Tuesday, 26 August 2025

Worker Screening Amendment (Strengthening the Working with Children Check) Bill 2025

Introduction and first reading

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman) (16:33): I have received the following message from the Legislative Assembly:

The Legislative Assembly presents for the agreement of the Legislative Council ‘A Bill for an Act to amend the Worker Screening Act 2020 in relation to working with children and the time limit for prosecuting certain offences and for other purposes.’

Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (16:33): I move:

That the bill be now read a first time.

Motion agreed to.

Read first time.

Enver ERDOGAN: I declare that the bill is an urgent bill, and I move:

That the bill be treated as an urgent bill.

Motion agreed to.

Statement of compatibility

Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (16:34): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

Opening paragraphs

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Worker Screening Amendment (Strengthening the Working with Children Check) Bill 2025.

In my opinion, the Worker Screening Amendment (Strengthening the Working with Children Check) Bill 2025, as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview

The Bill strengthens the operation of the Working with Children (WWC) check by implementing reforms to the Worker Screening Act 2020 (Act). The purpose of the Bill is to assist in the protection of children from harm by strengthening the screening processes of the WWC check, including the treatment of criminal history information and relevant regulatory and disciplinary findings of people who work with children. Screening is necessary to reduce the risk that persons who may harm children will be placed in positions of care and trust.

A key reform in the Bill is to implement mutual recognition of WWC exclusions. The Bill will amend the Act to provide that a WWC exclusion issued in another state or territory is to be treated as a WWC exclusion under the Act. This means that a person who is excluded from child-related work under a corresponding working with children law will be excluded from child-related work under the Act.

The Bill also contains reforms that were identified by government through an urgent review of Victoria’s WWC check scheme. These reforms will:

• prohibit certain individuals from working with children pending assessment or re-assessment;

• extend time limits for the laying of charges related to the summary offence of providing false or misleading information; and

• cancel clearances previously given to a person who provided false or misleading information when making an application or during a re-assessment, or where the person was prohibited from applying for a WWC check under the Act.

Human Rights Issues

The following rights are relevant to the Bill:

• right to recognition and equality before the law (section 8)

• right to privacy (section 13)

• protection of families and children (section 17)

• right to a fair hearing (section 24)

• rights in criminal proceedings (section 25)

• right not to be punished more than once for the same offence (section 26)

• the protection against retrospective criminal laws (section 27)

Under the Charter, rights can be subject to limits that are reasonable and justifiable in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom. Rights may be limited to protect other rights. As discussed below, I am satisfied that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the Charter and, to the extent that any rights are limited, those limitations are reasonable and justified in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter.

Right to recognition and equality before the law

Section 8 of the Charter provides that every person has the right to recognition as a person before the law and to enjoy their human rights without discrimination. It also protects the right for every person to be equal before the law and to be entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination and the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination.

Recognition of inter-jurisdictional WWC exclusions

Legal recognition under the law (section 8(1) Charter) requires that persons enjoy equal rights under the law and receive the protection of Charter rights. In addition, section 8(3) of the Charter provides that every person is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection of the law without discrimination. There is some uncertainty whether this right is intended to operate as a prohibition on unequal treatment by reference to discrimination based on a protected attribute as defined in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 or has a broader application beyond the protected attributes.

The right to recognition as a person before the law, and, assuming an application beyond protected attributes, affording equal protection of the law, may be limited by the provisions which recognise inter-jurisdictional WWC exclusions. By recognising WWC exclusions from other jurisdictions, through prohibiting a person who has been excluded in another jurisdiction, clause 16 of the Bill means that people may be treated differently under the Act depending on whether they have been excluded from a similar scheme in another jurisdiction or not. (The Bill also allows the Secretary to re-assess any previous WWC clearances that were the result of interstate exclusions from child-related work, and provides that once these amendments commence, the person is to be assessed under the new requirements (clause 18).)

This is due to the differences in schemes across jurisdictions. Offence categorisation across states and territories for WWC assessments differ which means that a person excluded in another jurisdiction would be automatically excluded in Victoria, even if the matter that led to the exclusion may not have resulted in the same outcome in Victoria. In addition, most jurisdictions do not have legislated rights protections, which means the original decision-maker would not have been required to consider and act consistently with rights when making an exclusion decision.

However, I consider that these limitations on the right to equality are reasonable and justified. The purpose of these provisions is to implement a joint commitment made by the Commonwealth and state and territory governments for mutual recognition of WWC exclusions, which will ensure greater protection for children from harm. This commitment, which was agreed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, will deliver greater consistency in WWC checks across Australia by ensuring that a person who is excluded in one jurisdiction is barred from working with children in all jurisdictions. This is a first step towards further national reforms including a National Continuous Checking Capability, which will be a secure system that continuously monitors WWC check holders against new criminal history information from national and state/territory datasets, which was a recommendation of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

There have been egregious examples of child abuse that have come to light recently that have demonstrated a need to ensure that WWC schemes across Australia are strong and effective.

While there are differences in the legal frameworks for WWC checks across jurisdictions, there are nationally agreed standards and general consistency in the way schemes operate. This means the number of matters where a person excluded in another jurisdiction would not have been subject to the same outcome in Victoria will be limited. In addition, all systems share a common objective: to prevent individuals who pose an unacceptable risk to children from gaining access to child-related employment or volunteer opportunities.

Right to privacy

Section 13(a) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. An interference will be lawful if it is permitted by a law which is precise and appropriately circumscribed, and will be arbitrary only if it is capricious, unpredictable, unjust or unreasonable, in the sense of being disproportionate to the legitimate aim sought.

The right to privacy is very broad. The fundamental values which the right to privacy expresses are the physical and psychological integrity, individual and social identity, and autonomy and inherent dignity, of the person. The right protects the individual’s interest in the freedom of their personal and social sphere. Relevantly, this encompasses a person’s right to establish and develop meaningful social relations, and may also incorporate a right to work in some circumstances (to the extent that work is necessary to establish and develop social relations).

The Bill promotes the right to privacy by strengthening the WWC scheme, the purpose of which is to protect the right of children to bodily integrity, an aspect of the right to privacy. The Bill also includes reforms which may limit the right to privacy, however, to the extent that any rights are limited, those limitations are reasonable and justified.

Prohibiting certain individuals from working with children pending assessment or re-assessment

Currently most applicants for a WWC check can work with children while their application is assessed, even if the Secretary proposes to refuse to give a WWC clearance on the basis of any charge, conviction or finding of guilt for an offence (except for serious sexual, violent or drug offences captured in clause 2 of Schedule 5 of the Act) or on the basis of disciplinary or regulatory findings.

Clause 12 of the Bill will introduce amendments that will make it an offence for a WWC applicant to work with children while waiting for a final outcome of an application if the Secretary proposes to refuse to give the person a WWC clearance. It will prevent an individual from working with children while waiting for the outcome of an application in a much broader range of circumstances, including where the Secretary is made aware of a relevant charge, conviction, finding of guilt or disciplinary or regulatory finding.

Clauses 13 and 14 will also make it an offence to engage another person in child-related work, or offer the services of another person for child-related work in these broader range of circumstances. These provisions engage the right to privacy, to the extent that it includes a right to work, as it will prevent a wider range of individuals from working or volunteering with children while waiting the outcome of the Secretary’s decision.

Clause 8 of the Bill also introduces a requirement for the Secretary to suspend a person’s WWC clearance if the Secretary proposes to revoke the person’s clearance because they have become aware that the individual has been charged with, convicted or found guilty of, a relevant offence or has become subject to a relevant disciplinary or regulatory finding. Currently, the Secretary can only suspend a WWC clearance before a re-assessment has been carried out in limited circumstances: if the person has become subject to reporting obligations under the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 or a supervision or detention order; if the person has been charged with, or convicted or found guilty of, an offence specified in clause 2 of Schedule 5 to the Act; or the person has been given a WWC exclusion in another jurisdiction. A person who has their WWC clearance suspended is taken to not hold a WWC clearance for the period of the suspension. This amendment engages the right to privacy, as it will prohibit a person from engaging in work with children pending the completion of a re-assessment by the Secretary.

