Thursday, 7 March 2024

Bills

Education and Training Reform Amendment (Early Childhood Employment Powers) Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ingrid Stitt:

That the bill be now read a second time.

And Wendy Lovell’s amendment:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with ‘the bill be withdrawn and not reintroduced until the government:

(1) provides a preliminary or draft fee structure for the early learning centres (ELCs) scheduled to open in 2025 and 2026;

(2) seeks written feedback from any childcare centre, kindergarten or preschool within a 15-kilometre radius of the proposed government ELC sites regarding the likely impact of a government ELC on their workforce capacity and enrolments and provides their feedback to the house;

(3) conducts an analysis on the childcare workforce implications of the new government ELC sites, including:

(a) establishing the workforce vacancy rates around the locations of the new sites;

(b) providing the house with a comprehensive plan on how the government will ensure existing childcare centres and kindergartens are not disadvantaged in their ability to recruit and retain staff in their existing programs; and

(4) provides an estimate of the budget impact of the operating costs for the government ELCs scheduled to open in 2025 and 2026.’.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:18): I rise today to speak on the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Early Childhood Employment Powers) Bill 2024. This bill is about ensuring that our youngest citizens have the best possible start in life. On this side of the chamber we are committed to delivering the support that will give every child the ability to live up to their potential.

I want to start by acknowledging the work of Minister Blandthorn and her team and department in putting this bill together for us today, although based on some of the contributions yesterday perhaps it should be Ms Lovell I congratulate, as it appeared that she was the one taking credit for this work. It is good to see such enthusiastic support in this space even from those members opposite, despite perhaps sometimes a patchy record, especially given we have seen stories in the paper this morning too and comments yesterday from Liberal members about the urgency of this, which makes it all the more staggering that when this bill was put through the Assembly just a short time ago the opposition actually put forward a reasoned amendment to the bill. I have got to say I found it quite staggering. Putting some thoughts together for my contribution on this bill – you speak so evidently passionately in support of these changes and yet then put a reasoned amendment to the house. As members well know, and for those who do not know, a reasoned amendment’s purpose is to effectively neuter the bill, to effectively stop it. That is what they did in the Assembly.

I found it quite remarkable, but I found it all the more remarkable after Ms Lovell spoke so passionately about supposedly supporting early childhood education that she herself would put this reasoned amendment through, again mirroring the one put through by her colleagues in the Assembly. So to say that you are supportive of the changes but ‘No, here’s a reasoned amendment. Actually we’re not going to support it’ – come on, guys, get your act together. If you actually support early childhood education, support this bill. I am sure there will be much more entered into and much more discussion from both sides of the chamber about that reasoned amendment as well. But to say ‘No, no, no. Stop everything. Don’t do this bill until you’ve done this, this and this’ – many things which I think the government has actually already done anyway – is just frankly a time-wasting tactic and a delay when we should actually be putting this bill through. So if you do support that, if you do support this support for early childhood education, do not play games – support the bill. If you have a serious amendment, put it up, but a reasoned amendment is not that. A reasoned amendment is, as I say, to stop the bill, and if you do not want to see this go through, that is why you would support that reasoned amendment. I did make some notes yesterday saying hopefully we will have no similar stunts in this place as we saw in the Assembly, but evidently that is what we are seeing with this reasoned amendment put through by Ms Lovell.

What this bill does is reinforce the transformative power of education and the vital role it plays in a child’s journey from the very beginning. The bill extends the legal and operational framework of the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 by encompassing early childhood education and care. This legislative expansion is crucial for assembling a specialised government workforce under the act, ensuring the state possesses the requisite legal authority to officially manage and deliver the ambitious project of 50 government owned and operated early learning centres (ELCs).

The profound impact of early childhood education extends far beyond foundational learning of course. It plays a major role in shaping our children’s future. Engaging in high-quality early education not only prepares children academically but also gives them the social skills and other various aspects of emotional intelligence that set a solid groundwork for lifelong success. As members of this place will know, the government’s Best Start, Best Life initiative really does demonstrate that deep-seated commitment that those of us on this side of the house have towards universal access to superior early learning, acknowledging that these early investments deliver substantial societal benefits and substantial returns over a long period. The research backs this up. It shows a marked improvement in school readiness and academic achievement as well as social behaviours among children who attend these or similar early education programs.

Further to that, early education offers an equitable start for children across all backgrounds, significantly narrowing those achievement gaps. Providing all children with that same equality of opportunity is such an important part of what these reforms do. Again, economic analyses reinforce the value of this and highlight the benefit that it provides in levelling out that playing field to give everyone that equal shot for success. It also has been shown to lead to enhanced workforce productivity, reduce dependency on social services and even decrease criminality. So this government has a holistic approach to early education which underscores our vision for a thriving, well-rounded future generation which will be poised to contribute positively to community and economic growth.

I touched on some of the contributions of Ms Lovell before, and I had the opportunity to listen to some of the comments made by my region colleague Mrs Hermans yesterday as well, and whilst I probably did not have the brainpower yesterday to process every single one of the rebuttals I could make to that particular speech, there are a couple of points that she made which I will touch on briefly as well when it comes to Best Start, Best Life reforms. Firstly, Mrs Hermans lamented the cost barrier to accessing early childhood education, and that is something of course that this government is very cognisant of. It is something that is actually quite a priority for this government, and that is exactly why we have implemented free four-year-old kinder for Victorians, and it is also exactly why we are currently implementing free three-year-old kinder. So I am happy to assure my colleague Mrs Hermans that that is actually what we are doing. These free kinder programs will make a significant difference for families, and as I say as well, they are a great social equaliser in providing those services to those who might have had those challenging conversations, the ones which Mrs Hermans referenced – ‘Can you afford this? Well, you might have to limit what you can provide for your child because of that.’ That is exactly why we are proceeding with free four-year-old kinder and free three-year-old kinder as well.

Another point: I do note her commentary around wages, and that is obviously a very important thing we have to be mindful of too – supporting early childhood educators with the best possible wages. I do note that that is a federal issue, and there has been I believe a lot of work done by the current Albanese government after, let us just say again, a fairly substantial period of inactivity by the former Abbott–Turnbull–Morrison governments. So that is a federal issue, and I look forward to seeing further progress on that front as well. But it is something of course that those of us on this side of the house are particularly and acutely mindful of, because on this side of the house we support working Victorians getting their fair share.

An essential element of this bill is the comprehensive empowerment of the Secretary of the Department of Education with a broad authority to hire a diverse array of personnel essential for the operational successes of the new government-funded early learning centres. This includes a spectrum of roles ranging from early childhood teachers and educators through to trainees through to centre directors, assistant directors, administrative staff, cooks and otherwise. Direct employment by the secretary is a pivotal point of this strategy aimed at fostering a workforce that is not only skilled but also deeply committed to delivering those high-quality educational services to our young children. This approach underscores the government’s dedication to creating that supportive environment.

