Wednesday, 18 June 2025

Early childhood education and care

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO (Northern Metropolitan) (10:28): I move:

That this house:

(1) requires the Leader of the Government, in accordance with standing order 10.01, to table in the Council within 30 days of the house agreeing to this resolution, the following documents that relate to the early childhood education and care sector created since 1 January 2022 that are in the possession, custody or control of the Minister for Education, Minister for Children, Minister for Disability, Minister for Police, Commission for Children and Young People or the Department of Education:

(a) all documents not currently publicly available relating to emergency action notices, prohibition notices, suspension notices, compliance notices, show cause notices, cancellation notices or other notices or directions served on or regarding early childhood education and care (ECEC) providers under the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, the Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005, the Education and Care Services National Law Act 2010 and the Children’s Services Act 1996;

(b) documents relating to internal risk assessments or regulatory response decisions;

(c) documents of compliance actions taken against individual services or providers, including number and type of reaches and regulatory outcomes;

(d) internal guidance documents or frameworks used to classify provider risk, assess compliance, or determine regulatory responses; and

(2) requests that any information provided that identifies details of individual children and families be redacted, and that redaction of names of staff be considered where appropriate to protect privacy unless relevant to regulatory findings.

This motion calls on the government to provide the same documents provided in New South Wales relating to the early childhood and education sector. It follows on from the work of my colleague Abigail Boyd and Four Corners, which exposed the structural crisis in the sector. The private childcare sector has become a money-making machine, a playground for big operators to pull profit from a system that should be all about care. Right now it is a booming industry worth over $20 billion a year. Corporations are diving into early childhood education, not because they care about children but because they see a chance to make a quick buck. They are making money off the backs of hardworking parents and carers, for whom child care is not a luxury, it is a necessity.

The Four Corners investigation exposed the horrifying consequences of letting a profit motive dictate how we care for children. No child should be unsafe in a place that is meant to nurture them. Families are paying through the nose to access care. In some centres fees exceed $1000 a week, and educators, overwhelmingly women, are overworked, underpaid and undervalued, which begs the question: who is actually benefiting? Because it is not the children, it is not the parents and it is not the educators. The winners are the private corporations, often supported by public subsidies.

In recent years multiple incidents have exposed serious failings in Australia’s for-profit childcare sector. In Werribee two toddlers escaped from a childcare centre and ran onto a busy 70-kilometre-an-hour road, narrowly avoiding tragedy and prompting criminal charges against the operator for breaching safety laws.

In Melbourne nine-month-old Ada was rushed to hospital after being mistakenly fed yoghurt containing allergens despite her family providing a detailed allergy action plan and the centre’s written assurances. Staff failed to follow emergency procedures properly, putting her life at risk from anaphylaxis.

In states like the ACT, where there has been a stronger public investment and tighter regulation, government-run centres are delivering more consistent outcomes. The Greens believe care is not a commodity, that every child deserves access to high-quality, affordable early learning. It is time to end the two-tiered system, a system that leaves some children in safe and enriching environments while others are placed in centres marked by high staff turnover, inadequate oversight and a relentless focus on the bottom line. This is a political choice. We can continue down the path of privatisation or we can choose to invest in our youngest citizens.

With numerous reports of harm to children and repeated warnings from both staff and families, it seems the regulator in Victoria has been neglecting its duty to properly oversee the sector. With so much at risk if we do not strengthen regulation and scrutiny of childcare services, I have no option but to move this motion. This will allow us, along with the public, to thoroughly examine what has been happening within this industry, identify where the failures lie and determine the urgent reforms needed. I echo the calls of my federal colleagues to urgently establish an independent early childhood education and care commission to strictly enforce quality standards and keep our children safe. It is so important that we have a nationally consistent approach to the standards so that no matter where a child lives they are guaranteed safe, high-quality care and strong protections. I commend this motion to the house.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:32): I rise to make a contribution on this motion brought forward by Ms Gray-Barberio in relation to childcare regulation. It is a documents motion, so it is calling for a number of documents to be produced by the government, as is the wont on Wednesdays in this slot when various crossbenchers or Liberal members will call for documents to be produced in relation to a range of issues.