Aboriginal people are particularly at risk of being impacted and receiving a WWC suspension on the basis of having a criminal history as an overrepresented cohort in the justice system. This may also potentially deter Aboriginal people from applying for a WWC check due to confusion about the consequences of them having a criminal record. This can be mitigated by development of frameworks to guide decision making under the suspension power, which could include reference to contextual factors unique to First Nations peoples and other vulnerable groups to inform decision-making.

I do not consider that these amendments limit the right to privacy as they are lawful and not arbitrary. The interference will be lawful as it is authorised under legislation. The interference is not arbitrary, and any limitation is reasonable and justified as it seeks to minimise the risk of a person commencing or continuing to work with children while their application is being assessed or their eligibility to hold a WWC clearance is re-assessed in circumstances where the Secretary has proposed to refuse the application or revoke the clearance, and will therefore help protect children from harm. The Secretary can reinstate a person’s WWC clearance after they have been issued a suspension in particular circumstances, for example, if the charge has been withdrawn or dismissed by a court or the person is acquitted of the offence by a court, or if a disciplinary or regulatory finding is quashed or set aside.

The Bill seeks to further protect children, which is a group with a heightened vulnerability to exploitative conduct which can in its nature be violent, sexual, abusive and neglectful. Screening is necessary to reduce the risk posed by persons who may harm children. While the Bill, and the Act more broadly, cannot entirely eliminate risk, clauses 8, 12, 13 and 14 provide a protective mechanism for preventing people who have been identified with criminal charges, criminal history or disciplinary or regulatory findings that indicate they should not be allowed to work with children from doing so until their eligibility to hold a WWC clearance is assessed.

Power to cancel WWC clearance if false and misleading information is provided on application

Currently there is no express power to cancel a WWC clearance where a WWC check application has been made in breach of, or contrary to, a provision of the Act, and a WWC clearance has been granted as a result.

Clause 9 of the Bill provides the Secretary with the power to cancel a WWC clearance if the person should not have been issued a clearance at the time of their initial or further application. This may occur, for example, where a person provided false or misleading information in relation to their application. Clause 18 applies this power retrospectively, so the Secretary will be able to cancel a WWC clearance that should not have issued regardless of whether the relevant application or re-assessment occurred prior commencement of the Bill.

These clauses may engage the right to privacy, to the extent that it includes a right to work, as it will prevent these individuals from continuing to work with children, which may require them to leave their existing workplace, in circumstances where they had relied on the WWC clearance being granted.

However, I do not consider that these amendments limit the right to privacy as they are lawful and not arbitrary. The interference will be lawful as it is authorised under legislation. Further, the interference is not arbitrary, as it has the important purpose of protecting children from harm by cancelling WWC checks that should not have been issued. This power is intended to act as a safety net in exceptional circumstances, such as where a WWC clearance has been given based on information that is false or misleading and the WWC clearance may not have been given if the information available to the Secretary was correct.

Additionally, clause 9 of the Bill requires the Secretary, in the case that a WWC clearance is cancelled on the basis of false or misleading information, to give to the person the reasons for the cancellation, inform the person that they may apply for a WWC check and explain how that application can be made. To the extent that these laws may limit the right to privacy, I consider that any limitation is reasonable and justified in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter.

Recognition of inter-jurisdictional WWC exclusions

Currently the Act provides for consideration of interstate WWC exclusions or equivalent notices through the WWC check application and re-assessment provisions. A person who receives a WWC exclusion in another jurisdiction will either be a category A or category B application or reassessment which can result in the giving of a WWC exclusion under the Act. However, in some cases, a person who has been issued an interstate WWC exclusion can be issued a WWC clearance in Victoria.

Clause 16 of the Bill amends the Act to provide that a person who is excluded from child-related work under a corresponding working with children law is prohibited from applying for a WWC check under the Act. Additionally, clauses 4 and 6 categorise an interstate WWC exclusion as a category A application and re-assessment and clauses 5 and 7 repeal the previous category B application and re-assessment provisions. These clauses together mean that a person who is excluded from child-related work under a corresponding working with children law will be excluded from child-related work under the Act. Clause 18 also introduces amendments to allow the Secretary to re-assess any previous WWC clearances that were the result of interstate exclusions from child-related work, and provides that once these amendments commence, the person is to be assessed under the new requirements.

These amendments engage the right to privacy, to the extent that it includes a right to work, as it will prevent people who have a WWC exclusion issued in another jurisdiction from obtaining a WWC clearance in Victoria. Without a clearance, a person will be unable to work or volunteer in certain positions which involve contact with children. Further, they will not be able to continue in child-related work where an existing WWC clearance is revoked. These provisions may have significant consequences for the person, as it may mean they are unable to pursue their choice of work, may have to leave their existing workplace, or cannot participate in certain volunteer activities.

However, I do not consider that these amendments limit the right to privacy as they are lawful and not arbitrary. The interference will be lawful as it is authorised under legislation. Further, the interference is not arbitrary, as it serves the important purpose of protecting children, who have a heightened vulnerability to harmful conduct. Additionally, through operation of the Act more broadly, if such a person was to have their interstate WWC exclusion lifted, they would be able to apply for a WWC check under section 77(2)(c) of the Act. To the extent that these laws may limit the right to privacy, I consider that any limitation is reasonable and justified in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter.

Protection of families and children

Section 17 of the Charter provides that families are entitled to be protected by society and the State, and that every child has the right, without discrimination, to such protection as is in the child’s best interests and is needed by them by reason of being a child. This right recognises the special vulnerability of children because of their age and immaturity, conferring additional rights on them.

The Bill promotes the rights of the child by strengthening the operation of the WWC check, which is an important safeguarding tool that assists in protecting children from sexual and physical harm by screening people who work with or care for children.

Right to a fair hearing

Section 24(1) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence or a party to a civil proceeding has the right to have the charge or proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing.

The concept of a ‘civil proceeding’ in section 24 is not limited to judicial decision makers, but may also encompass the decision-making procedures of many types of tribunals, boards and other administrative decision-makers. The right generally encompasses the established common law right of each individual to unimpeded access to the courts of the State, and may be limited if a person faces a procedural barrier to bringing their case before a court.

Prohibiting certain individuals from working with children pending assessment or re-assessment

Clauses 8 and 12 of the Bill may engage the right to a fair hearing as it does not provide an avenue for appeal for the amendments which prohibit a broader range of individuals from working with children while waiting for a final outcome of their WWC check application or a re-assessment of their WWC clearance in cases where the Secretary proposes to refuse a WWC clearance or where the Secretary suspends a person’s WWC clearance if the Secretary proposes to revoke the clearance.

However, I do not consider that the amendments limit the right to a fair hearing, as these prohibitions and suspensions are temporary until the final outcome which will either be a WWC clearance or a WWC exclusion. A person who receives a WWC exclusion in these circumstances can appeal that decision to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

Recognition of inter-jurisdictional WWC exclusions

Clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill may limit the right to a fair hearing as it provides that a person who has been excluded from a WWC check in another jurisdiction will not have the right to apply to VCAT for a review of this decision. Instead, the person will only be able to appeal the decision in the jurisdiction where the original exclusion was decided. Inconsistent offence categorisation across jurisdictions may also result in different appeal rights for persons excluded in another jurisdiction and those initially excluded in Victoria, even where the offence or disciplinary or regulatory finding may be identical. Clause 18 of the Bill applies this restriction retrospectively, so a person who has been excluded from a WWC check in another jurisdiction prior to the commencement of the Bill will not be able to apply to VCAT for a review of the Secretary’s decision to issue an exclusion on this basis.

