appear. An inquiry established by former industry minister Ed Husic last year recommended the government take the strongest option in regulating AI by creating standalone laws that could adapt to the rapidly shifting technology.
News.com.au
17 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Aussie drivers say Australian roads have never been more dangerous
OPINION: I don't know what's going on at the moment, but it seems like half of Australia has forgotten how to drive, or maybe they never learnt. Every week, I'm in a different cars for work, from American muscle vehicles like the Silverado to a cute Corolla Cross. But lately, it feels like no matter what I'm behind the wheel of, I'm a moving target for bad behaviour, road rage and a total disregard for basic driving etiquette. On a typical day this week, I saw a Jeep mounted on a concrete highway divider. You read that right, not next to it, not against it, on top of it while leaning against a car, it was like an off-road adventure gone wrong. A few days before that? A truck collided with a school bus. The same week, a car flew across three lanes and T-boned someone trying to merge. You might think I'm exaggerating, but I'm not. Australia's national road toll is the highest it's been in years. As of this month, 1,329 people have died on our roads in the past year, a 3.3 per cent increase compared to the same period last year. These numbers are no surprise when you witness what is happening on Australian streets. This morning, for instance, I was in a Toyota Corolla Cross, cruising along the freeway at 99 in a 100 zone, in the middle lane, just listening to good music. That was apparently too much for the truckie behind me, who decided that tailgating me within an inch of my rear bumper was the best way to say hello. He sat there flashing his lights. I think that's the polite way to tell me to get the f*** out of his way, I didn't. He then sped up in the left lane, overtook me and slammed on his brakes. Nice one, mate. You won what? An extra five metres? A false sense of masculinity? Five minutes later, I've got a P-plater in a '90s LandCruiser crawling up my tail. Here we go again. I move over this time, because clearly today I'm a rolling doormat, and as he speeds past, he gives me the finger like I just insulted his beautiful, beaten-up LandCruiser. Let me write this again…he gave me the finger for doing the speed limit in the middle lane. I'm sorry, when did being a decent human on the road become something to be punished for? I began my research, I called a few friends and started scrolling through chat groups. I'm not the only one fed up. Drivers are saying they're too anxious to drive at night, or the moment they see a truck with a semi trailer, they pull right over into the left lane, and some even avoid the freeway altogether. Reddit threads on Australian driving have exploded lately with fed-up drivers venting. For instance, Thomwas1111, who recently moved back to Australia from Denmark, said, 'The absolute state of some of the drivers here is impressively shit compared to there. Zero patience. All rage.' Knewell82 lost it over bad merging: 'The one that shits me the most is people doing 60km/h on a ramp and only speeding up to 100 once they're actually on the freeway. It's so much more dangerous trying to merge with a 40km/h speed difference.' It's getting so bad that some drivers admit they've changed how they drive. MiserablePiano5211 wrote: 'I leave a huge gap in front of me for trucks and psychos, because if they don't see me, I'm the one who's f*****.' Others go even further, SkelerAries admitted they park far away from the shopping centre just to avoid the 'shit driver who can't reverse without hitting something'. Then my favourite, Rodza81, who dropped this iconic summary of Australian roads: 'Rule 1: Assume everyone is trying to kill you. Rule 2: Speed cameras aren't for safety. Rule 3: Most drivers never bothered to actually learn the road rules.' He's not wrong, some Aussie drivers don't signal anymore, they cut across lanes, they tailgate, speed, swerve and treat road rules like they don't even exist. When something goes wrong? 'It's the other guy's fault'. Of course it is. Also, why are these people on the road? How do they have a license? I don't mean to generalise, but I'm going to, because it is always the same people. It's the lifted ute with a massive bullbar, the 4WDs, it's the grey HiLux with one headlight and zero care. It's the P-plater doing 140 down the Monash, or the truck driver who just loves being a bully. Just last year, my colleague David McCowen wrote a piece similar to this topic it was about how drivers in compact cars are treated with less respect on the road. How he was bullied driving a MG 3 hatch. So question for all you bullies - where the hell are you all going in such a rush? If you're consistently risking your life, and mine, to shave two minutes off your trip, maybe the issue isn't traffic, maybe you're the issue, poor time management or perhaps poor manners? As someone who drives for a living, can we all calm down? Being a 'good driver' isn't about speed or confidence, or owning the road. It's about not being a jerk. This isn't the Grand Prix track. If you want that, then go book a driving day with Audi or Mercedes, and go let off some steam in a controlled space. I'm fed up, and I know I'm not the only one.
