Tuesday, 3 October 2023

Bills

Education and Training Reform Amendment (Land Powers) Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Natalie Hutchins:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Jess WILSON (Kew) (13:26): I rise to speak today on the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Land Powers) Bill 2023. I must say it is an honour to speak on this bill today as I was appointed yesterday as the Shadow Minister for Early Childhood and Education. It was a real honour to be appointed to that portfolio. There is a great deal of work to go into this area, whether it is child care or kinder reform or primary and secondary reform over the coming years, and this is really an opportunity to talk about how we can ensure that all Victorian children have the very best start to life. Of course child care, kinder, pre-prep and primary education are absolutely critical to that.

Today’s legislation before us looks at the government’s childcare policy, how that will be implemented across Victoria and how that will be rolled out across both metropolitan Melbourne and regional Victoria when it comes to the expansion of government childcare programs. The main purpose of the bill is to amend the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 to extend the Victorian government’s current powers of compulsory land acquisition for the purpose of building schools and take that power to cover state-owned kindergartens and childcare centres as well. As we know, the government currently does have the power under that act to compulsorily acquire land for the purposes of school education and for the purposes of building new schools and expanding schools, but the legislation before us today will look to expand that power to give the government the ability to also acquire land on the basis of childcare centres, and it fits into the government’s program when it comes to the expansion of kinder and pre-prep.

The government announced this policy last year. It certainly was announced with much fanfare, but those on this side of the house have a great deal of concern about the implementation of this policy and, more importantly, the delivery of this policy. It sounds terrific in headlines to say ‘free kinder’, but we know from the on-the-ground experience of kinders right across Victoria, particularly those sessional kinders in our electorates, that free kinder is really a misnomer. Many kinders, particularly those sessional kinders which are run by hardworking parents on a committee with the input of local councils, are struggling to make ends meet under this program. I will certainly speak more about that today.

This should be a broadly straightforward proposition, but there is always a concern and – particularly when it comes to this government – a catch when it comes to any additional powers. Compulsory acquisition, while in some circumstances required, is a controversial way of government acquiring land and should be used in very limited circumstances. In this instance we are looking at it for the purpose of expanding quality education for Victorian children, and we want to ensure that it is done in a way that meets those objectives but is also done in a way that appreciates the importance of property rights right across Victoria.

The Education and Training Reform Act is the legislative framework that governs public education in this state, and it provides the authority for government to compulsorily acquire land for the purposes of the act, which of course is linked to public education in Victoria. As it currently stands the act does not extend that authority for the purposes of early childhood education. Now, there is a significant body of research that we all know of, and I know many on this side of the house often speak about the importance of early childhood education. In my previous roles I have worked with the federal government to ensure that we have access to child care and that families have access to child care, not only to provide that early childhood education but also to help increase women’s participation in the workforce. It is critical that we put early childhood education at the forefront of education policy and ensure that we put Victorian children’s early years at the forefront of education policy. This is something that governments all over the world are recognising with research and by making investments in early childhood education, and Victoria and Australia are no different in this regard.

As our population grows we need to make sure that we do have access to early childhood education and that it keeps pace with demand. I know that many on this side of the house and particularly some of my regional colleagues often talk about the childcare drought in regional Victoria and the lack of access to childcare centres and the lack of access to child care and kinders more broadly, and so looking at how we can expand childcare access right across Victoria and not just in metropolitan Melbourne will be absolutely critical to delivering that for the future of our Victorian children.

This should be a fairly straightforward matter. As we know, the government already has broad compulsory land acquisition powers to build new schools and more broadly across other projects, so we are looking at how that can be commensurate with building early childhood education and care centres. But we do have concerns on how this government will deliver on its promise, and this one in particular has been a very rocky rollout from the outset. The government’s proposal to give itself more power to compulsorily acquire land does give us all cause to pause and reflect on their ability to do so in the past. One of the examples that I reflect on when it comes to this government compulsorily acquiring land in the past was a huge failure of government policy. One of the most egregious examples of the implementation of compulsory acquisition in this state’s history was when it came to compulsorily acquiring land on the Caulfield to Dandenong sky rail project –

A member: Oh, here we go.