To the extent that this reform may limit the right to a fair hearing, I consider that any limitation is reasonable and justified in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter. The purpose of this amendment to promote consistency across jurisdictions by ensuring that individuals who are excluded in one jurisdiction are not able to obtain a WWC check in another jurisdiction. This promotes the integrity of the WWC check system across jurisdictions and in turn, promotes the right of the child to protection from harm. While there are differences in the legal frameworks for WWC checks across jurisdictions, all systems share a common objective: to prevent individuals who pose an unacceptable risk to children from gaining access to child-related employment or volunteer opportunities. It is appropriate for the jurisdiction in which the original decision to exclude is made to consider any avenues for review of that decision. Additionally, if a person who holds an interstate WWC exclusion has that WWC exclusion lifted, they can apply for a WWC check under section 77(2)(c) of the Act.

Extending time limits for the laying of charges related to summary offences

Clause 15 of the Bill extends the limitation period for prosecuting the offence of providing false or misleading information in relation to NDIS or WWC checks in section 128 of the Act, including applications or re-assessments, from 12 months to 5 years and 6 months.

This is a summary offence, which generally have a 12-month limitation period. Extending the period for prosecuting this offence to 5 years and 6 months may engage and limit the right to a fair hearing, as it may affect the ability of the accused to respond to the charges and may affect the quality of evidence they can obtain to defend the charges.

However, I consider that any limitation is reasonable and justified under section 7(2) of the Charter. The implications of a person providing false or misleading information in relation to an NDIS check or WWC check can be significant. For example, an individual who provides false information about their international criminal history information may present a serious risk to people accessing the NDIS or children. In addition, it may be that an offence under this section may go unnoticed for a period greater than 12 months. In such circumstances, criminal proceedings cannot be commenced against that person as the limitation period has expired. A longer limitation period is intended to provide a greater deterrent against providing false or misleading information as there is a longer period within which a person could be charged. The period of 5 years and 6 months covers the duration of a clearance for both NDIS checks and WWC checks, as the checks last for a period of 5 years and an individual can apply up to 6 months (for WWC checks) before their current clearance expires.

Rights in criminal proceedings

Section 25(1) of the Charter provides that all persons charged with a criminal offence have the right to the presumption of innocence. The right in section 25(1) is relevant where a statutory provision shifts the burden of proof onto an accused in a criminal proceeding, so that the accused is required to prove matters to establish, or raise evidence to suggest, that they are not guilty of an offence.

Prohibiting certain individuals from working with children pending assessment or re-assessment

Clauses 12, 13 and 14 amend sections 121-124 of the Act to make it an offence for a WWC applicant to work with children while waiting for a final outcome of an application if the Secretary proposes to refuse to give the person a WWC clearance and to make it an offence to engage another person in child-related work, or offer the services of another person for child-related work, in these broader range of circumstances.

These clauses may engage the right to presumption of innocence as sections 121-124 provide that a person ‘is not guilty of certain offences’ if certain matters apply.

These provisions create an evidentiary burden on the accused, in that they require the accused to raise evidence of certain matters. However, in doing so, they do not transfer the legal burden. Once the accused has pointed to evidence of those matters, which will generally be within their knowledge, the burden shifts back to the prosecution to prove the essential elements of the offence.

I do not consider that an evidential onus of the kind in the above provisions limits the right to be presumed innocent, and courts in other jurisdictions have taken this approach. Accordingly, I am satisfied that these provisions are compatible with the right to the presumption of innocence.

Right not to be punished more than once for the same offence

Section 26 of the Charter provides that a person must not be tried or punished more than once for an offence in respect of which they have already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with law.

Recognition of inter-jurisdictional WWC exclusions

This right is engaged by the reforms in the Bill that provide that a person who has been excluded from a WWC check in another jurisdiction will be excluded under the Act. As a result of these amendments individuals may have WWC checks refused, and holders of WWC clearance may have their clearances revoked.

However, in my view the right against double punishment is not limited by the Bill, because the refusal or revocation has a protective purpose, rather than a punitive one. The aim of the provisions is clearly to protect children from harm, rather than to impose a punishment for an offence. As the refusal or revocation is not a punishment, it does not amount to double punishment for the purpose of section 26, and the right is therefore not limited.

Protection against retrospective criminal laws

Section 27 of the Charter that a person must not be found guilty of a criminal offence because of conduct that was not a criminal offence when it was engaged in.

Extending time limits for the laying of charges related to summary offences

Clause 15 of the Bill extends the limitation period for prosecuting the offence of providing false or misleading information in relation to NDIS or WWC checks, including applications or re-assessments, from 12 months to 5 years and 6 months. Clause 18 of the Bill applies this limitation period retrospectively, so it will apply to applications and re-assessments made within 5 years and 6 months prior to the date of commencement of the Bill.

This may limit the protection against retrospective criminal laws as it will mean that a person may face prosecution for this offence more than 12 months after they provided the information, if it was within 5 years and 6 months prior to commencement of the Bill. However, I consider that any limitation is reasonable and justified in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter as it is for the purpose of promoting the integrity of the worker screening test, which protects children and people who access the NDIS.

The Hon. Enver Erdogan MLC

Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation

Minister for Corrections

Minister for Youth Justice

Second reading

Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (16:34): I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Ordered that second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard:

The safety and wellbeing of our children is of paramount concern to the Victorian Government. The recent allegations of child abuse that have come to light demonstrate an urgent need to ensure that the systems in place to protect children in Victoria are robust and effective.

Today the government is introducing the Worker Screening Amendment (Strengthening the Working with Children Check) Bill 2025 which contains important reforms to strengthen Victoria’s Working with Children check laws. The Working with Children check scheme in the Worker Screening Act 2020 (Act) seeks to support the protection of children by screening the criminal history information and relevant regulatory and disciplinary findings of people who work with children.

National mutual recognition of Working with Children exclusions

The Bill will amend the Act to recognise a Working with Children exclusion issued in another state or territory as an automatic exclusion under Victoria’s scheme. This implements the agreement made by the Commonwealth, states and territories at the Standing Council of Attorneys-General on 15 August 2025 to urgently work towards national mutual recognition, so that a person denied a clearance, or whose clearance has been revoked, in one jurisdiction cannot be granted or hold a Working with Children check in another jurisdiction. The Commonwealth Attorney-General, the Hon Michelle Rowland MP, referred to this nationwide reform as ‘banned in one, banned in all’.

This is a first step towards further national reforms including a National Continuous Checking Capability, which will be a secure system that continuously monitors Working with Children check holders against new criminal history information from national, state and territory datasets, which was a recommendation of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

The Act currently provides for consideration of interstate Working with Children exclusions or equivalent notices, including at the application and re-assessment stage. The Act deals with interstate exclusions differently depending on the type of matter that gave rise to the exclusion. This means that, currently, some people who have been excluded in other jurisdictions can be issued a Working with Children clearance in Victoria.

The Bill will change this, so that all interstate Working with Children exclusions will be automatically recognised as exclusions in Victoria, as is already the case under South Australia and Queensland’s Working with Children check schemes. This will meet Victoria’s commitment to facilitate national mutual recognition of Working with Children exclusions. While there are differences in the legal frameworks for Working with Children checks across jurisdictions, there are nationally agreed standards and general consistency in the way the schemes operate. All jurisdictions share a common objective of preventing individuals who pose an unacceptable risk from working or volunteering with children.

Expanding Working with Children check suspension powers

In April, the Premier announced an urgent review of Victoria’s Working with Children check scheme. The review identified areas for reform, including expanding powers to suspend Working with Children checks on the basis of any assessment trigger, including any charge, conviction, finding of guilt or relevant regulatory or disciplinary finding.