News.com.au
44 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Monster who may have abused up to 55 Aussie kids named for the first time
EXCLUSIVE Warning: This article discusses the issue of childhood sexual abuse and could be triggering for some readers Today as thousands of Aussie families continue to reel in shock over horrifying allegations plaguing our early child care industry, is unmasking yet another male child care worker, who has been labelled 'one of Australia's most prolific child sexual abusers'. David Neil Tuck had already faced 10 child sexual assault charges in NSW at the time he was awarded a licence by the Eurobodalla Shire Council to run a family day care service out of his own home in Batemans Bay, three hours south of Sydney. It is estimated that Tuck – who ran the facility between 1994 and 1999 – sexually abused as many as 55 children in Batemans Bay alone, and possibly many more across his lifetime. He is also known to have worked as a gymnastics instructor at two YMCAs; as a nurse at a children's hospital west of Sydney; at a juvenile correctional facility; as a carer for disabled children; as a school bus driver for intellectually disabled children; and as a guide on children's holiday camps, before finally opening his own child care centre, which he ran from his remote rural property. Tuck, who has faced allegations of child sexual abuse spanning three decades, is also known to have spent time in Victoria, NSW, Queensland, ACT and South Australia. Until now his name has never been published by other media, due to legal blocks by authorities. Now, with those hurdles removed, two brave women are speaking out with a message they want every Australian to hear about the crisis in our early childcare industry; the harm being done to children; and the lifetime consequences. Hiding in plain sight Hailey* and Laura-Jane Singh (LJ) were just five and seven years old respectively, the first time they attended Bluemoor family day care, located in scenic Batemans Bay, New South Wales. The centre, which also offered overnight services to children aged two to 14, was run by David Tuck, a man who appeared charismatic and jovial on the surface. But Tuck had already been charged with 10 counts of child sexual abuse against an 11-year-old girl when the local council licensed him to run the day and overnight childcare facility from his family property. Had LJ or Hailey's parents known that history, they never would have allowed their children to attend, despite their urgent need for childcare. Nor would the young girls have continued attending, had their families ever got wind of the numerous complaints made against Tuck during the time they attended; including at least two complaints of sexual abuse made by two girls aged seven and 11. Now, LJ and Hailey are waiving their right to anonymity to share their stories in the hope that doing so will help educate others and enable adults to identify the insidious tactics predators use to groom whole families, often starting with the parents and other adults first. 'I can remember the property like I was there yesterday,' LJ, who now lives and works in Melbourne where she raises her own family, told 'There was a big dam, a main house for his family, and then a daycare cottage where we would all sleep alongside David who was the only adult …. At first I really liked going there … you got to play and have fun.' But within four weeks, Tuck would start grooming LJ. 'He would have me sit on his lap and he would make comments like 'You are my favourite child; I love you so much,' and, 'I love you, you're safe here. I won't let anyone hurt you,'' she said. For LJ, who had come from an unstable home life, the words were like catnip. 'I think he was able to identify vulnerability very quickly to his advantage.' Hailey – who was only five when she started attending Bluemoor – also remembers being told it would be a 'safe fun place with lots of other kids'. But then odd rules began to emerge. Creepy rules at Bluemoor family daycare In a written pamphlet obtained by parents were told in the strongest possible terms not to enter the cottage unannounced. 'PARENTS – PLEASE REMEMBER that a daycare home is also a family home and you are asked to respect the privacy of the family. PLEASE KNOCK BEFORE ENTERING … ALLOW TIME.' Once inside, Tuck had a very different set of rules for the children including a mandatory 'open door policy' when it came to using the toilets – this rule also applied to children as old as 12. 'I remember being in the bath on one occasion,' LJ recalled. 'David sat on the toilet and watched us. Although he had his clothes on, I could see that his penis was stiff. I didn't understand what he was doing as I was too young to know but he was rubbing his penis hard, right in front of us. 'I remember the bath water being really hot and focusing on the heat instead of how weird it felt to be watched by David. 'He also always paid close attention to our genital area when he dried us … and he had a rule where we were told we couldn't wear underwear to bed (under our nighties) as our bodies 'needed to breathe'.' Once night time arrived, the abuse got far worse. 'He had a thing where he would choose a child to sleep in his bed each night,' remembers Hailey. 