Jess WILSON: Indeed here we go – where the government acquired too many homes. The government at the time acquired 130 residences, and now it looks like that is in excess of 40 homes in surplus. That came at great cost to the Victorian taxpayer, acquiring those homes, and now because of these surplus homes and the time that has passed, the government is looking at putting those surplus homes back on the market and making a significant profit – a windfall gain, if you like – on the sale of those properties. Yet when it comes to a windfall gain for the government of course there is no tax applied to that. So people’s homes have been compulsorily acquired under that corridor – excess homes because of poor planning when it comes to the management of these major projects from this government. Whether it is the Big Build, whether it is sky rail or whether it is the Commonwealth Games, we all know that this government likes to make very grand promises, but when it comes to delivery and when it comes to consultation with local communities it is failure after failure.

On the sky rail project – one of the last examples of compulsory acquisition under this government – more homes were acquired than was necessary. Those have now either been put onto the rental market at significant profit to the government or are being put up for sale at significant profit to the government. This is just a flagrant disregard for the property rights of Victorians and, really importantly, shows a lack of understanding of the core role that property rights actually play in a liberal democracy. I think the issue here around the surplus homes that were acquired under the Caulfield corridor of the sky rail is something that has been a windfall gain to the government – thanks to rising property prices – and obviously the government will make a buck or two putting those back on the market. But what they have failed to appreciate here is that compulsorily acquiring someone’s home is one of the bluntest instruments that a government has at its disposal. It should be used sparingly and should be used in extremely limited circumstances, because forcing people out of their homes is unnecessary at the best of times, and it is exactly the kind of action that erodes trust in government. This is a problem we have more broadly, as I have spoken about before. This government likes to make grand promises – promises that make big headlines like free kinder – and then we see the delivery of that, the actual rollout of that program, impacting the lives of Victorians in a way that was not explained at the time of the announcement and with a complete disregard for the impact that those policy blunders have on Victorians.

I know from my own area, the electorate of Kew, and the boundary there with Bulleen, where the North East Link is being built, that compulsory acquisition has taken place in that area, particularly on the Bulleen side of the new interchange. Those people have gone to hell and back when it comes to the acquisition of those homes. It has upended their lives, so we have to make sure that in the event the government does need to acquire property it does so in very limited circumstances and, where it can, consults with the local community and understands the impact of that compulsory acquisition.

The other issue with the compulsory acquisition under this piece of legislation is that there is no real sense of what the cost could be to the budget of compulsorily acquiring land, whether that is private homes, whether that is land from community organisations or whether that is from non-government schools. If there is an opportunity to take, for example, an oval from a non-government school, then that will have a significant impact on that community and it will also have a budgetary impact, and that has not been appropriately outlined in the debate around this bill. In the former minister’s introduction and second-reading speech there was no indication as to the likely cost of such acquisitions. This is a very, very big program. It is a $14 billion program announced by those opposite, and that in itself is a huge figure. To add to that, the potential acquisition of land right across Victoria has not been budgeted for, and they have not been transparent with the Victorian people.

When it comes to the ability under this bill to acquire land for the purposes of childcare centres, we understand the need to expand, but we do say that it needs to be done in very, very limited circumstances and all other avenues need to be explored before we get to that point. When initially announced, this policy was very much focused on the fact that the government was looking to co-locate these new childcare centres at school sites. We all understand the benefits of co-locating childcare centres and kinders at school sites, particularly primary schools, as it will co-locate the education requirements, it will be easier for parents when it comes to pick-up and drop-off and it will ensure that we are creating education precincts right throughout Victoria. So all avenues need to be explored before we go down the path of any compulsory acquisition of private property when looking at the acquisition of private homes and looking at how the original remit of the government’s announcement around the expansion of childcare centres – government-owned childcare centres – was to be through co-location with government schools. We know that that has not occurred, and we have seen a list from the government of the 30 locations that have been identified to date. The $14 billion Best Start, Best Life childcare, free kinder and pre-prep policy looks at putting in place 50 childcare centres across Victoria. Thirty of those locations have been identified, but only four specific sites have actually been identified by the government to date, despite the fact that this was announced some time ago and that these childcare centres are proposed to be delivered by 2028. So there is a lot of work to do to ensure that there is delivery of this policy over the coming years in the lead-up to 2028, and we know that the delivery of this policy to date has been very, very rocky. I speak to local kinders, sessional kinders, in my electorate regularly, and they are on their knees when it comes to being able to provide the adequate level of child care and the adequate level of education at these kinders that the families expect, because simply the free kinder policy does not go far enough to cover the resources of those local kinders – and that is the story right throughout Victoria.