Currently, Working with Children clearances can only be suspended before a re-assessment has been finalised in limited circumstances, including a person being charged with or convicted or found guilty of a sexual offence.

The Bill will expand the suspension powers in the Act to allow for the suspension of a person’s Working with Children clearance in circumstances where the Secretary is made aware of a charge, conviction or finding of guilt for a less serious offence, or a relevant disciplinary or regulatory finding. This will ensure that people who have been charged with a criminal offence, have a criminal record or who have been subject to a relevant regulatory or disciplinary finding are not able to work with children until after their eligibility has been rigorously assessed.

Importantly, these reforms will work in parallel with amendments recently made to the Worker Screening Regulations 2021 that expanded the number of findings that trigger the assessment of a person’s eligibility to have, or to hold, a Working with Children check, such as prohibition notices issued to early childhood staff by the Department of Education’s Quality Assessment and Regulation Division as well as equivalent notices issued in other states and territories.

Cancelling clearances granted in certain circumstances

Currently, the Act does not provide an express power to immediately cancel a Working with Children clearance where a Working with Children check application is made in breach of the Act or where a person provided false or misleading information as part of their application for a check or re-assessment of their eligibility to hold a clearance. The Bill introduces a new power to cancel a Working with Children clearance in these circumstances

This power is intended to act as a safety net in exceptional circumstances by allowing the Secretary to act immediately where it becomes apparent that a person should not have been able to validly apply for a Working with Children check or should not have been given a clearance on application or been able to retain their clearance on re-assessment where they provided information that was false or misleading.

Expanding the limitation period to prosecute the offence of providing false or misleading information

It is an offence under the Act for a person to provide false or misleading information in relation to a worker screening application or re-assessment unless the person believed on reasonable grounds that the information was true or was not misleading. This is a summary offence which means that a prosecution must be commenced within 12 months after the false or misleading information was alleged to have been provided.

However, an offence of this kind may go unnoticed for a period greater than 12 months, which means that criminal proceedings cannot be commenced as the limitation period would have expired. Given the potential implications for child safety, we consider that such a short period for prosecutions is not justified. People that provide false or misleading information should be held accountable.

The Bill will extend the limitation period for commencing proceedings for an offence of providing false or misleading information from 12 months to 5 years and 6 months. This reflects the 5-year duration of Working with Children checks, including the 6 months a person has following expiry to renew their Working with Children check, and will provide a greater deterrent for people who may provide false or misleading information as there is a higher chance that they will be caught and charged.

Further reforms to improve child safety

This Bill sends a clear message that any risk to child safety will not be tolerated.

The amendments in this Bill are the first step in strengthening the Working with Children check scheme to ensure that it remains an effective and rigorous government screening process.

It is our government’s priority to progress additional reforms to implement the recommendations of the independent Rapid Child Safety Review as quickly as possible to minimise the risk of harm to children in Victoria. Further legislative reforms will be brought to Parliament later this year.

I will continue to do everything in my power to ensure that Victoria’s Working with Children check system is robust, reliable and effectively prevents people who pose a risk to our children from working with them.

I commend the Bill to the house.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Members, an urgent bill motion has passed, pursuant to standing order 14.35. The purpose of this motion is that this next stage, following the tabling of the statement of compatibility and the minister’s second-reading speech, may take place forthwith and without leave being granted.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (16:35): I rise to speak on this urgent bill that has been presented to the house, and in doing so can I say that the Liberal and Nationals will be supporting this bill. At the outset, can I talk about the process of this. I have just learned that Mr Erdogan has carriage of this bill and not even the appropriate minister, the Minister for Children. I find it extraordinary that we do not even have the Minister for Children, who is responsible for a large part of these issues, in the house. She has fled the chamber and will not be taking questions or understanding the implications. I find this a gross cover-up and an extraordinary move by the government. What the government are trying to do is correct the wrongs that they have so badly failed on over the last three years. What this bill does is a number of things, but it does not go anywhere near what the Shadow Attorney-General Michael O’Brien and Shadow Minister Jess Wilson brought into this Parliament three weeks ago to strengthen the working with children checks and to ensure that children are not at risk.

What the Victorian public found out six weeks ago, after the heinous crimes and the alleged issues that arose by Mr Joshua Brown, really brought into contrast a huge issue going on in this state. I want to also make mention of that. I know that that is an ongoing issue, an investigation, but it really goes to the heart of the failures of the government. In September 2022 the Victorian Ombudsman tabled a report of an investigation into a former youth worker’s unauthorised access to private information about children. At the time the Ombudsman found that Victoria’s working with children check system was amongst the most limited in Australia. That was in September 2022. I recall working on the child abuse inquiry here in Victoria, where we were also dealing with some very heinous crimes against children and looking at one of those recommendations which did suggest strengthening and looking at the working with children check. That was back in 2013. I really want to go to the heart of the Ombudsman’s findings in 2022. What the Ombudsman Deborah Glass said at the time was:

The biggest remaining gap is the need to amend the Worker Screening Act 2020 … Working with Children Check Victoria should be able to act on information that indicates someone poses an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children, regardless of whether criminal charges are brought.

This is imperative: The powers of Victoria’s screening authority are among the most limited in Australia. Reforms to the legislation are needed to bring Victoria in line with other states and territories, and to promote the rights of children and families enshrined in Victoria’s Human Rights Charter.

Some painful lessons have been learnt. For the safety of our children, more needs to be done

That warning was ignored back in 2022. At the time the Shadow Attorney-General Michael O’Brien committed to fixing this system, because a number of recommendations were made, and I want to go to those. What Mr O’Brien said at the time was:

A Liberals and Nationals Government will urgently amend the Worker Screening Act to implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations and give Victoria’s children the protection they deserve.

That was after the release of this report, because the recommendations that were also provided to the government included the following:

Amend the Worker Screening Act 2020 … to allow the Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety to:

a. obtain and consider any information that may be relevant to an applicant’s suitability to work with children

b. refuse an application for a Working with Children Check if reasonably satisfied the applicant poses an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children (including where no criminal or disciplinary history exists)

c. reassess a person’s suitability to hold a Working with Children clearance on the Secretary’s own initiative, and without need for notification of a criminal charge or disciplinary outcome

d. pending determination of a reassessment, suspend a person’s Working with Children clearance where the Secretary reasonably suspects the person poses an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children

e. revoke a person’s Working with Children clearance following reassessment, where reasonably satisfied the person poses an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children (including where no criminal or disciplinary history exists).

They are the recommendations made to government in September 2022. The government failed to act on them, and then this shocking situation arose where the Victorian public learned of what went on in a number of childcare centres, affecting thousands of children. The crimes are hideous. They are absolutely appalling, and we have a government that has been running for cover. I am appalled at the lack of regard shown by the government to having total transparency and accountability for the failures in their dealing with this situation given what the Ombudsman found and the recommendations.

What the government is doing is putting in place some legislation which does not go towards what the Ombudsman recommended the government do. The bill does a number of things. As was highlighted last week following the Standing Council of Attorneys-General, or SCAG, there was a decision made that where an applicant for a working with children clearance in Victoria has been convicted in another state or territory of an offence that would see a working with children clearance denied in that state, it will have the same effect in Victoria. That is one issue, and that is one that we totally agree with.

The government’s bill – a weaker bill, I have got to say, than what was brought into the Assembly three weeks ago and what I read into the house last sitting week – includes the power to suspend a working with children clearance if there is an intention to revoke a working with children clearance related to certain charges or findings – that is, where a person who was charged or convicted of a relevant offence in category A or B had an immediate suspension of a working with children clearance for a category C offence, there was a 28-day period to respond. It also cites natural justice. But this bill provides that there is an immediate suspension for that category C offence as well. This sounds okay in terms of acting on this and looking at it, but it does not provide the powers that the Ombudsman said the secretary needs to have. I want to come to that a bit later because the amendments that the Liberals and Nationals are putting forward will provide some assurances and provide the necessary powers for the secretary to act.