'When you first start attending the daycare, you think (it's) special to be chosen. (You think) it's lucky, you know. Until you get chosen the first time.' For LJ that first time came four weeks into her enrolment at Bluemoor. She was only eight. 'On this night, he chose me. It felt like I'd won a prize,' she said. 'But then he placed his hands under my nightgown … He told me that it was his way of showing me his love. He told me that it was our secret and that I was his special little girl and that what we were doing was OK.' From then, the abuse became more frequent and severe. As did Tuck's threats. 'He would say 'Don't tell anyone. If you tell anyone, you won't be believed. If you tell someone you're going to be hurt or your family's going to be hurt. If you tell somebody you'll be removed, you'll never see your family again.' As a child, obviously that sticks in your mind.' Tragically, for Hailey, who was five when the abuse began, she did try to sound the alarm, but, contrary to what many parents might expect, disclosures of sexual violence from children rarely come in neat little packages that are easily recognisable and decipherable to adults. But that doesn't mean there aren't clear signs. 'I remember being pulled from the car screaming to go there and I think that's what people need to understand: children might tell you but they're going to tell you the only way they know how,' she explained. 'When the abuse first started I didn't even have a word for abuse or sex. I didn't have those words, but … there were other signs, bed-wetting at ages where it's beyond a regular occurrence and withdrawal from school, withdrawal from friends.' Eventually, as Hailey grew older, she mustered up the courage to disclose. 'I do remember distinctively one day when we were getting ready to go to David's and my mother was there getting ready as well,' she said. 'And I thought, you know what, I'm just gonna say it. I need this to stop. I got her attention but she was in a rush. She turned around and said 'what do you want?' 'And just from that reaction and knowing her moods I was like 'well now's not the time to disclose.' 'And you have to remember I've been told the whole time by David 'you're going to be in trouble', 'this needs to be a secret', so there was that huge unknown factor of how she was going to react.' Tragically, LJ was also exhibiting clear signs of abuse but once again, those signs weren't accurately interpreted by other adults. Her educational development was significantly delayed. She was often unwell and absent from school. She began self harming at 10 years old. 'I've looked back through a lot of my old school reports and linked them back to when I started going to David's. In year two, year three, I was still wetting myself at school, I was withdrawn, they talk about my 'inappropriate behaviour' … they're all really clear signs of sexual abuse but it was never picked up,' she said. 'It was never looked at more than there being something wrong with me as a child.' What LJ and Hailey did not know was that in 1991 – several years before they each enrolled – Tuck had gone on trial in Sydney, facing 10 counts of child sexual abuse over incidents spanning 1985 and 1986. The jury had found him not guilty and in 1994 he'd passed a police record check and been licensed to run the child care centre. In 1996, another 11-year-old girl came forward to police alleging sexual abuse. This time no charges were laid and the girl dropped the complaint. But the following year, a third girl came forward, this one aged under eight. She too alleged sexual abuse by David Tuck at his childcare centre, also claiming to authorities that children were made to sleep next to him in his bed. Records obtained through Freedom of Information reveal that it took Council more than nine months to investigate that claim, during which time Tuck was permitted to continue operating his overnight facility. 'In my opinion, had they stepped in at that point it might have saved years of abuse against us,' Hailey said. Instead, in 1999, the girl was pressured to withdraw the complaint and the allegation of sexual abuse was deemed unsubstantiated. Nonetheless the Department of Community Services (DoCS) and the local Council concluded that Tuck was sleeping with children in his bed. He was sent a firm warning letter, advising him that the sleeping arrangement was unsatisfactory but no other substantive penalty was given. 'What is staggering is that not only was he allowed to continue running an overnight child care centre during the investigation,' LJ said. 'But no one from council then ever came out to perform an inspection at night time even after they knew he'd had children sleeping in his bed.' Records obtained through Freedom of Information also indicate that during this time the Council received multiple other non-sexual complaints from other members of the public. While they did perform numerous inspections in person, records indicate these all occurred during daylight hours – and often with advanced notice. LJ, Hailey and a group of David Tuck's victims are now represented by Donaldson Law. A spokesperson from Eurobodalla Shire Council told 'Council has received notification of some claims for compensation arising out of Mr Tuck's operation of a family day care service in the 1990s. As those claims are the subject of legal action, Council is unable to provide any comment on the matters