Looking at the Best Start, Best Life policy and particularly the free kinder aspect of that, it was as I said announced in late 2022. It was a big headline election announcement from this government – one that sounded great when put right across the airwaves and right across TVs in the lead-up to the 2022 November election – but of course delivery is always a second thought when it comes from the Allan Labor government. Naming the program ‘free kinder’ is something that is naturally going to be very attractive to the Victorian people – families who are struggling with cost-of-living rises under this government. What is there not to love about something that is free? But, as is always the case with this government, the devil is in the detail. What is left out of the talking points is that this program does not actually meet the resources required to provide the expected level of education at these kinders.

There is nothing in the government’s so-called free kinder program which implies that the government is fully funding kinder across the state, because it is simply not the case. The government will happily tell you that the minister goes to these kinders and makes announcements, but when I asked the previous minister to meet with my local sessional kinders to discuss the impacts of this program I did not even get a response. I hope the new minister will come and meet with sessional kinders in my electorate, and with sessional kinders right across Victoria, to understand the impact of the free kinder policy under the Best Start, Best Life policy from this government.

The so-called free kinder policy provides $2500 of funding per enrolled child per kinder, but what may be surprising to those opposite is that $2500 per child does not actually provide what is required for many kinders to provide their resources. When it comes to staffing requirements in particular, many of these kinders have had staff in place for many years – early learning educators that have gone through training and have various levels of expertise when it comes to delivering early childhood education – and the $2500 per child simply does not cover their salaries. It simply means that these sessional kinders will have to cut back on staff. At a time when we are seeing the need for expanded services in this space and when we need to see more offerings when it comes to child care, we are seeing sessional kinders under immense pressure and not being able to keep their doors open.

There is one kindergarten in my electorate that has asked its families to bring a pack of toilet paper and tissues at the start of each term because it cannot keep teachers in place as well as provide the basic materials it needs to run the kinder. That is because the $2500 simply does not cover what is required for many, many sessional kinders across Victoria to run. We have heard that from other local councils as well. Knox City Council are already saying they are going to pull out of service delivery, citing that the unsustainable operating environment brought on by this government’s free kinder policy is making them have to close their doors across that local government area.

The rollout of this program, as I said, was very much in the election context about making a big announcement of free kinder – ‘We’ll roll that out as an advertising blitz’ – but it gave these kinders very little notice to decide whether to opt in or opt out of this policy. If you opt in to this policy and you choose to take the $2500 subsidy per child, you cannot charge a gap fee on top of that to meet the needs of that local kinder. There is no ability for these local kinders to cover the costs of their staffing needs, their program needs and their rent. Many of these local kinders like to take the students – the children – out on excursions. Unfortunately now that cannot take place because they simply cannot cover their needs under the $2500 per child provided by this government.

As I said, Knox City Council has said it may need to pull out of service delivery. There is an easy fix to the situation. You could provide the option for kinders to charge that gap fee – to ask whether they can put that forward. The benefit of being able to do that, and to meet the costs of these kinders that are providing early childhood education, is that parents can choose to go to the kinder that asks for a gap fee, or not. Parents have choice when it comes to which kinder they want to send their children to, and in being able to have that gap fee you are able to provide the adequate level of early childhood education that these families expect.

The fact that they are not able to charge this gap fee means that many of these local kinders will need to run at a loss. They will have to cut costs and they will have to cut programs. As we know, if they want to be able to remain solvent and viable, they cannot continue to continue to run at a loss for many years on end. I have local kinders regularly saying to me that they cannot see a situation in two, three or four years time in which they will be able to keep the level of programs and the level of staff that they have on board. I must say, having met with a number of these staff, the work that they do to ensure that they are meeting the needs of their students and meeting the needs of the children in the kindergarten means that they go above and beyond every single day. There is an incredible amount of work that goes into planning for these programs, the education offerings and the classes, and they have very limited ability to have support staff when it comes to the administration required around local kindergartens. I know the government, those opposite, will say, ‘Well, they can just make a few savings here or there’, but this comes down to the fact that they are looking at basic costs that they cannot avoid – whether that is rent, whether that is the cost of teachers and staffing or whether that is the cost of providing that administration support. Many of these kinders – sessional kinders certainly – are run by parent committees that give up their time year on year and take on the responsibility for decision-making when it comes to opting in or opting out of these programs, and these decisions have ramifications for years to come.