What this motion is calling for is the release of documents that are in the possession of the minister in relation to publicly available information on prohibition notices, suspension notices, compliance notices and the like, but also internal risk assessments, regulatory response decisions, documents of compliance actions taken against individual services or providers and internal guidance documents or frameworks to classify risks, and then it specifies that if providing any of those things causes a risk to privacy, that that also be considered in the context of that.

The government’s position is that we will not be opposing this motion. The background on childcare regulation is that principally the Commonwealth government is responsible for insolvency, childcare provision and funding as well as employment law. That is Commonwealth government responsibility. The Victorian government is responsible for the provision of kindergarten for three- and four-year-olds as well as regulating the implementation of the national quality standards, or national law, for early childhood education and care through the Victorian regulatory authority – the quality assessment and regulation division, also known as QARD. I know public servants love a good acronym; I do not, but there it is as we speak – QARD. That is a new one. I do not even know if I have pronounced that right. Who would know? I am sure somebody would know if it has meaning to them but it does not to the average person, I am sure.

Whilst child care is a Commonwealth responsibility, we are getting on with delivering 50 government owned and operated early learning centres, and that is important because we recognised that when families wanted and needed to access child care, there were areas where there was absolutely none available. That impacts women’s workforce participation – if they cannot find services to care for their children when they need to access work, that is something that impacts women in terms of their economic independence, financial independence and long-term financial prosperity.

In childcare regulation, as I said, there is a role for the Commonwealth, but it is limited. Regulation is with each state and territory’s regulators. In Victoria the safety of children is always our priority. Anyone with concerns about safety of children in early childhood should always call the regulatory authority. There is a 1300 number there, which I am not going to repeat, but it is available on the website. It is there for everybody to access, and they should access it. That is the appropriate place for any concerns about centres not complying with regulations to be raised. It is their role then to investigate that, and that is an independent agency that obviously needs to do its important work in assessing any concerns.

The budget papers show that for the most recent calendar year the Victorian regulatory authority exceeded the target number of inspections of early childhood services, achieving 4729 inspections ahead of its target of 4000. So any agency that exceeds its target for inspections – or any target for that matter – should be congratulated for those efforts. It is a difficult area to work in. Children are obviously vulnerable in any of those settings, and we need to make sure that they are protected as much as possible. This is why we have regulatory agencies that are at arms length to other things so that they can inspect any concerns that are raised and inspect them in an appropriate manner. I could speak longer on this, but the clock is against me given it is the wont now of this chamber to not allow government speakers much time to speak on documents motions. But as I said, we will not be opposing this motion.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (10:37): I rise to speak to motion 969 that Ms Gray-Barberio has brought to the house in relation to requesting documents from the government in relation to early childhood education and the care sector. In this motion, as has been pointed out, it is asking for:

all documents not currently publicly available relating to emergency action notices, prohibition notices, suspension notices, compliance notices, show cause notices, cancellation notices or other notices or directions served on or regarding early childhood education and care … providers under the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, the Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005, the Education and Care Services National Law Act 2010 and the Children’s Services Act 1996 …

It goes on to request documents relating to internal risk assessments or regulatory response decisions; the number of compliance actions taken, including the number and type of breaches and the regulatory outcomes; and the internal guidance documents or frameworks used to classify provider risk. The motion also is looking at a number of different portfolio areas, obviously in relation to the education and child wellbeing parts of the legislation, but it is also speaking to the Minister for Education, Minister for Children, Minister for Disability, Minister for Police, the Commission for children and Young People and the Department of Education. So it is broad sweeping, and in some of these areas I think there has to be some sensitivity around some of those documents that are provided, given the nature of what the Greens are asking for.

I note in the contribution by Ms Gray-Barberio that there was a reference to the Four Corners program that was done in March around this area where it was exposing a number of childcare centres that had been in question. I understand that this is being taken up by members of the Greens in other states, who are also pushing for this issue. I just want to say in relation to that that in that story that I have read – I did not see the program – it did not say how many Victorian childcare centres or early learning centres have been affected. I do not know what those are. I know back in 2017 when I was the shadow minister there were concerns around some providers of early learning centres in some areas where there was real concern about safety and wellbeing of children – overcrowding and who was monitoring.