Our leadership in this space when it comes to early childhood education and care is further exemplified through, as I mentioned earlier, those $14 billion Best Start, Best Life reforms. They are set and they are already delivering enormous benefits across the state, addressing critical childcare shortages, as others have raised in this chamber, particularly in those areas of dire need. This initiative to establish the 50 government owned and operated ELCs will greatly enhance access to early learning by co-locating these centres with schools and other child services. I note my colleague Mr Tarlamis had the opportunity to visit Topirum Primary School, one of the many new schools that we are building in the outer south-east alone, in the wonderful growing area of Clyde North. It is a fantastic new school, and both Mr Tarlamis and I have had the opportunity over the past year to see it growing and see it develop, and it is wonderful to see that school now open and accepting its first batch of students. There is a huge and growing population in my community of Clyde North.

Lee Tarlamis: A kindergarten is on its way too.

Michael GALEA: And as Mr Tarlamis rightly notes, there is a kindergarten being built onsite as we speak, which will be operational from next year, and that is exactly what these reforms are delivering. It is putting the kinders at the schools so that you do not need to do the double drop-off, as we spoke about in this chamber and as Minister Blandthorn commented yesterday as well, avoiding that double drop-off, which will certainly be of benefit to many parents in Clyde North and it will also be of benefit to other road users, hopefully from less congestion caused by those double drop-offs.

Co-locating these kinders is a really exciting initiative. It is also being done of course in established schools. I have enjoyed working with other schools across the South-Eastern Metropolitan Region, be it in the Berwick area, be it in the Rowville area or otherwise, in trying to locate some of the opportunities for some co-located kinders on existing school sites. But in growing areas such as Clyde North we have the new Topirum Primary School that has just opened, coming of course after Ramlegh Park and Grayling primary schools, which opened in the previous years, and in fact another two schools which are currently under construction just at the primary school level, the interim-named Thompsons West and Clyde North primaries. We also of course have, very excitingly, Clyde North secondary college under works as well, as well as an expansion, stage 2, of the neighbouring Clyde Secondary College.

There is a lot of investment in education, particularly in our region of the south-east, as there is in all growing suburbs. I believe that there are 14 new schools that have opened this year alone. I appreciate, Mr Welch, that you are new to this chamber. I enjoy your company, but I do miss the company of the good Dr Bach, who used to frequently yell across this house that we were building schools only in Labor seats, which was quite an odd thing to say given that Labor holds the majority of outer suburban seats. I would happily retort that in the state seat of Berwick alone, which as members would be aware is a Liberal seat, we are building more new schools in that single seat than the previous coalition government built across the entire state of Victoria in their last term of government. That is because when you have a government that delivers, that gets results, it provides services for people, whether that is the schools, the houses, the road upgrades, the transport – the bus routes – or everything else that goes with it, including level crossing removals.

As our growing suburbs grow and experience the challenges of that growth, as I have seen day to day, as has Mr Tarlamis, in the South-Eastern Metropolitan Region, this is a government that is absolutely transformationally changing the way we move around that area. We have seen countless upgrades, including the recent completion of the Hall Road upgrade in the south-east, which I believe was completed ahead of time. It benefits communities right across that Cranbourne belt, right through to Clyde North and right through to Frankston as well, which is perhaps another reason why the people of Dunkley so enthusiastically supported Jodie Belyea to be their new federal local member, seeing that their local state members – the member for Cranbourne, the member for Carrum, the member for Hastings, the member for Frankston, and I could go on – are delivering those services. Obviously the late, great Peta Murphy, who was a tireless and passionate advocate for her community, did so as well, matched perhaps only by Ms Belyea, and I am very much looking forward to working with her in the interests of those communities there.

As I say, co-locating kinders and two primary schools is a very exciting initiative. It is something that is getting a lot of attention in communities, as I say, especially in those growing communities. It really is an important part of these Best Start, Best Life reforms. Beyond that, this bill will support various and widespread infrastructure improvements, providing better accessibility as well as providing space for land acquisition and development, which will be of great assistance to delivering these projects in my community, as with many others. There are many other initiatives. I have touched on free three- and four-year-old kinder, which is a significant benefit. We also recently had, as I commented in a contribution earlier this week, the Casey early parenting centre, one of the 12 new and upgraded centres across Victoria, which is also in the suburb of Clyde North, providing that support for Casey and Cardinia families to get that critical support when they need it the most.

As you can see, there is a lot going on in this space. This is a sensible reform. It should be supported. For the reasons I have outlined, the reasoned amendment should not be supported, and I do commend the bill to the house.

Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:33): I rise to speak on the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Early Childhood Employment Powers) Bill 2024. I take good note of Mr Galea’s comments. There is no disagreement about the quality of the idea – it is an excellent idea. I am a dad; I have got two kids. I have done the dreaded double drop-off. It is a great idea that we consolidate these things. We should be looking to consolidate them not just in education but in other service areas as well – in health and other things. It is a great idea. I think everybody on this side of the house supports the idea.

I think what was completely missed, though, in Mr Galea’s contribution is that an idea is not a policy. The questions we have and why we have moved a reasoned amendment is simply because, as is all too typical of the government, it comes up with ideas but it does not know how to implement them or deliver them. It is rushing to outcome without process. A policy has the process baked into it so we know how we are going to deliver something. You have already got form on this. How many projects have we had where there has been an idea but there has been no process? The Suburban Rail Loop has not even got a business case and has not been ticked off by Infrastructure Australia. Good idea, no process. The North East Link was a good idea, but no process. We have got a $10 billion blowout and probably more to come.

The reasoned amendment is simply to give you an opportunity to put some rigour into what you do, because there is no rigour in what you do. Have you asked the simple questions about what effect this is going to have on other businesses in the area? It is a pretty obvious and simple question. Whilst you can put phrases like ‘We’re committed to deliver’ and ‘We’ve got a strategy’, there is no detail around those things, and it is patently obvious you have not considered them. Because we believe this is a good idea and because we agree it is a good idea, our contribution is simply to put some rigour around what you are doing so that it does get implemented. Ideas are cheap. It is implementation that is difficult. You have got to be able to implement these things, and too often the government’s only solution is not having rigour in process, it is ‘Let’s just throw a bit more money at it. We’ll throw a bit more money.’ You can look at every project that the government engages in: the solution is never to get it right in the first place, it is always to patch it up with a blowout and just add it to the growing list of state debt. So these are eminently sensible amendments that will put some rigour around the government’s process so that this incredibly important initiative actually has a hope of being delivered to scope, to budget, on time and without risk, and we are doing the responsible thing in putting that rigour in, because we believe in it.

Really, I do not have much more to say beyond that. Let us have some rigour. The amendment is eminently sensible, because if you are not considering how it is going to affect other businesses – well, let us talk about them specifically. What is the budget?

A member: Good question.

Richard WELCH: That is a very good question. Rigour about what you are delivering – who goes into a project without a budget? Our amendment asks that the government:

provides a preliminary or draft fee structure for …

them. How much are others going to pay for it as well? Rigour.