Under the government’s bill when the secretary is notified by the Chief Commissioner of Police that a person has been charged with, convicted or found guilty of a relevant offence other than an offence specified in clause 2 of schedule 5 or is notified of a relevant disciplinary or regulatory finding being made against the person and the secretary proposes to revoke the person’s WWC clearance under division 4, they must suspend that person’s WWC clearance. The bill provides the power to reinstate the person’s clearance if, after the suspension, the charge is withdrawn, the charge is dismissed by a court or the person is acquitted of the offence by a court. The secretary also has the power to reinstate a person’s working with children clearance that has been suspended because of a relevant disciplinary or regulatory finding if, after the suspension, the finding is expressly or impliedly quashed or set aside. As I said, the secretary can do all of those things, but the secretary does not have the power to act if a red flag goes up and there are deemed to be children at risk, so there are serious shortfalls with the government’s bill in relation to this.

Proposed section 87B, to be inserted by clause 9 of the bill, provides that where the secretary suspends a working with children clearance, the secretary must notify the working with children check clearance holder and the person or agency for whom the person has engaged in that child-related work of the suspension, and the secretary must provide notice in writing of the decision to the agency under that provision.

They are technical things that the secretary needs to undertake, but I say it does not go far enough in relation to giving the powers if a red flag has been raised around some terrible situations – as what we have learned have been going on in this state for far too long.

The next part of the bill, the cancellation of the working with children clearance, provides that the secretary may cancel a person’s working with children clearance if the person had given information that was false or misleading. The secretary must inform the person around that and explain how such an application may be made and require that person to surrender their working with children clearance. It is very much a technical aspect around those components, which are pretty straightforward.

This bill, as I said, makes changes around the working with children clearance, but it does not go far enough, because it really is not undertaking what needs to be done in relation to the Ombudsman’s recommendations that Ms Glass made to the government three years ago, and it actually fails to implement the government’s own rapid review into child safety findings that the government released with much fanfare last week. I will go to that and will be asking about this in committee. I really do think that, given the shocking revelations that have occurred in this state and what they triggered right around the country – which was a good thing; it did jolt other states into understanding exactly what had occurred in this state – it does not go to the warnings by the Commissioner for Children and Young People or the Ombudsman, which the government failed to undertake. I have asked in this house the minister – who refuses to be in here and take responsibility for this bill in her own area; I find it extraordinary – about those failings of funding, where the commissioner said, ‘If you don’t provide the funding, we can’t do the investigations. We just don’t have the resources.’ The government will go on and do their line, but really what is at the heart here are the interests of children and their safety. It surely should be about that, yet we have had brush-off after brush-off by government around the failings. Really, how anyone can still hold their job given these monumental failings is quite staggering.

The bill the Liberals and Nationals three weeks ago tried to introduce in the other house and introduced in this place was really going to take on board and overhaul and strengthen every component of the working with children check system. It was really looking at the findings and the recommendations made by the Ombudsman and it was really addressing those concerns and filling that gap. This bill does not do that. It does not go anywhere near that extent, and that is why we will be moving amendments. I am wondering if I could have those amendments circulated, please.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): They are not ready.

Georgie CROZIER: Well, I will speak to them anyway, if I may. Thank you. I know that this is an urgent bill, so I thank the parliamentary counsel for providing the assistance they have in drafting and providing the amendments. Really what we are proposing to do is look at those aspects that we brought to the attention of the house three weeks ago in the private member’s bill, and they are providing mandatory training and ensuring there is training around child safe standards and issues around child sexual abuse. We have had inquiry after inquiry around child sexual abuse, and it really is very standard that there should be that training so that anyone working in this system, anywhere in the system, with very vulnerable children – whether in kindergarten or childcare centres or playgroups or schools – undertakes all of this training. It is very important that we have that, and that is one part of our amendments.

Another part of the amendments that we are proposing, which will strengthen this bill – and the amendments are about strengthening the bill that we have got before the house and keeping children safe – as I mentioned before, will give the secretary the powers that we believe they should have to act in the interests of child safety if there are red flags, if there is any concern. If the secretary is satisfied that giving the working with children clearance would pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children, we must have an ability for the secretary to consider relevant information in that application and have the power to do that.

The amendments will go towards looking at the working with children check for those that are working with children in the system, not volunteers, so that they have their working with children checks valid for three years, not five years. We believe that they should be checked every three years. That should not be onerous. It needs to be done in the interests of children and to bring back trust to families and parents of children. Let us not forget what has happened. Let us not forget those thousands of children that have been subjected to sexually transmitted diseases tests, the concern of their parents, the worry and the unbelievable anxiety that that has led to. It has just been appalling. We need to put that trust back in the system and enable those people, and there are many good people that work in the system. We need to give them the trust as well, so that they know that they are doing the right thing and that the system is working on behalf of them as well, to know that they are doing the right thing and are being monitored accordingly and that they are not being put at risk.

Our amendments go to the suspension powers on the reassessment. The secretary may suspend a person’s working with children clearance if, on the reassessment of that person’s eligibility to hold a clearance, the secretary reasonably suspects that the person would pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children. Again, I say it is really about that – any relevant information obtained from any other person or source in relation to this, for that reassessment. It is critical that the secretary has the ability to then make that decision. This is the implementation of the recommendations of the Ombudsman. The very real aspects around what the recommendations were are around implementing those recommendations. I just for the life of me do not understand why the government would not be bringing that on and giving the power to the secretary to have that information and make an assessment based on those issues. Again, I say it is around those red flags – surely with any red flag, any information like that, the secretary should have the power to act. Our amendments also go to the determination of reassessment and the general discretion to revoke, looking at, again, that unjustifiable risk – the likelihood of future threat to a child caused by the holder, any information given by the holder in relation to the reassessment, and information obtained from any other person, as I said.

If we go back and have a look at what has happened, Ron Marks, who is the individual who has been under investigation, had his physical working with children check removed but not his digital working with children check, so he was still working with children, whether it was whether it is kinders, schools, playgroups or childcare centres. What the police found is just appalling, the nature of the imagery that the police have found – quite shocking findings, really. He was convicted last month for the possession of this child sexual abuse material. He was sentenced for accessing almost a thousand images of heinous child abuse material, including bestiality and the torture of children.

This amendment deals with this. He was first investigated in September of 2021, I think it was. The police raided his home and seized these vile images, but he has been allowed to work. How? What this amendment does is really deal with something like that. I cannot believe that the government has not fixed this loophole. It is just extraordinary. Our amendments go to that very point about not allowing somebody such as this individual who has undertaken these despicable crimes with the most vulnerable children, with those images of torture and bestiality – I mean, how much more degrading and ghastly can you get? Just appalling – words really fail me. Nevertheless, he has been out there with his working with children check. This government did nothing. If they had acted on the Ombudsman’s recommendations in 2022, he would not be out there. It is just amazing.

Our amendments also go to other areas that the Shadow Attorney-General and the Shadow Minister for Education – Michael O’Brien and Jess Wilson – have been talking about. We believe that the information with the working with children clearance can be linked to the police LEAP database so that if any flags are raised through any other issues the systems are talking to each other and are actually working together and then an individual can be assessed in the circumstances and those children that they may be exposed to are not put at any risk.

Again, we do say that there needs to be more done in relation to this issue. There have been some very serious revelations over the last few months. It has been alarming how the government has not taken full responsibility for these failings. You would think in this day and age, when such shocking failures occur within the system, somebody would be accountable and somebody would take responsibility. But not this government. No, they will spin and they will talk about what they are doing, but we believe that they are not going far enough to protect children. They did not have the full interests of the children at heart when they failed to address all of those issues that the Ombudsman raised and that their own rapid review recommended in relation to changing the regulatory framework. Many of those issues have not been addressed in this bill. It does not go far enough, and parents and the sector, which has also been implicated through these findings, have also been horrified.