The minister at the time spoke to me in depth about that, and they did make some changes, I have to say, and I was very supportive of those changes at the time. In 2018, when those changes came into effect, they were cracking down on dodgy day care providers. The previous year, 2017, 22 compliance notices were provided and there were 1200 investigations into a whole range of these settings across the state. At the time, as I said, I was very supportive of these measures, because we do want children to be safe, we want parents to understand that their children are safe, that they do have an ability to have confidence in the system. I would be concerned if that is not going on now, if that oversight is not being put in place. As I said, there needs to be proper compliance. Some of these dodgy providers – what was explained to me at the time was incredibly concerning. It is not, as Ms Gray-Barberio talks about, the profit motives that she spoke about; it is often others in the system that are doing the wrong thing. You are very critical of that sector, but you are not looking at the sector as a whole. Whilst I support the motion for transparency, I would caution on some areas, and I would say that I hope the government is continuing with the work that they did in 2017–18.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:42): I also rise to share a few remarks on short-form documents motion 969 which has been put before us today by Ms Gray-Barberio. I note, as I think all speakers have, the distinct importance of this topic when it comes to childhood services, early childhood education and child protection. I see Mr Puglielli and Mr Welch in the chamber; this is a topic that we discussed just about a week ago in the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee when as government members we were putting questions to the minister, some obviously on very difficult topics, and getting some important information put on the record in those hearings. I would note that as well.

I further note that, as Ms Terpstra said, there is a distinction here between the role of the state and the role of the Commonwealth, which we should be very cognisant of. In terms of this issue, we do know that the Victorian government is already working with the Australian government and other states and territories to ensure that regulators have the appropriate powers, that they have the appropriate penalties and that they have the appropriate resources to effectively and transparently regulate this sector. It involves looking at the adequacy of that national law and those regulations, which is why it is so important that those things are in place and it is why it is so important that a national approach is taken to this important issue.

The government has also, I believe, fully accepted and welcomed the Albanese federal Labor government’s proposal to apply stricter controls over the frankly billions of dollars it spends each year in childcare subsidy funding to preference those high-quality providers and to remove funding from those that do not act in the best interests of children. It is such an important thing to be doing, and I do note, for the benefit of the chamber, that that work is already happening, as it should, because we all want our children to have the best start in life. That is why it is called Best Start, Best Life, and there are many things that go into delivering that, whether it is the early childcare centres that we are developing; the parenting centres, including one in my electorate in Clyde North; or whether it is making three- and four-year-old kinder free for all Victorian families and the progressive rollout of that. That is all part of the same objective, but it is also critical that we do get that regulation correct.

We know as well that Minister Blandthorn was very up-front with the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee last week. In addition to providing some valuable information to the committee in terms of casework allocation rates and the like, she detailed some of the incredible staff of the department who are doing some of the most difficult work in this space responding to child sexual exploitation and the support we have provided for that team – a team set out under this government to do that work specifically. That work continues, which the minister spoke to us about in detail, but she was also clear to the committee that there is more work to be done. As she outlined, we are keen to continue that conversation and to continue that meaningful work with the federal government, because it is an issue that requires that multilevel approach and that multilevel attention from two levels of government.

We know that this government has been working with the Commonwealth and with other states and territories to strengthen child safety, with stronger child safety measures announced just this week I believe by all states and territories to strengthen safety in the early childhood education settings. The Minister for Children has also sought further discussions on additional improvements to the adequacy of those national laws and regulations, to be a conversation at the next education ministers meeting as part of the national cabinet. Whilst we know that there are ample resources already in place for the Victorian regulator, I would also note for the house that the government has supported the Productivity Commission’s recommendation that the Australian government should reinstate funding for these regulatory authorities, noting that that was ceased in 2018 under the former coalition federal government, and also supports that recommendation to implement a regulatory resourcing standard that enables regulators to keep pace with growth and changes in this sector. In line with convention, we will not be opposing this motion.

Motion agreed to.