Further, it:

seeks written feedback from any childcare centre, kindergarten or preschool within a 15-kilometre radius of the proposed … sites regarding the likely impact of a government ELC on their workforce capacity and enrolments and provides their feedback to the house …

Rigour. If you want to run a project well, you do your research. You get your arms fully around the scope of the project and then you know how to deliver on it. And further it asks that government:

conducts an analysis on the childcare workforce implications of the new government ELC sites, including:

establishing the workforce vacancy rates around the locations of the new sites;

providing the house with a comprehensive plan on how the government will ensure existing childcare centres and kindergartens are not disadvantaged in their ability to recruit and retain staff in their existing programs …

Again, we have got ample precedent across the rest of the community on that, where the Big Build has sucked up all the resource and we are making other essential deliveries near-on impossible or more expensive when we are in a cost-of-living crisis. So again, this is a perfectly sensible amendment to put some rigour around a very important idea, and we are very pleased to be able to flesh out the policy for the government.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (10:38): I am very pleased to speak in support of this bill today, the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Early Childhood Employment Powers) Bill 2024. This bill is to ensure the timely delivery of the first four early learning centres proposed to open in 2025 as part of our early childhood reforms and investments. The bill is focused on making sure the state has the necessary legislative powers to deliver the 50 early learning centres, the commitment we made in the 2022 election, and it will expand the scope of the act to matters in relation to early childhood education and care and create a new government workforce under the act. The bill recognises the change in the Secretary of the Department of Education employing a range of staff to deliver on the 50 early childhood centres that we are following through on. Those early learning centre workforces will include staff that are early learning childhood teachers; educators, including trainee educators; centre directors and assistant directors; administrative staff and cooks. As we promised at the election, these staff will be directly employed by the Secretary of the Department of Education.

I want to make mention of the direct employment opportunities of the entire reform strategy. These reforms are creating more than 11,000 new early childhood teacher and educator positions over the next decade. The government is determined to make sure that we have the workforce we need to support our reform strategy, investing close to $370 million to attract new educators, upskill existing professionals and make it easier for those returning to work. That includes things like free TAFE places, university scholarships to study teaching, supported traineeships and incentives for those moving into or rejoining the Victorian sector. These opportunities are encouraging a whole new cohort to embark on a change of career with new skill sets in teaching, caring and administration, and they will go into a workforce which is being built for our future generations.

Early childhood care and education make a fundamental difference to the outcomes of a young person’s life, and there is extensive research that has produced evidence of the importance of those investments. Cognitive and socio-emotional skills are also fundamental for children’s future achievements in school. These skills are important ingredients for a successful and resilient life and, as my colleague Mr Galea mentioned, preventing crime and basically what I would phrase as successful adulting – being able to overcome all the challenges and trials and tribulations during a life. Clear and overwhelming evidence indicating the importance of early childhood development is the guiding light for our Best Start, Best Life reforms. It is an investment that says regardless of where you live this is a government that believes every young Victorian deserves a bright future.

Equality is not negotiable for this government. This is demonstrated by the government’s commitment to early childhood education. This generational reform will fundamentally shape and profoundly influence early childhood for decades to come. To my mind this represents the best of our government. We want the best start possible for our children at the most important phase of their development no matter their circumstances, no matter where they live. This alone has already transformed the lives of children and their families, helping greatly with the cost of child care and enabling many parents, particularly women, to return to work. The use of our investment in free kinder has allowed so many more families to access kinder and has alleviated their childcare costs as well. The free kinder rollout for their three- and four-year-old children at participating services is helping more women get back to work. A scenario that too many women know is that childcare costs often make it unjustifiable to work, and I certainly had that experience after I gave birth to my first child. It is why these reforms from government-owned child care through to pre-prep and free kinder are so smart and needed. Not only will they benefit Victorian kids but they will also make a massive difference to parents, easing the pressures on family budgets, making it easy to return to work and addressing the shortage in child care. It is sophisticated, it is holistic, and it is human-centred policy delivered by a government that gets it.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill is the next step in the delivery of 50 government owned and operated early learning centres. They will be located in communities that need them the most. The bill’s provisions will provide the state with the necessary legal powers to operate the government-owned centres. The first of these will be opened in 2025 and will be located on school sites at Sunshine Primary School, Murtoa College, Moomba Park Primary School and Eaglehawk North Primary School.

There is no doubt that our commitment to investment in the development of the littlest people in Murtoa in the electorate of Lowan is proof that we are governing consistent with our values. The facility will provide long day care, three-year-old kindergarten and pre-prep programs. These programs will be delivered across three rooms, with space for up to 57 local children in the centre each day. It will also include a maternal and child health consulting room for local families and of course a car park. We are locating the centre at the college to help parents avoid that dreaded double drop-off – which none of us can say, except for a few people – and to make child care and early learning accessible and convenient for working families. Getting rid of that dreaded double drop-off may not sound like a very big deal for some people, but I am quite sure that any one of us who has done the morning drop-off to multiple places knows what a stress this can be. As a parent, I will tell you that this is a very appealing proposition.

I certainly know that Portland South Primary School will be one of the next schools to have an early learning centre in 2026. I visited that school last Friday, and it was lovely to meet the members of the school council, the staff, the school leaders and the students, who are delighted to be participating in the planning and consultation process underway for 2024 and are looking forward to the build process that will be happening in 2025. And absolutely the families coming into the school will enjoy the new early learning centre in 2026. The school has a wonderful culture and is actively supported by so many families, and I appreciated their welcome last week. They are very proud of their school and have been chosen to receive a new centre.

There is an even longer list of local projects that I would love to wax lyrical on. We do have an upgrade for Port Fairy, we have a new outdoor space with kids at Mitchell Park in Hamilton, planning money for Gunditjmara Aboriginal Co-operative’s children’s centre and a new kitchen for the kinder in Warrnambool South, enabling this great centre to run cooking classes for their kids as well as establishing a breakfast program. Better yet, free kinder, as I said, is saving money for families – around about $2500 a year.

I would argue that this is a sophisticated, holistic and human-centred policy. I want to acknowledge the work of Minister Blandthorn. This is a comprehensive integrated reform strategy. I just want to summarise how integrated and thought through this strategy is to counter the arguments from those opposite. For starters, the strategy is evidence-based, based on research into early learning and the best ways to do that. It then has the capital investment backing it up, and I would point Mr Welch to the Victorian budget, a copy of which would be available across the way in the table office. Then we have the educational reforms; we are restructuring and transforming the way we teach early learning. Then we have the location of multiple services on one site to work for families. Then we have the workforce investments and incentives wound in with that as well, complemented and underpinned by free kinder to provide cost-of-living support right now.

I want to finish up by quoting Minister Blandthorn:

We’re partnering with the early childhood sector to meet the needs of children and families, to value and grow the workforce, to deliver quality spaces for learning, and to support the sector through positive change.

This bill is another small piece of the government’s much larger agenda for transforming early childhood education, and I heartily commend it.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (10:50): This is a really important topic that we are debating today, and I am pleased to rise and make my contribution to the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Early Childhood Employment Powers) Bill 2024. We have heard some quite wideranging comments in this debate today, and I want to just pick up on a theme that has been operating from the government benches and put my perspective on it. Tomorrow is International Women’s Day, and it is very important. As we know, women juggle many, many activities throughout their lives, and particularly when you are a parent, you are not only a parent, you are a carer, you are a community member and you are a volunteer, and you also very regularly now need to, must and want to be engaged in paid work to keep the lights on in your family home and provide for your family.