The other point here is when we talk about the free kinder program and the lofty ambitions of those opposite – and we all agree we need to do more to support the expansion of child care across Victoria – the ability to provide 30 hours of kindergarten per week for every four-year-old child in the state within a decade is a very big aim with very little detail attached to it. We are seeing that in the bill before us today. The original plan to co-locate these childcare centres, to expand the program right across metropolitan and regional Victoria and to co-locate that at schools, it is now being realised, is something that is not going to be possible in every circumstance. So we are going to need to be able to acquire private land, potentially, to expand and roll out this program. Kindergartens – those that will be impacted by this and those that are looking at the rollout of this program – have no detail on how this is actually going to be rolled out. That is also true when it comes to how the additional hours will be sustainably funded and delivered between the state, local, community and private providers. We know that childcare centres and kinders already struggle to fill shifts and meet the required staffing ratios. The thought of how they are going to increase those hours to meet the expansion of this program, and the program that the government has put in place for the coming years, is really creating a lot of concern in the sector.

Given all this, you will understand that the Liberals and Nationals on this side have hesitation in handing over further power to the government when it comes to being able to compulsorily acquire land for the expansion of their child care and their free kinder program, even if it is in the pursuit of an aim that I think we all share in this place, which is being able to provide early childhood education for all Victorian children. This is certainly the case in regional Victoria – as I said earlier, many of my colleagues from the regional electorates often talk about the fact that there is a childcare drought in regional Victoria – but unfortunately the Labor government’s abysmal track record when it comes to poorly drafted policy and even poorer implementation does not recommend to us that this is a thought-through policy. The bill put before us today is in many ways an admission that their original policy intent with this – to co-locate with schools – has failed and now they are looking at other ways to deliver their program. Unfortunately, being able to compulsorily acquire private property, people’s homes, may now be the consequence of not thinking this program through in the first place.

I think many of us in here probably agree that we do not want to ever see the government have to forcibly acquire land only in many cases to put it back on the market a few years later and make a profit for the government. We all know with the debt in this state they are looking for any cash they can find, and compulsorily acquiring homes, overacquiring those homes, and then looking at putting them back on the market for a profit a few years later – over 40 of those homes – may deliver the government dividends. But of course that comes at a great personal toll to the people whose homes they were in the first place. So it is imperative the government fully consider the opportunity cost of acquiring this land and weigh up the needs of future families for early childhood education and the location of these services with the current use of the land in question.

I encourage the government to go back to its original policy intent and look at how it can, as much as possible, co-locate these child cares and kinders at existing schools, particularly government-owned primary schools, where the land already exists and it would make sense to co-locate them and ensure that there are education precincts created throughout Victoria. It is going to be very, very important that the government attempt to strike that balance, and unfortunately, if past performance is any indication of future performance, we on this side of the house do have serious concerns and believe they will face serious challenges in the delivery of this policy. Indeed this bill goes towards that.

The initiative that this bill is largely intended to support – Best Start, Best Life, as proclaimed by this government – is a flawed suite of policies that are being implemented without consultation and with little care when it comes to those on the ground providing education services and childcare services. Greater consultation from this government would be welcomed at all levels of their program rollouts and major infrastructure projects. We on this side of the house understand the need to expand childcare services, particularly in regional Victoria, but it is time that the government stepped up and actually started listening to the concerns of the sector, the concerns of the local communities and the concerns of the sessional kinders and the parent-run committees when it comes to the rollout of this program. With a new minister at the helm I am hopeful that the government does have a different approach, a more collaborative approach – an approach that will see the minister reaching out to these local communities, reaching out and meeting with sessional kinders to understand the impact of this government program on the private providers and indeed on these sessional kinders that are co-run with local councils so we do not see many of these sessional kinders having to decide to close their doors in the coming years because they simply cannot fund their operations and they cannot meet the costs of funding their operations, particularly when it comes to those inputs like rent and staffing costs, which are absolutely critical.

Thank you to the government for the opportunity to speak on this bill today. We certainly have serious concerns about the ability for this program to be rolled out, and it is certainly something that the government need to heed when thinking about whether or not they do need to acquire land under the government’s Best Start, Best Life policy, and they need to look for all other options and work with local communities before deciding to acquire anyone’s private property.

Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (13:55): It is great to rise to speak on the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Land Powers) Bill 2023, which really is another chapter in a significant reform agenda as we transform early childhood education. When I was Parliamentary Secretary for Schools, the first brief that I had was around the transformational power of early years, and it is the single biggest lever that you can pull to change the outcomes and lives of our youngest Victorians. I know the member for Kew’s was the first speech in this space, and she gave a good account. You can tell that you are in opposition when you turn around and say, ‘You’re not doing good enough. We’re not opposed, but we’re not sure you can deliver’ or ‘You won’t deliver. It’s not enough, but we won’t commit to more funding’. That was the classic opposition speech of not taking a position on reform and not detailing whether you support the legislation or the bill. And then the most egregious point made, which was quite extraordinary, was around the erosion of trust in government, of complete disregard for policy blunders that have occurred. That was the member for Kew’s contribution. Now, where did we have an example of needing to acquire land for early childhood education and schools? I do not know, but almost on cue comes the member for Bulleen. Where was that location? Fishermans Bend. Where was the erosion of trust and confidence in rezoning of land, with the Andrews Labor government then needing to go and literally acquire land for the betterment of our young Victorians who would be in some of the newest suburbs? When I heard that said –

Matthew Guy interjected.

Tim RICHARDSON: Here he goes. He’s on cue. The gunzel’s in the place. He’s back on the front bench. I tell you, it is good to see you back, Matthew.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bulleen!

Tim RICHARDSON: But on the erosion of trust and confidence you could not get a greater example – off goes the sign, the next day there goes education and there goes early years. It took the former member for Monbulk and Deputy Premier going back with the Minister for Planning Richard Wynne to correct that. So when the member for Kew was talking about the erosion of trust and the complete disregard for the policy blunders that occurred, I thought, ‘The member for Kew hasn’t talked to the member for Bulleen’.

Matthew Guy interjected.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Bulleen!

Tim RICHARDSON: I tell you, when the member for Bulleen still looks like the best option on that side, you have got to go what on earth is going on here. I mean, he sounds good, he is up and about, he has got a bit of a new look, he has got a spring in his step – is he Matt or is he Matthew? He is looking great. He is up and about, isn’t he? It is good to have him back. I think we are all pumped for him. The Leader of the Opposition is a bit nervous. But it is an example of where you get policy wrong, where you get some blunders, and the rezoning of Fishermans Bend and correcting that was one.

Listening to the member for Kew on early childhood education – hello, we have had three- and four-year-old early years rolled out, 15 hours, and we have had thousands more early childhood educators choosing their profession, choosing to support the youngest Victorians in their journey – she was talking down the sector as if kinder were on its knees. Kinder is the greatest career you can choose now. Choose to support young Victorians and get amongst it. Pre-prep is a visionary policy. We know that that early years connection, the 15 hours of three- and four-year-old kinder, is so substantial. But we are taking that further as well.

When those opposite say ‘Well, you don’t deliver for regional and rural areas’, they should have a look at the rollout. One of the first repping events that I did was in Birchip, and we opened up a new early years facility there with the council. It was an amazing aspirational event there, and to see what has been achieved has been absolutely extraordinary. The rollout is challenging, but this government is a reforming government. It is not by chance that every other jurisdiction copies this policy, comes forward with a free kinder policy or a rollout of three- and four-year-old kinder or is talking about pre-prep, because we are setting the national agenda in early childhood education and education right here in Victoria. So we are not talking down early childhood education but pumping it up. We want people to choose it as a career. We want thousands more Victorians to choose to educate the next generation.

This land acquisition is similar to what we saw with the 100 schools that we rolled out. Remember when we came to government? We had no new schools to open. It was just a vast range – no education facilities, no schools. But 100 schools have been delivered by the Andrews and Allan Labor governments, and we have transformed things. One of those was the acquisition power, and that made it more flexible to ensure that we could get more policy through. Building more on that agenda is really critical as well. So whether it is on school locations, partnering with councils or partnering with private non-profit providers, this is a substantial rollout that will benefit our communities for many years to come. We will not take talking down kinder in this place as we lead the nation’s agenda in transforming those outcomes for young Victorians. That is the key, and that is what we are focused on here –

The SPEAKER: Order! The time has come for me to interrupt government business for questions.

Can I acknowledge in the gallery a former member for Gippsland West Susan Davies.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.