I have spoken, like many of my colleagues, to affected children and affected people in the sector who have been horrified. They want change. They want this system to be strengthened, and they really feel that they have been let down by the inaction of the government, who failed every single Victorian – every single Victorian parent and every single Victorian child – because they disregarded the Ombudsman’s findings and recommendations in September 2022. I say again they were pretty clear. It was very straightforward when the Ombudsman said:

The biggest remaining gap is the need to amend the Worker Screening Act 2020 (Vic). Working with Children Check Victoria should be able to act on information …

This is imperative: The powers of Victoria’s screening authority are among the most limited in Australia. Reforms to the legislation are needed to bring Victoria in line with other –

jurisdictions.

Extraordinary oversight, extraordinary failure by the government. Nevertheless we are here this afternoon debating this bill which, as I said at the outset, we will be supporting, and I would hope that members of this chamber would support the coalition’s amendments, which will further strengthen this bill, close the loopholes and ensure that we get those safety measures in place for the sake of children.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (17:00): I am pleased to speak on the Worker Screening Amendment (Strengthening the Working with Children Check) Bill 2025. Child care forms a vital part of the care economy. Not only is it a valuable social and learning experience for our children, but it also allows parents to return to work. The provision of early learning also supports families in their capacity to earn an income. Early learning, as we know, supports the healthy development of our littlest and most vulnerable Victorian citizens at a time in their life when maximum benefit can be achieved.

Child care is also very personal to every one of us. I remember handing over my own child to a council-run childcare centre in Warrnambool. I remember that feeling of needing reassurance that the people there would care for my child and keep her safe. Just four weeks ago I saw the stress experienced by that little girl as a mother herself when she introduced her own baby to child care for the first time. All of this was while we were all appalled to hear about the alleged criminal conduct of the individual in multiple centres across Melbourne. Again, like me, my daughter sought reassurance that her baby would be cared for, be kept safe and experience an enjoyable day at child care.

The alleged criminal conduct of the individual has highlighted a number of weaknesses in our childcare system. Families want to be confident that employees are checked for their qualifications and appropriateness to work with children. Parents want to be confident that the centre their child attends meets the basic safety and infrastructure and equipment standards. And judging by the childcare market demand, parents prefer government-run, community-run or council-run facilities over private for-profit centres, and that is obvious from the length of waiting lists.

We would not build the system from scratch like it is today. Reforms will involve unpicking a mess that is created by not only the shared responsibility of the federal and state systems but also the introduction of a quasi market for the private sector to profit from. In early childhood education and care families place an enormous amount of trust in the system. This is why the recent allegations of shocking abuse in childcare centres have broken that trust, and that is why the Victorian government has announced a child safety overhaul.

In addition to the changes in this bill today, we are taking immediate action to strengthen the working with children check and child safety in early childhood education and care settings, with a $42 million boost to the sector. We are accepting and implementing all 22 recommendations of the independent rapid child safety review: establishing a new nation-leading regulator that will more than double the frequency of compliance checks; beefing up the Social Services Regulator by bringing the working with children check, the reportable conduct scheme and the child safe standards under the one roof by the end of the year, giving it new powers, removing silos and weeding out predators; introducing mandatory child safety training and expanding professional support programs, including through changes to the national law to build a greater culture of speaking up; and calling on the federal government to prioritise quality and safety in the national childcare system.

Like many other families in this state, we have found it very distressing to see what has gone on, and we look forward to the reforms. This bill is an important part of the reforms, and it is altering a very complex federal and state set of historic arrangements. I think it is very, very good that our minister Lizzie Blandthorn has done such a thorough and comprehensive job so quickly for this bill.

Wendy LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (17:06): I also rise to speak on the Worker Screening Amendment (Strengthening the Working with Children Check) Bill 2025. It is a bit of an anomaly, that title of this bill. There was once a time when Victoria actually led the way in providing safe, accessible and quality early education and care in our nation. We were the envy of the nation, but now unfortunately we are the laughing-stock of the nation. Going back to a time when we were envied, when we were the leaders in the nation, it was a time when we, the Liberal Party, were in government. This was a time when the Ministerial Council for Early Childhood Education and Care actually worked towards the national legislation and the national regulations, which Victoria both wrote and hosted. This national law was about bringing other people up to our standard – up to the standard of Victoria – where we were recognised as being the leaders in the provision of early childhood education and care in the country. Now unfortunately we are no longer the leaders, we are the laughing-stock.

I actually chaired the implementation through the ministerial council, introducing all of that national reform, so it is really disappointing to me to see how the standards have slipped under Labor. It was not long ago that I actually spoke with one of the people who had been an advocate for improving the quality of standards right throughout the nation, and that person told me that since my time as minister there has been no-one who has focused on continuing this work. Now Victoria is paying the price, because this government have allowed the standards to slip. This government rewrote the working with children check legislation and introduced the Worker Screening Act in 2020. Unfortunately the loopholes in that act have led to the situation that we are in today. But this is not the first time the government have known about the problems with that act. The government were warned about this by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman produced a report back in 2022 where she spoke about all of the problems with the legislation and what needed to be done. She said in that report that the powers of Victoria’s screening authority are amongst the most limited in Australia. Isn’t that a shame? We have gone from the state that led the way to the state which is the most limited in Australia when it comes to the screening of people who are working with children.

But this bill that the government has before the house does not even respond to those recommendations that were made by the Ombudsman; in fact the government have never, ever responded to, let alone acted on, any of those recommendations that were made by the Ombudsman. The government have also had their own rapid review into early childhood education and care, but this bill does not respond to the recommendations of that review. Ms Ermacora spoke about a child safety overhaul. This is an overhaul after the event, not about child safety but actually about crisis management. This bill, as I said, does not even address the Ombudsman’s recommendations or the recommendations of the rapid review. This is scrambled-together legislation that does not fully address the seriousness of the issue that is facing Victorian families at the moment.

The opposition introduced a bill on 29 July into the lower house of the Victorian Parliament that would have dealt with the recommendations of the Victorian Ombudsman, but the government would not even allow that bill to be read into the lower house, so a mirror bill was introduced into the upper house. Our bill would have gone a lot further to addressing the problems there are in Victoria. Our bill would have provided greater protection to children and greater certainty for parents. But the Labor government are determined to go ahead with this cobbled-together piece of legislation that will not address all of those recommendations and not address safety for Victorian families.

I know there are a lot of people who want to talk about different issues to do with this bill, so I will not take up the Parliament’s time other than to say that we will support this legislation but we do not believe that the government has gone anywhere near far enough to address the issues in Victoria. This is because there have been a series of children’s ministers in this state who have dropped the ball on the protection of our children and the quality of the provision of care in early childhood education and care, and the Labor Party should hang their heads in shame.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (17:12): Thank you very much for the opportunity to make a contribution here this afternoon on a bill that will strengthen the working with children check scheme and increase protections for children by preventing people who may pose a risk to children from engaging in child-related work. The bill will make further urgent amendments to the Worker Screening Act 2020 (WSA). It will ensure that a person who is banned from working with children in another jurisdiction will be automatically banned here in Victoria. It will allow for the immediate suspension of a person’s working with children check clearance upon being notified of any charge or relevant regulatory or disciplinary finding, pending determination of an assessment, whereas currently people can work for 28 days pending natural justice processes. The bill before us will also introduce a power to cancel a working with children clearance where it was granted based on false or misleading information or otherwise pursuant to an unlawful application. It will also increase time limits for commencing a prosecution of the offence of providing false or misleading information in relation to a worker screening application or reassessment from 12 months to five years and six months.