But one of the things that I find a little bit distasteful, which I will put into context, is that over there they were talking about the double drop-off – ‘We need to eliminate the double drop-off’ – meaning that if you have a kinder or childcare centre separate to a primary school and if you are a parent and you have got children both at kinder or a childcare centre and at a primary school or high school, you are not doing that double drop-off. Well, let me tell you that many, many parents in rural and regional Victoria would kill for a double drop-off. They would kill to be able to have childcare availability. They would kill to be able to have access to childcare centres in their regional towns.

I will put some context around this. We know that the Mitchell Institute put out a report in 2022 that speaks of childcare deserts right across Australia, so it is an overarching view. It speaks about how childcare deserts exist where there is one place in a childcare centre and there are three children needing to go into that spot, so the supply and demand are not equal. There is less supply than there is demand. It has a ratio, if you do the maths, of 0.333.

Let us look at a couple of towns in my Eastern Victoria electorate, the very positive and great towns that they are. Let us look at Wonthaggi. In terms of Wonthaggi, the ratio – and this is from the report – is at 0.275, so approximately for every one place in child care there are four children desiring of that spot. Let us go to another great town, Churchill in my Eastern Victoria electorate. For every one childcare spot there are approximately seven parents of children who are vying for that spot. If we go to Orbost, it is even worse. There is approximately, doing the maths, one spot for every 20 children who need to go and have access to that one particular spot in a childcare facility.

You talk about deserts; these are deserts. My constituents in those particular areas would kill for a double drop-off. They absolutely desire one. To say that it is not desirable – yes, I see the philosophy. Yes, the idea of co-locating childcare centres, childcare facilities and young learning institutions at the same location as a school is a very positive one, and it is not something that I argue about. But just to give some context about what life is like in rural and regional Victoria, as I said, many parents would absolutely be pleased to have the option to do a double drop-off.

I also just want to raise in that context a really good little town that is facing a challenge over years. It is not today but it is in the future, and I have raised this as a constituent issue with the Minister for Children, who I think is in the room and listening. It is about the government’s policy around 30 hours of four-year-old kinder moving forward over the next decade. Historically it is very clear that the more access they can get to early learning centres, to organised programs, the better learning start our children have. That is a fundamentally and universally supported initiative in terms of getting those improved learning outcomes during the transition period from when they are at home, through the three- and four-year-old stage and on to primary school. But because of this, it will have an impact in our regional areas.

I give you the picture of Willow Grove. Willow Grove is a fantastic community just above Warragul, and it has a great school. It certainly needs an upgrade, and I have spoken – as has my colleague Wayne Farnham – in this place about the need to upgrade that primary school, but the early learning centre is based in the community hall. At the moment that is three days a week, which is fantastic, but with the progression of this policy being rolled out, the Y, who run the facility, will not be able to accommodate it because it is a community hall. This is one example of the need to build a new childcare facility, a new early learning centre, in Willow Grove. To my mind the ideal location – this is not just me, this is the community talking, the primary school, the school community and the kinder parents et cetera who I have spoken to – is the site of the primary school. There is space. As I said, the school is run down and needs an overhaul, but there is an opportunity. I would like the 51st centre to go there, and I am sure if I delved a little bit further into my inbox I would find many more. That is one particular point I would like to raise.

The other thing my very good colleague Annabelle Cleeland in the other place spoke about is access. She raised this, and it is actually in the Herald Sun. In her electorate, where there is a dearth and there is not an availability of early learning centres, some parents are forced to choose, as she quoted:

… under-skilled and under-regulated childcare alternatives …

I will continue quoting from the article:

The potential government childcare centre opening in Seymour is still at least five years away from being ready, leaving parents waiting and stopping private and not-for-profit childcare providers …

It is a concern, so I am just putting that on the table on behalf of my good colleague Annabelle Cleeland. It is an evolving problem, and the government has got these 50 early learning centres that are going to be on the table. I have said this in this place before, but I know there is one slated for ‘Yallourn – Glenn Carrie’. I will just put on record again that Yallourn is a fantastic town in Yallourn, naturally. Glenn Carrie is at least 20 kilometres away. The government may be looking at the two centres. I have pointed out three needs in very small regional area. I would argue that there should be two – one in Yallourn and one in Glenn Carrie – and also, as I have just said, planning for that one in Willow Grove.

The other comment I would like to make is around our reasoned amendment and seeking feedback from childcare centres, kindergartens and preschools within a 15-kilometre radius of proposed government sites that are likely to be impacted. I have been speaking with one particular childcare centre that had been in Moe – a private childcare centre that had been in Moe for 30 years. It was a family-run business. It was very well respected. A lot of children coming through that childcare centre were under child protection, and they were really well respected. In the end they could not gain enough workers; there were not enough early childhood workers coming through. They said to me that they had written to government in the past, sought consultation and discussion around their ideas about training in the learning institutions for childcare workers and educators. But unfortunately, they faced closed doors and so they had to close. There was a location that had about 50 childcare places that had to close. I think it was back in around 2021, so these were opportunities that were missed.

I also want to put on record the importance of having choice for parents. Co-located childcare centres are certainly endorsed by this side but parents also want choice, and the potential to keep those private operators going and working is really important because we know that there is huge, huge demand. Access is important, as I have been saying. Equity is important, as I have been mentioning in relation to our rural and regional workforce and parents, and the learning of children is also really important.

I want to just go to the upper house inquiry into education. There were a number of parents and professionals that wrote in in relation to child safe standards, and I want to put a question on notice to the minister in the committee of the whole about child safe standards. When we open any centre, when we have an interface between professionals and young children, we need to ensure that child safe standards are not only adopted and seen to be in the system but actually implemented and monitored and there is transparency around that. I say that with the knowledge from my time in this place speaking with parents where they have felt that child safe standards were not upheld and that the Department of Education had not gone into bat for them, as they should have. I am putting on record that it is very important that throughout this process and the early childhood employment powers that give the government that commitment to open those 50 new centres – plus one, if the Willow Grove centre gets up – that they can employ staff and that they are also able to set charges and fees for parents. But again, I ask for that commitment from the government to ensure that all of those people working in institutions of this nature adhere to child safe standards and respond respectfully to parents about them.

One of the things that has cropped up is the costings. We have seen that they are in the vicinity, I think it is, of $2500 per child, which will be paid by the government. But we have seen examples where there are centres – and if I just go to one, the Summerhill Park’s program costs $4000 per child, but it will now only receive $2500 per child from the government, and it cannot charge fees to cover the gap. I raise this as one example, but I think there are plenty of others. This will put a big burden on those childcare centres that needs to be addressed. The government is creating a problem, and that problem will be borne by the community and those centres.

Finally, with International Women’s Day, I want to just say to all of the childcare workers, kinder workers and early learning centres how important it is for learning – literacy and numeracy – to be presented for children to have that right start and that wonderful engagement early on. I thank all of the people who work in that very important industry. I also put to the government that the more childcare centres we can get open in rural and regional Victoria the more opportunities there will be for people with those qualifications who cannot get in and work because they are at home minding children, and it would open up access to more of those services.

Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (11:05): I rise to speak on the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Early Childhood Employment Powers) Bill 2024. This bill seeks to give effect to the government’s commitment to open 50 new government-owned early learning centres by employing staff and to set and charge fees for parents. One of the things that it claims is that it will provide high-quality childhood education and care with a special focus on inclusion of vulnerable and disadvantaged families. For the first part of this contribution I will use the words ‘child care’ as opposed to the words ‘early learning’, and that is something that I will explain further in my contribution.

There is no doubt that there is a shortage of child care, and that poses a barrier to workplace participation, particularly for mums. However, it seems that one area that the government does not seem to want to face up to is the role that regulation plays in the availability of child care. The report called Regulating for Quality in Childcare: The Evidence Base, on the national quality framework, highlights some very interesting findings. The main areas of the national quality framework set out minimum qualifications and educator-to-child ratio requirements. Staff need to have a certificate III or a diploma-level education. In short, under the national quality framework there is a need for more staff per child to look after the same amount of children, and there is a need for staff to be more qualified. This is very well meaning; however, it can pose two main issues, which I would like to highlight. Number one: because staff costs are generally the biggest cost of any organisation, the national quality framework qualifications have been driving fee increases. As government expenditure on child care has risen, so has the pressure on the family budget. The second issue I would like to raise is that stricter regulations in the quality framework may not give us a higher quality childcare experience. This is something that has been backed up by research, and I will explain what that means. An Australian study found that only small positive effects from lower staff-to-child ratios were found in some areas of social, emotional and behavioural outcomes and absolutely no effects in cognitive outcomes. Overseas studies have shown that there was no effect at all.

Some experts are sceptical as to whether mandated staffing requirements will generate better outcomes for children. This is because, due to their rapid development, children have very different requirements through those first five years of life. The evidence suggests that there is a strong case for lower staff-to-child ratios for the younger children and there is a strong case for more qualified staff for the older children. The basis of this is that lower ratios for babies under the national quality framework are a very good idea, but staff working with these children should not have to have a diploma-level education. For older children, however, the reverse is true. The evidence suggests that there are not the same benefits for lower ratios; however, they do have a much higher benefit from more qualified staff. Allowing more staff to work in the younger years but less and more qualified staff to work in the older years could make child care more affordable and give a huge boost to the workforce. By allowing more people to join the workforce and redistributing the resources of quality staff, this could increase the number of childcare spaces available. By managing our resources well we could see higher quality services at a much lower cost. I think that is something we really should consider, because it is just practical.

The second thing that I would like to talk about is that this program may not provide the best start to all children, although it certainly will for some. The individuals that this will benefit most are children who are disadvantaged. The evidence shows that we must provide a quality experience, not just an experience. One thing that I have heard through many of the contributions in both houses in the last sitting week and in this sitting week is that child care provides better outcomes later on in life. It can even reduce prison sentences – all of these sorts of stats. Some of those things are true in some circumstances, but it is certainly not a blanket rule, according to what the research shows us. We have long known that the early years are important. They lay a foundation for healthy development; however, the thought that it is essential to attend child care is a myth. The evidence shows that deficiencies in child development require a public policy response, and it is a significant factor for children who are disadvantaged. In this area disadvantage refers to a combination of low income, welfare dependency, unstable home life, single parenting, disability, learning difficulty and Indigenous status. These are the children who benefit most from interventions in early childhood, according to research. So if the program aims to benefit these children, we must make sure that is exactly what it is doing, because otherwise we could run the risk of reinforcing disadvantage. We have to be clear on this – is this a program about early learning, in which case we are working with children to give them the best opportunity to overcome disadvantage, or are we simply providing an option for parents to participate in the workforce? We must be clear on this, because our intentions will produce completely different outcomes.

My last point that I want to touch on today is early learning versus child care – the two are not the same. Although those words are often used interchangeably, it is misleading to conflate the two. Is this a program for child care or is it early learning? Is our childcare system an early learning intervention program or is it a tool designed to help parents engage in work to support their families? This is an important question because it will shape how we approach the whole area. It is also important to distinguish between the two, because there is often messaging that the government does it better, and this is just not the case. Research shows that we set the foundation for success in mathematics in preschool. Many children are at risk of long-term mathematical difficulty by the age of four. It also shows that children who start school with maths skills that are behind their peers are much more likely to stay behind, and this is a real opportunity where we can actually make an impact that can turn around the lives of young children who need it most.

I have heard claims about child care giving the best start. The fact is it will not give the best start unless we have a quality program that makes kids school ready. Children’s school readiness can be directly observed in different areas. One of them is their ability to count. For example, they need to come through being able to identify one, two, three: ‘How many glasses am I holding?’ They need to have these sorts of explicit activities that are helping them become school ready. Their ability to identify numbers and their ability to identify different letters, things like this, are actually outcomes that are going to be measurable and are going to allow us to know whether or not they are school ready, according to the research. My firm belief is if we are claiming it is early learning, we have to make sure that there is something that is measurable here, because if not, we are not providing early learning centres, we are providing child care, which is still good, but they are two completely different things.

In closing, I think certainly there are times in this debate where people have quoted things about how early learning can reduce crime and can reduce the cost on the economy later on in life. These things are true – but not if we are sitting kids in a room and not making sure that they are being challenged and stimulated and learning and having learning outcomes. I believe that this is an opportunity to make a big difference in the lives of children and especially the children that come from disadvantage, who need it most, but there must be something within this program that makes them school ready.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (11:15): I welcome the opportunity to clear up some of the muddled confusion that exists on the benches opposite. Ms Lovell gave a speech yesterday, and I thought for a while she perhaps had the government’s speaking notes in her hands. She seemed very much in favour of the government’s bill, which is about employment powers to employ the staff that will staff the 50 early learning centres (ELCs) that this house and this chamber have already, in passing the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Land Powers) Bill 2023, committed to, but then she went on to move a reasoned amendment that would stop us employing those people to staff those centres. Then today in the Herald Sun we have the member for Euroa in the other place saying we are not opening these centres soon enough.

There seems to be a fair degree of confusion on the benches opposite about what they would like to see in the early learning space and, with all due respect to Dr Heath and her contribution just now, even what we mean when we talk about early learning and the first 1000 days being the most important in a child’s development, whether they are in simply what she is seeking to define as ‘child care’ versus an early learning environment. There is a fair degree of confusion on the benches opposite, so I do welcome this opportunity to speak for the bill and against the reasoned amendment.

In so doing can I thank members for their contributions to this debate on the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Early Childhood Employment Powers) Bill 2024. I appreciate the constructive way in which the crossbench in particular has engaged with me and my office on the bill. That is usually the case, and it has certainly been the case for the bill that is before us today. I would thank the opposition for the way in which they have also engaged with my office, although I am concerned that the information that was provided to the shadow minister has perhaps not been shared with those opposite in this place. I think many of the questions that they have collectively posed in their contributions would have been better informed if the shadow minister had perhaps shared the information that we shared with her with them.