or the operations of the family day care service.' A dead body is found It was Monday July 23, 2001, when a dead body was found inside a car at Lake Tabourie, half an hour north of Batemans Bay. The body belonged to David Tuck, then aged 39. On the Friday three days prior, he'd been charged with sexual offences against yet another child in Queanbeyan. Over the weekend, a further eight children had come forward with their own accounts of sexual abuse against Tuck. By then both Hailey and LJ's families had moved away from the region and neither would learn of the development until later. Tuck too had moved from the area in 1999, after he'd been caught forging parent signatures to receive additional childcare rebate payments. He was found guilty of more than 50 counts of defrauding the local council and left Batemans Bay in disgrace. So by the time Tuck took his own life, more than a dozen children had made allegations spanning more than two decades. And that number was about to explode. Chris Graham, the former editor-in-chief of the local newspaper, The Bay Post, remembers the case well. 'I was a young editor, at 28,' Mr Graham told 'I was known for being a bit of a rule breaker and a bit of a rogue. But it was one time I was warned not only by the government and not only by our lawyers, but also by colleagues and management, not to name Tuck.' Having now worked as a journalist for more than 30 years, Mr Graham says the story still stands out in his mind 'partly because of the sheer number of children that were eventually involved, but also because it is the only time in my career that I can remember actually losing it on the phone at a government official'. 'What had upset me was we were pursuing the story of a man who had sexually abused children and we were being told that we couldn't report not only the man's name – even though he was deceased – but we weren't allowed to report in my view enough detail to alert people within the region of who the man was, where he worked and what children were at risk of being abused,' he explained. 'And my argument to the government was, if we don't make every effort to contact, or at least notify family members that their children may have been exposed to a serial predator, then how are those parents supposed to know that their child may have been harmed by this guy? I mean, it's not always obvious.'' Mr Graham said he was told by a media spokesperson for DoCs, 'well, the man's dead, so the matter's resolved. It's over. It's finished.' 'I remember just being stunned,' he added. 'And then quite angry. And then quite loud. It just seemed basic common sense to me that if you know the name and the identity of the perpetrator, then you would have a duty of care to let people know that their children have been exposed. 'I mean it's inconceivable to me that there would be any other reaction. But that wasn't the government's reaction at all: their reaction was 'the man is deceased, the investigation is over'. 'And they said, 'what are we supposed to say? That their child has been exposed to a pedophile?' 'And I said, 'yeah, that's exactly what you're supposed to say because they're parents. And if it was your children, that's what you'd want to know. 'By then I was yelling down the phone and they were yelling back. It was a pretty unpleasant interaction and it's the only time in my career that's ever happened.' Mr Graham said he also expressed concern that concealing Tuck's name would mean abused children would be left to navigate their trauma in silence, shame and isolation. 'I remember making the argument that children who've been abused by this man will grow up without any assistance to deal with what they have suffered.' That is so patently obvious,' he said. 'But they were not just unmoved, they were absolutely uninterested. They just wanted to get me off the phone and I remember thinking 'am I the only one who thinks trying hard to narrow down the victims of a serial sexual predator was a good idea? Because they clearly didn't think it was.' Then, Mr Graham's newspaper received a tip-off that the number of victims in Batemans Bay alone was suspected to be at least 30. 'And that tip-off came from the police,' says Mr Graham. 'So the story suddenly grew much bigger.' Tuck had access to 55 children Today, records obtained through Freedom of Information show the true number of children Tuck may have sexually abused in Batemans Bay is as high as 55. That number does not take into account the many other workplaces Tuck worked in before coming to Batemans Bay, all of which gave him access to children, including working at a children's hospital, a children's camp, as a gymnastics YMCA instructor, a school bus driver for disabled children, and at a juvenile detention facility. Disturbingly, the FOI records also reveal that on the day of Tuck's death, the police investigation into his crimes against children was immediately terminated – with victim interviews scheduled for that day also cancelled. This was despite authorities noting in official memos that 'a large number of children may have been assaulted and further disclosures are expected over ensuing days and months'. The memos show that an active decision was then made not to brief local school principals or school counsellors despite the belief that more children would keep coming forward. Instead, children would be 'strongly urged' to contact a single service, allowing for containment. The Department of Community Services also established 'Agreed Procedures to respond to future disclosures'. Alarmingly, that procedure involved sending children on a deliberate fool's errand. The procedure states that children who wished to disclose would be referred to JIRT police – the Joint Investigative Response Team. The JIRT team would speak to the child and 'create a detailed event' but then 'reject the referral' and send the child packing, since the investigation had already been closed. LJ was shocked to see the 'agreed procedures'. 