On 15 August 2025 the Standing Council of Attorneys-General agreed to urgently work towards implementation by the end of 2025 – that was an agreed time there – with a mutual recognition of working with children exclusions being a primary part of the work in the urgent implementation so that a person denied a working with children check or whose working with children check has been revoked in one jurisdiction cannot be granted or hold a working with children check in another jurisdiction. The bill before us also explicitly prohibits a person who has received a working with children check exclusion in another state or territory from applying for a working with children check in Victoria.

The bill before us will expand the powers of the Secretary of the Department of Government Services to suspend a person’s working with children check in appropriate circumstances, pending reassessment of that person’s eligibility to hold a working with children check. The secretary will be empowered to immediately prevent a person from working with children, pending reassessment of their working with children check, if they have been charged with, convicted of or found guilty of any offence that may represent a risk to children or have had any relevant disciplinary or regulatory findings made against them. This will also ensure that people who have a criminal record or who have been subject to relevant regulatory or disciplinary findings are not able to work with children until after their eligibility has been rigorously assessed. The reform is a significant expansion of the current suspension powers under the Worker Screening Act 2020, which only allows for the suspension of a working with children check in the most serious of circumstances. Importantly, these reforms will work in parallel with amendments recently made to the Worker Screening Regulations 2021 that expanded the number of findings that trigger the assessment of a person’s eligibility to hold a working with children check, such as prohibition notices issued to early childhood staff by the Department of Education’s quality assessment and regulation division, as well as equivalent notices issued in other states and other territories.

The bill will also expand the time limit for laying charges related to the summary offence of providing false or misleading information under the WSA. The time limit extension will apply to a person who has provided false or misleading information in relation to an NDIS check, the working with children check application or indeed a reassessment. The extension from a general limit of 12 months to five years and six months is intended to capture all applications made by current NDIS or working with children clearance holders. This will act as a deterrent and ensure that current clearance holders can be held accountable – such as when facts emerge that demonstrate they made a false declaration on their application.

I thank you for the opportunity to make a short contribution on the bill before us. Just finally I will say that the amendments in this bill are a first step in reviewing and strengthening the working with children check to ensure that worker screening in Victoria remains an effective, rigorous government screening process. I commend the bill to the house.

Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:17): I too rise today to speak on these important amendments to our working with children check and child safety. What I want to say about this bill, first and foremost, is that this is about protecting children and protecting the sons and the daughters, the vulnerable, of parents and grandparents who are looking after these little ones. It just defies logic for me that we have had to wait this long to make these small changes, given that the report was dropped and the government now has the Rapid Child Safety Review and has responded with recommendations. The Premier is saying they are going to implement all 22 recommendations. To me it is: why are we drip-feeding this moment? This is an incredibly important part of a change that needs to happen, and the Liberal–Nationals have been fighting for this for a long time. We presented a bill to Parliament that could have been passed and could have been implemented immediately, but just out of sheer pig-headedness the government chose to say, ‘No, we’re not doing yours. We’ll do ours.’ Then they took a whole month to come up with something. To me, that is simply not good enough.

I think that the fact that we are only implementing a really small amount of what needs to be implemented in a rapid moment suggests that we are going to be drip-feeding this along over time. Really, this is too serious to be delaying. Every time I stop to think of a little baby being sexually abused and someone taking photos of that and then us having this long delay with who can work with children, what those recommendations are and how we are going to bring them in – to me, it is just completely inappropriate.

I am sure every parent is now worried about putting their child in child care. I can tell you that I have spoken to many, many parents who have said to me, ‘I feel uncomfortable with the childcare system. I need to know that this is fixed.’ It is not fixed. It has not yet been fixed, and these delays do not make it comfortable for parents to be in the workforce when they have vulnerable children. It is a disgrace.

I cannot help but look at the fact that in September 2022 the Victorian Ombudsman tabled the report Investigation into a Former Youth Worker’s Unauthorised Access to Private Information about Children. Out of that there was a recommendation, and the recommendation was:

The biggest remaining gap is the need to amend the Worker Screening Act 2020 (Vic). Working with Children Check Victoria should be able to act on information that indicates someone poses an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children, regardless of whether criminal charges are brought.

This is imperative –

it says. ‘Imperative’ is not a word that can be used lightly.

… The powers of Victoria’s screening authority are among the most limited in Australia.

That is right, Victoria is the most limited in Australia, and yet we are still delaying and only drip-feeding some of these changes.

Reforms to the legislation are needed to bring Victoria in line with other states and territories, and to promote the rights of children and families enshrined in Victoria’s Human Rights Charter.

Some painful lessons have been learnt.

Well, were they? Were they learned? Because this was written in September 2022.

For the safety of our children, more needs to be done.

We are now here in August 2025. These recommendations were made at a time when the children that have recently been violated could have been protected, but this government sought to delay its action. There are children who will grow up to be adults who will suffer because of what happened to them. There are families and parents today who are suffering because of what has happened, and it can never be eradicated. It is something that can never be changed, and some of the implications for some of these people’s lives are going to change the course of history for them because this government failed to act rapidly and effectively.

I consider the rapid child safety review to not be rapid enough. We are pleased to be able to support at least this token gesture of sorting out parts of the working with children check, but it is not enough. For anybody that loves their children and wants to protect their children and maybe even knows someone that has had their child violated, it just is not enough to be coming out with things in drip-feeding moments and saying, ‘We’re going to bring out another act where we’re going to change this bit, and then we’ll bring out another bit that will change this.’ No, it is not fair. It is not fair on the parents that have to work and need someone to look after their children, it is not fair on the children – it is absolutely not fair on them – and it is not fair on good childcare centres and good childcare workers who want to be able to do their job and do it well. They want to know that they are in an environment where they are going to be protected by the law and where the law is going to protect the children that are under their care. Too often I hear from childcare workers that there can be one childcare worker with umpteen children at any one time – that just cannot be. Too often I hear that there are not CCTV cameras, that there is not the protection, that there is not a way to prevent the violations. I am pleased that we are working on the working with children check. It is good that we are working on it, but we could have worked on it in July when the Liberal-Nationals brought their bill – a much better bill, a much stronger bill with a lot more areas covered – to the chamber, and this government, through sheer pigheadedness and arrogance, chose to vote it down. It is just not good enough to play politics with the safety of the children in Victoria. It is not good enough to play politics with vulnerable families and working parents. You can, as I said, never eradicate the damage that gets done when people are violated in this way. If this turns out to have any systemic failures across the board, which I suspect it does, if it turns out that there is any organised crime somehow permeating through the abuse of children, well, shame on this government, because how many of our babies are at risk under them?

Thank goodness you have brought something to the chamber at last. Thank goodness for all of these families. But it is too little, too late, and I look forward to seeing more come into this chamber and not through one dribbly little bill. Do us proud and do the right thing by all Victorians and implement the changes that you have got from your rapid review and let us see how you can actually make children in this state safe. We will be supporting this bill.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:25): I also rise to speak on the Worker Screening Amendment (Strengthening the Working with Children Check) Bill 2025. This is an important bill; it is a timely bill – indeed it is rightly an urgent bill. The reforms in the bill today will address some of the most time-critical measures to address some loopholes in the working with children system that will enable, as my colleague Ms Watt discussed, the mutual recognition of interstate bans, changing from a process where bans in other states would be counted against and add to the process to a system where they are automatically disqualifying. They also will extend the powers of the Secretary of the Department of Government Services to suspend a person’s working with children checks in the case that they have been charged with, convicted of or found guilty of any offence that may present a risk to children or if they have had any relevant disciplinary or regulatory findings made against them. This is a bill targeted towards some of the most time-critical elements of this issue.