The bill before us today is the next step in our delivery of the 50 government-owned childcare centre reforms. At the last election our government committed to opening 50 new government owned and run childcare centres in the communities that need them most – again to go to some of the concerns of those opposite today – and whilst it should be noted that this is a Commonwealth responsibility, as this state government has done in so many areas where the Commonwealth continues to let us down, we could not sit idly by and watch as Victorian families were unable to find childcare places for their children.

Since the election we have not wasted a moment in doing the planning, the strategy, the consultation and indeed the work to deliver this reform. Whether it be passing the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Land Powers) Act 2023 through this house and addressing many of the concerns and questions those opposite have raised again on this bill – in fact I think some people have used in some senses almost verbatim the speaking notes that they used when they did not oppose that previous bill – or announcing the locations of all 50 of the government ELCs in December last year, today marks the next step in delivering on this reform. To go to the member for Euroa’s point in her article today, we are delivering this reform. The bill will amend the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 to provide the state with the necessary legislative powers to operate the government-owned early learning centres in Victoria. The bill will empower the Secretary of the Department of Education to employ staff at government early learning centres, enable fees to be fixed and charged to parents of children enrolled at government early learning centres – and I note some people have asked for the fees; that is exactly what this bill does, it allows us to set the fees – and enable the minister to make ministerial orders to fix fees for attendance and to set employment terms and conditions for the government early learning centre workforce.

This is indeed a very straightforward bill which is before the house today, despite the confusion opposite. It does not concern the location of the 50 ELCs – it merely seeks to provide the state with the legal power to operate the 50 ELCs. Alongside this bill, contrary again to what has been suggested opposite, there is a huge amount of work that is underway with local councils, with local communities and with sector stakeholders to plan, to design, to build and to establish and open each of the 50 centres over the next four years. I agree with the Herald Sun editorial today – parents need childcare help, and that is why we are taking steps through this bill today to address this. The Allan Labor government is stepping in where the Commonwealth has failed us to deliver child care where it is needed the most, establishing 50 government owned and operated early learning and childcare centres across Victoria by 2028 – including one in Seymour, as highlighted in the Herald Sun today – if this bill passes.

Regarding the reasoned amendment brought forward by Ms Lovell, I indicate that the government will not be supporting this amendment, and the reasons are as follows. At the outset Ms Lovell stated in her amendment that the bill be withdrawn and not reintroduced, again highlighting the confusion of those opposite because, including the member for Euroa today, they are advocating for these centres to open as soon as possible and yet the reasoned amendment put forward by Ms Lovell would simply deny the opportunity to do exactly that. The hypocrisy of Ms Lovell to yesterday be speaking to this bill as if it had been introduced by the coalition – as if she had actually had something to do with it in her time working in this portfolio – through to starting her amendment asking for the bill to simply be withdrawn is indeed laughable. If you want to improve the provision of child care in this state, you do not seek to prevent the government from having the legal power to operate these centres. And we will remind Victorians of the voting record of those opposite in 2026 if we are unable to open these centres.

The first element of her amendment, seeking a preliminary or draft fee structure for the early learning centres, scheduled to open in 2025 and 2026, is simply ridiculous. It is inappropriate for there to be a fee structure provided as the minister does not currently have the legislative power to set the fees. That is exactly what we are seeking to do here today – establish that power to set the fees. The fee structure will be published via a ministerial order when this bill passes. In addition, fees will be published in advance of centres opening in 2025 so that parents have the necessary information to inform their decision-making. Again, this is why we want to pass this bill as soon as possible: so that parents have that clarity, so that it can inform their decision-making. However, if Ms Lovell’s reasoned amendment succeeds, there is no guarantee that we would be able to open the four centres in 2025, as we will not have the legal basis on which to employ the staff.

The second element of her reasoned amendment is that the government seeks written feedback from any childcare centre, kindergarten or preschool within a 15-kilometre radius of the proposed government ELC sites regarding the likely impact of a government ELC on their workforce capacity and enrolments and that it provides that feedback to the house. As I noted earlier, this bill does not actually relate to the 50 locations of the ELCs, but regardless, this request is simply unreasonable and would not provide any useful insights. The areas that have been selected for the 50 ELCs have been shown to have high unmet demand for child care and low supply in each of their locations, to go to some of the very points that Ms Bath was raising today. A 15-kilometre radius of a given site covers over 700 square kilometres. In metropolitan areas this covers many diverse suburbs and hundreds of existing early childhood services. For example, in the areas within 15 kilometres of the Fawkner and Sunshine ELCs, there are 836 existing early childhood services. A 15-kilometre radius for ELCs in metropolitan areas also extends to other unrelated local childcare markets. For example, a 15-kilometre radius around the Fawkner ELC stretches from Southbank to Craigieburn and includes suburbs as diverse as Brunswick, Kew, South Morang, Wollert, Airport West, Kensington and Braybrook. Services this far apart are simply not a valid substitute for one another. They are not a valid substitute or a valid option for the families looking for a local service, and I suggest that those who think otherwise might like to have that conversation with their local families.

It is important to note that analysis as part of the ACCC’s childcare inquiry showed that parents and guardians typically consider and prefer centre-based day care services located close to their home, not 15 kilometres away, let alone within a 700-kilometre radius. Most households travel a short distance to access their chosen service. This is by those opposite merely a delaying tactic to waste the Department of Education’s time and resources. They sit here and say they are concerned about budgetary impacts – this is a waste of time and it is a waste of resources. Like the member for Euroa, the government’s focus is on delivering and opening the 50 ELCs, not delaying the delivery of this reform through useless exercises like that we are seeing from those opposite now.

The third element of the reasoned amendment requires the government to conduct:

… an analysis on the childcare workforce implications of the new government ELC sites, including:

(a) establishing the workforce vacancy rates around the locations of the new sites;

(b) providing the house with a comprehensive plan on how the government will ensure existing childcare centres and kindergartens are not disadvantaged in their ability to recruit and retain staff in their existing programs …

Again, this is nothing but a tactic by those opposite to delay the delivery of this reform. Government ELCs will grow their own workforce through initiatives and local partnerships with training providers to encourage and support more people to join the early childhood sector. The shadow minister in the other place was provided in writing – and I am sorry if she has not shared it with you – on 15 February this year the comprehensive details of the Best Start, Best Life workforce strategy.

The $370 million workforce strategy has already expanded the workforce considerably. This work includes over 4000 scholarships having been awarded to remove financial barriers and support more people to become early childhood teachers; up to 1700 educators have been supported to upskill to become teachers through the innovative initial teacher education initiative; over 200 students have been supported through the early childhood educator traineeships program to work in the sector while completing their qualifications; almost 1000 teachers have participated in the end-to-end workforce supports program, including coaching for early career professionals; almost 2000 grants have been awarded to assist teachers to progress to full registration; over 4000 professionals have engaged with the three-year-old teaching toolkit to support evidence-informed practice; and over 1200 experienced teachers have participated in the effective mentoring program to ensure that their knowledge and expertise is shared with early career teachers. As I noted before, the shadow minister was made aware of this and whether she decided to share those details with her colleagues is a matter for her, but Ms Lovell’s comments and those of many of those opposite today suggest that she did not.