'The process was clearly designed to leave the victim feeling exhausted, defeated and demoralised,' she said. 'Children were being sent on a deliberate goose chase with no possibility of any other outcome, other than a dead-end, which was predetermined from the outset. 'It's purposeful misdirection and procedural re-victimisation to lure vulnerable children into coming forward and reliving what they have been through knowing all along that there is no other possible outcome other than rejection.' To this day, no other Australian media has ever named David Tuck and no authorities have ever reached out to Hailey or LJ's families – despite LJ's name appearing on a list of possible victims. As for Chris Graham, he left The Bay Post not long after Tuck's suicide. He went on to help establish the National Indigenous Times, and has won multiple prestigious journalism awards including a Walkley Award and an Australian Human Rights Media Award for other reporting. He now owns and runs independent media outlet New Matilda. He says this story still stands out and unsettles him. 'Looking back, I wish I'd just named the prick,' he said. 'He might be one of Australia's most prolific serial sex offenders. He was a master manipulator and a master at ingratiating himself with adults in order to prey on their children. I mean it gives me chills talking about it. 'He was obviously just born a predator. I wish I had just told everybody David Tuck did this and if your children went to this childcare centre, there's a reasonable likelihood that they were assaulted by this man. 'To this day, I don't know how many victims there are, I shudder to think, I mean he had engineered unfettered access to hundreds of helpless children and he was licensed to do it by the government.' A spokesperson for the NSW Department of Communities and Justice (previously known as DoCS) told 'DCJ takes all allegations of abuse seriously. We extend our deepest sympathies to the victim-survivors in this matter and acknowledge their experiences. 'In 2018, the NSW ombudsman released its report. 'The JIRT partnership – 20 years on', which made 67 recommendations to improve the program. 'All DCJ-specific recommendations have since been implemented. These include new referral criteria.' Fighting for national reform Speaking out today, LJ and Hailey are now spearheading a national campaign, and have launched a petition calling for an overhaul of safety regulations in Australia's childcare industry. They want to prevent other children experiencing a lifetime of trauma, which LJ says has ranged from drug use and self-harm, to violent relationships, homelessness, and multiple mental health struggles. Remarkably, over time and with support from loved ones, LJ – who is a proud Aboriginal woman – has become an academic whose work centres on child protection, social justice and advocacy for Aboriginal young people involved in residential care systems, and Hailey has become a highly regarded professional with tertiary qualifications. Despite their achievements, they continue to suffer immensely and wonder what more they could have achieved were it not for the abuse they suffered. Now, they want accountability for the institutions that shield perpetrators and education for parents, families and children. 'How are children supposed to report if no one has offered language to even describe what's going on?' Hailey added. 'If people were more educated on how to look out for these signs (and if) children were taught their bodies are theirs and nobody should be trying to coerce you into doing anything that would be a strong start.' The women are also on a mission to ensure that every child who was ever abused by David Tuck is given support. 'They should have named him back then,' LJ said. 'That omission had a profound effect as it meant a vital opportunity for us to be believed as children was missed. 'Instead all the onus of responsibility was put on our little shoulders to have to come forward and seek help, and convince the adults in our lives of what we had gone through, with no certainty of what that reaction would be or if we would be taken seriously.' 'I could have accessed support,' Hailey agreed. 'And that could have helped me immensely with dealing with this throughout my life, but particularly in those first instances when I was still a child.' So far, LJ and Hailey have been able to identify around 30 other survivors of Tuck. But they fear there may be many more scattered across the country. 'And that's why we want people to share this far and wide,' Hailey said. 'The biggest thing for me is getting his name out there because we want all survivors of his to know you're not alone and I'm sorry no one told you.'