The fourth element of this reasoned amendment requires the government to provide:

… an estimate of the budget impact of the operating costs for the government ELCs scheduled to open in 2025 and 2026.

Again, this is nothing but a tactic by those opposite to delay this reform. I am not the Treasurer, and those opposite should know well that operational funding to the early learning centres will be reported through the budget papers in the usual way.

I struggle to reconcile the reasoned amendment from those opposite with their comments that they want the government to increase child care provision. You simply cannot have it both ways. You either want us to do so and will withdraw this reasoned amendment and support the bill, or you do not. We will make sure that Victorians who live near the four centres to open in 2025 know that those opposite did not want them to have access to those childcare centres. The centres opening in 2025 include the Eaglehawk North Primary School early learning and childcare centre, the Moomba Park Primary School early learning and childcare centre, the Murtoa College early learning and childcare centre and the Sunshine Primary School early learning and childcare centre. For these reasons, we do not support the reasoned amendment that has been brought forward by Ms Lovell.

Whilst we will continue to advocate to the Commonwealth for increased child care availability to ensure that Victorians in every corner of the state have access to child care, today there is an opportunity for those in this place to do something about the provision of child care in Victoria. This bill is a major milestone for the community, and its passage will pave the way for a new Victorian government employed early childhood workforce. This workforce – the early childhood teachers, educators, leaders and support staff – will be critical to the success of the 50 government early learning centres. I commend this bill to the house.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (11): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, David Davis, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Richard Welch

Noes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (11:36)

Melina BATH: We can put all our questions in clause 1 and then see how we go if there are some other specific ones. I have just got some general questions, Minister, in relation to enrolments. Have you had any modelling or any estimates done in relation to the enrolments across the 50 centres?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Obviously, by the very definition set in this commitment, these early learning centres (ELCs) are being established in places of anticipated and modelled need. They are designed and have been set in – to use a common colloquial word that has become known in this conversation – deserts but also areas of disadvantage, particularly where families who have additional needs may have trouble finding places in an early learning centre. All of the locations are being set around areas of need.

Melina BATH: I guess I am seeking to understand a quantum of, firstly, enrolments, but secondly, the workforce required for those 50. Have you done any modelling on the number of employees – front-facing educational experts – I will call them early learning teachers? Have you done any work or modelling on those?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Obviously the size of the ELCs – there will be a range. They will range in size from 57 places to 146 places, and the size and configuration of each ELC is being determined through that modelling around unmet need. The regulated childcare ratios are not relevant for the purposes of this bill, but in answer to your question – and I think some people’s contributions went to this earlier, that issue of ratios – unmet kindergarten demand and feedback from local stakeholders mean that across those centres, across those licensed places, the workforce demands will be different in each of them. The types of roles that we will need to employ range from the director of the centre through to the cooks and those who clean the centre, so there is a range of both educative and also support work that will happen, and based on the size and ratios within the centre it will be different in each and every one of them.

Melina BATH: In terms of the location, you have certainly heard my contribution, and I know this bill does not go specifically into the locations, but the locations are highly relevant in terms of the workforce that we have just spoken about and the need. You have announced there are three to open in the next year and another 10 by 2026. How close are you to making public the announcements of the location of those other 37, and if not now, when do you think you will have those locations locked in?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Obviously, as I said in my summing-up, there are the initial ones to open in 2025, where we have the very specific sites. There are 14 in total where we have the location and continue to do the work. I do not intend to make any announcements here today, but obviously the areas are known for the remaining 50, and that important planning and strategy work, which so many people asked for in their contributions, on exactly where the right places are for those is underway.

Just to further supplement my previous answer, I do have some approximate numbers – overall, not by centre – here in relation to the workforce composition as a whole. To go to your earlier question, Ms Bath, if it is at all helpful, we anticipate that there will be approximately 690 educators; 100 teachers; 50 centre directors for the 50 early learning centres – and in some centres there will be assistant directors, based on the size and needs of the centre; educational leaders; around 50 admin supports; and around 70 cooks. So that is just to further supplement my previous answer, if that is at all helpful for you.

Melina BATH: That is most helpful. If I can take you to the Department of Education, this is basically inserting these early learning centres into the education department. My understanding is, and correct me if I am wrong, that there are four school-related verticals or entities in the education department. We have got the school education programs and support, we have got the Victorian School Building Authority, we have got schools and regional services and we have got the schools workforce. Where will the new ELC workforce sit in the education department? Will it sit within one of those, or will it be established as a separate entity as well?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I am advised by the education department officials who are here with us today that there will be a new business unit set up within the early childhood part of the department.

Melina BATH: That is great. From a regional point of view, how will they be auspiced? Will there be regional offices? Will each of the regional offices have the new business unit situated in them, or is it solely in the CBD top?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: That will be a matter for the secretary of the department – the organisation of that business unit.

Melina BATH: I guess I will put on record my request that when you do have these new regional centres that there is access to be able to meet the needs of those centres. We have got our regional departments – for example, in Moe. I will just put on record I guess my request for the secretary to actually note the benefit of having proximity to those centres by having them embedded in the regional offices, where it is deemed beneficial. I do not know if you want to speak to that.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Only simply to say that we can keep you updated in the usual way through the annual report, which obviously reports on staffing.

Melina BATH: Great. That sounds good. Will the government ELCs have organisational governance structures similar to schools? Will there be that leadership principle and the like, or if not, have you done that work? What would that governance structure look like?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The bill does not provide for the establishment of school council type governance bodies or those kinds of governance structures that we are used to in a school setting, as I went through when I spoke to the types of employees that will be within the centres. It looks very similar to what we see in centres that I am sure we all visit at the moment, where you have a centre director, you have teachers and educators as well as sometimes, depending on the size of the centre, an assistant director. It is that early childhood model that we are all very familiar with.

Melina BATH: I guess in that, if there is an important philosophy, which is that it is very helpful to be co-located on public school land, and you have talked about the double drop-off, noting that parents can be on a school committee or the school board et cetera, will there be any provision for that entity not to be included in – forgive me, I forgotten the word – a school parents group? Could that umbrella be extended to the ELCs?

Minister, the word I was looking for was ‘council’; I apologise. Could that be expanded to be in the school council?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Thank you. I was going to ask for further clarification around where you were going there. The bill, as I said in my previous answer, does not provide for the establishment of school council type governance bodies, but it does not preclude it. That said, and to go to your point about co-location, you will not actually hear me overuse the phrase ‘double drop-off’, because I take some of the points you made earlier. Avoiding double drop-offs can be logistically helpful for families, but they are also not the guiding principle, if you like. The provision of the service itself and of course child development are first and foremost the main objectives, and in supporting that we know that co-location is often best, in terms of both providing the best possible service as well as providing the transition through early learning and kindergarten into school. It is obviously not the only way, and in communities such as yours it is not the way very often, because of distance and whatnot as well; we recognise that. So where they are co-located it is not precluded that they could be part of the school council arrangement, but certainly this bill does not do anything that sets up a school council governance type of arrangement.

Melina BATH: Minister – and I will not lead the witness – in relation to feedback and complaints about the mechanism that you will be establishing, what is put in place for parents and the community to provide feedback and complaints around the mechanism of establishing this? I am asking about feedback from whether it be school councils, parents or the community.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: In terms of if you are referring to a merit board or disciplinary appeals board, those types of matters, it is intended that they be addressed through departmental policy or ministerial orders that apply to the ELC workforce. But of course when we are talking about children, when we are talking about child safe standards and when we are talking about the regulatory environment that oversees these early learning centres, there is a range of measures and practices, depending on what the complaint might be about, that would be the most appropriate place to take that complaint. Without being more specific about the nature of a given complaint, whether we are talking about a workforce complaint, a quality complaint, a safeguarding complaint or whatever it might be, for all of those measures it is obviously intended that the early learning centres are operating at the highest possible standards with the highest possible levels of accountability.

Melina BATH: This is the last question from me for a little while, and I am happy to share it around otherwise. This probably goes to a point – and there is no accusation here – where there is concern about the standards being implemented. In terms of child safe standards, how does the bill ensure child safety with regard to employment of people who will be working with children? I hope we can all agree, and I am sure we do, that it is vital to have the best people in front of our children. How will this bill capture that, and what will this new subdepartment of the education department do to ensure those child safe standards are not only complied with but a total philosophy in the centres?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As I was saying, early childhood services in ELCs are obviously subject to the national quality framework and regulated by the state’s early childhood regulator in line with all other centre-based services in Victoria, which means that they meet the requirements of the Education and Care Services National Law and the national regulations, which include things like ratios and whatnot, as we were talking about before; the quality of the educational programs; the safety, health and wellbeing of children; as well as the physical requirements at the premises, such as the required indoor and outdoor spaces. Those services are obviously assessed and regulated by Victoria’s regulator of early childhood education services, the Quality Assessment and Regulation Division, or QARD, and it is responsible for regulating around 5000 services in Victoria at the current point in time, including outside school hours care. It is an independent regulator. Of course if we are to go specifically to child safe standards and how they apply and are managed, the safety of young children attending ELCs is obviously of paramount concern and importance to all of us in this place. An organisation delivering services to children under 18 years of age, including approved education and care services, maternal and child health services and ELCs, will be required to implement and comply with the 11 child safe standards and will be held accountable in the usual way for those.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: Just on that note, with that explanation – and thank you, Minister, so much for it – my own background is with the Victorian Institute of Teaching and registration, so this is a new area for me. Your early childhood services regulator is an independent group, you have said, and an independent regulator, so this is obviously still under the function and oversight of the department, is that right? Even though it is an independent regulator, is it the department and you as the minister who oversee this particular regulator and the registration? We do not see it at any time becoming some sort of merger with VIT – is it going to remain an independent regulator which will have oversight for child safety and obviously the workers that work within the function of early childhood education? Could you just confirm that, explain that and maybe expand a little bit more on that, please?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Just to take a step back, and then I will come specifically to VIT registration, the early childhood services that will operate out of the early learning centres are subject to the national quality framework and regulated by the state’s early childhood regulator in line with all centre-based services in Victoria, so that means they need to meet the requirements of the education services national law and the national regulations, including educator-to-child staffing ratios; staffing qualifications; educational programs; the safety, health and wellbeing of children; and physical premises such as indoor and outdoor spaces. That is national law. So that is something that education ministers around the Commonwealth obviously agreed to universally. The early childhood services in ELCs will be assessed and regulated by Victoria’s regulator of early childhood education and care services, which is QARD, and QARD is responsible for regulating, as I said to Ms Bath, around 5000 services across Victoria and that includes outside school hours care. As an independent regulator, QARD is able to respond to any non-compliances identified in ELCs in the same way it responds to other non-compliances. Teachers within the early education setting obviously have VIT registration, and that will be sufficient for early childhood teachers applying to work in government ELCs in relation to their working with children checks and so forth, and it is also intended that such eligibility criteria be outlined in the ministerial orders which will follow the act.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: So the teachers have the VIT registration. The ELCs are all with the independent regulator as well – those who are not teachers staffed within them. I was just wanting to clarify that. Up until recently there have been an awful lot of local governments that have played a significant role on the administrative side of ELCs. Has any consideration been given to whether local government could play an administrative role in the operation of these centres in terms of how this is going to be rolled out?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: These are government owned and operated early learning centres. Our partnerships with local government and indeed partners outside of local government in the delivery of early years education, particularly when we come to talking about our Best Start, Best Life reforms and kinder, are extremely important, but when we are talking about these 50 early learning centres, the commitment is very specifically that they are government owned and operated.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: I know we have already asked the question in terms of child safety, and obviously that is always going to be a concern. In terms of ensuring that this bill is making sure that we have that child safety element, can you just clarify, because you have gone through everything else. I know with VIT there have to be police checks. With the other staff I am assuming that the independent regulator also makes sure that there are up-to-date police checks for child safety and that this is just somehow incorporated into this bill in some form. Can you confirm or clarify that, Minister?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: A person is obviously eligible for employment in a position in the early learning centre workforce if that person satisfies the eligibility criteria that is set out in the ministerial order, and the criteria will include all qualification requirements under the Education and Care Services National Law and Education and Care Services National Regulations, which does go to my point earlier. A person would not be eligible for employment in any position in the government ELC workforce if the person has at any time been convicted or found guilty of a category A offence in Victoria or equivalent offence in another jurisdiction or been given a working with children exclusion. A copy of all successful applicants’ qualifications if applicable, their teacher registration if applicable, and of course their working with children check if applicable would need to be submitted during the recruitment process. And to go to the discussion we were just previously having in relation to VIT registration, since the schemes are aligned, VIT registration would be sufficient for early childhood teachers who are applying to work in the government ELCs, and such eligibility criteria is intended to be outlined in the ministerial order rather than in the act.

To go to the point again in relation to the child safe standards, these are of the utmost importance. The safety of young children attending ELCs is obviously something that we are all particularly concerned about. In my role as Minister for Children, having responsibility for child safety in a range of other forums, I am particularly interested in ensuring that the child safe standards are universally applied and absolutely upheld, and the 11 child safe standards will apply in these forums as they do in others.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: I note the bill provides for the secretary to restrict part-time employees from other paid employment that may conflict with their duties. What might be considered a conflict under new section 2A.1.7?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: It is not intended to be that a particular job necessarily creates a conflict but where that job or the undertaking of that other work may in some way impact on the capacity of the person to deliver those safety standards. If someone, for example, was working all night somewhere else and then turning up to look after small children the next morning, that type of arrangement might put a child at risk and so would not be suitable. It is not intended to necessarily restrict another type of particular job and name that job as it is about ensuring that the person who turns up to work to look after small children is fit and able to do so.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: Regarding the requirement for employees to submit to a medical exam to determine their fitness, what are the likely criteria a prospective employee would have to meet?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Obviously, as we were just speaking about, it is important that any employee in an ELC is fit and able to perform their duties. As an employee in a government ELC workforce a person must follow a direction from the secretary. Where that does not happen normal procedures for failing to follow that direction may apply, but the intention is to ensure that the person is fit and able to look after the children in their care.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.