As has been mentioned in a number of contributions already today, the public received last week on Wednesday the rapid child safety review, just five days after it went to government. I acknowledge the work of both the Minister for Children and the Attorney-General in bringing regulation and reform to this space as best we can. I note that the 22 recommendations of this review are being accepted in full by the Allan Labor government. Those recommendations that go to the purview of other jurisdictions, such as the Commonwealth, the state government has committed to urgently advocating for in that space as well. Insofar as it relates to the recommendations, those recommendations have put certain time parameters around their implementation, and the government’s full acceptance of this signifies that it intends to meet each and every one of those timelines.

Today’s bill is not the last, it is the first. As I said, it addresses some of the most critical components. There will be further legislation, and I very much look forward to speaking on that in more detail in due course. As with some other members here in this chamber right now, I will also have the opportunity as a member of the new select committee into the early childhood care and education sector to – in a timely fashion, I believe – examine the rollout of the regulation, examine the rollout of the government’s response to those recommendations and provide that additional check and assurance that those recommendations, which have been accepted enthusiastically by government, will be implemented and delivered, as has been clearly and definitively indicated.

There will be plenty of other opportunities when we are debating bills that are less urgent to enter into a longer conversation and debate on this. I would like to just conclude my remarks, though, by acknowledging the very serious and very grave trauma that far too many Victorian families have had to endure, not to mention the anxiety and uncertainty that many others still have had, not knowing if they are implicated in certain recent cases.

I would like to finish by quoting from page 1 of the rapid review, which is a quote from a parent which was provided to the Weatherill–White review. It says:

It is really important to remember that it’s not that early childhood educators are perpetrators of abuse, it is that some paedophiles have targeted some of the gaps that exist and exploited them … All of the incredible early educators who are absolutely not perpetrators … this is not about them.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO (Northern Metropolitan) (17:29): I too would like to rise today to make a contribution on the Worker Screening Amendment (Strengthening the Working with Children Check) Bill 2025. We know that this bill comes after a series of serious concerns have been raised over the past decade and, most heartbreakingly, the exposure of a clear crisis within our early childhood education and care sector that has allowed for abuse, exploitation and harm to transpire.

In 2015 the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse report described Australia’s working with children check systems, including Victoria’s, as being in need of urgent strengthening and more harmonisation. In 2022 the Victorian Ombudsman investigation into a former youth worker’s access to Victorian government information about children and young people exposed serious shortfalls in Victoria’s working with children check scheme. In April of this year Liana Buchanan, the former principal commissioner of the Commission for Children and Young People, spoke publicly about the systemic barriers she faced in her role. The ABC revealed that as far back as 2019 Ms Buchanan had been lobbying the government to change laws that were, in her words, hamstringing her ability to act in the best interests of children. She even went as far as stating that ongoing underfunding of the commission would mean children would be abused. These were not abstract concerns. Ms Buchanan was doing her job as the commissioner and tried to raise these issues with the government and the former Attorney-General by lobbying and authoring submissions to inquiries, yet her efforts to bring up these important issues went unanswered by this government.

In July of this year this Labor government was plunged into political damage control, scrambling to contain the fallout from the alleged childcare worker abuse scandal by announcing its rapid review into Victoria’s early childhood sector. Let us be clear, this alleged child abuse scandal in Victoria has been the most harrowing to read, listen to and watch. Like many Victorians, I am heartbroken and cannot say enough how sorry I am and the Greens are to the families impacted by this tragedy, that Victoria has found itself in this situation. I acknowledge as a parent myself that this has been a living nightmare for parents to go through with their babies and toddlers. These families have been betrayed by a system meant to put their children’s safety first, betrayed by a government that had all the warning signs to do something and instead chose to sit idle with recommendations that urged them to strengthen the working with children check. The rapid review findings, released last week, confirmed what experts, educators, whistleblowers and we already knew – the working with children check system is broken; it is flawed, with gaping holes. The Greens have known this for a while, which is why we requested documents relating to child care back in June from this government – documents we are yet to receive. Every week since the horrific allegations against Joshua Brown broke, we are finding out more and more about the failures and a system that is being gamed by dangerous people not fit to be around children.

While the Greens welcome this government finally taking some meaningful action to bolster and close the gaps on the working with children check system, it should not have taken a full-blown crisis for them to act. We know these reforms are long overdue. It is only now, after being forced into a rapid review and confronted with its own policy failures, that this government have suddenly begun invoking the best interests of the child principle, a principle that in the context of early childcare they have failed to act on. This principle is not new. It is aligned with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, specifically around article 2 and article 3, which make very clear that every child has a right to be protected from harm – the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration – and to be kept safe in every environment, and that includes early childhood settings. For too long this government has allowed this broken system to persist – one that left children exposed and unprotected – and now, under the weight of an alleged scandal and public outrage, it has finally decided to act.

Labor has rushed through the bill with barely any chance for review or proper scrutiny. I only received this bill after hours last night. The outcome is a bill with gaps like Swiss cheese, pushed through without genuine collaboration to deliver the best outcomes of our children. If we are serious about protecting children, this can only be the beginning. The Greens are ready to work with the government on real reforms that put children first. The Greens want to see long-term, well-consulted legislation that will protect children, support the many educators that are doing the right thing and rebuild trust with parents.

The Greens welcome this bill’s attempts to mitigate risks and close the gaps in the working with children check scheme. Many of the changes are sensible reforms, and the Greens strongly support strengthening each and every impact on the safety of our children. However, the Greens do not feel that this bill goes far enough. The rapid child safety review made it very clear: for-profit corporations now dominate the childcare sector. You just have to look at the market-driven business structure that the early childcare sector is in to know that there are many for-profit providers out there that are being driven by profit rather than the best interests of children. Even the Labor government admitted this last week. Yet the bill in front of us does nothing to address this basic problem. The government can insist all it likes that these reforms will put children’s safety first. But history shows us that when corporations are in charge, making money will always come before children’s wellbeing.

Victorian parents and families are not asking for much, just that their children are protected from harm in the very places they are meant to be safe. Yet this government has failed to deliver even that basic legislative framework. It is not enough to issue rapid reviews and media releases. This government must act decisively and transparently to rebuild trust and place child safety at the centre of early childhood education. The Greens are ready to work constructively to ensure the best interests of the child are not just words in a press conference but the foundation of real sector-wide transformation – and nothing less is acceptable.

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (17:38): Labor say they will ‘establish an independent, strengthened authority to regulate early childhood services’. They say they will ‘more than double the frequency of compliance checks’ and that this ‘nation-leading body … will provide families with confidence that children are safe and supported’. That is what they say, but what is it worth?

At the heart of this is trust. The government say they have a new system which will work, but how can we trust them? They had systems before, but when the news cycle moved off them, they did not listen to them, they did not fund them, they did not care. What is to stop exactly the same thing happening again? If you do not believe me, bear with me for a few minutes. Listen to this. These are the actual words of the Commission for Children and Young People – the CCYP, the body responsible for the reportable conduct scheme – not political spin, not my words but direct quotes from the CCYP’s annual report for 2021–22:

For the first time this year a small number of lower-risk reportable conduct investigations were not fulsomely examined by the Commission before being finalised … it is challenging to manage such growth in demand without impact on workplace sustainability and staff health and safety, and without risking the objectives of the Scheme.

Without risking the objectives of the scheme – that is, without risking child safety. That was from their annual report published in 2022, so Labor cannot say it is just a recent problem which had not worked its way through the system, which ministers could reasonably say had not been brought to their attention yet.

The next exhibit is the CCYP annual report 2022–23. Pages 9 and 10 say:

… the Commission has received no additional funding for the Scheme … we are worried that this underfunding may compromise our ability to ensure the Scheme delivers on its objectives to ensure responses to allegations of child abuse are acted on quickly and effectively by organisations.

Could it be clearer? Somehow the next year’s annual report is even more damning. Page 20 says:

With no additional funding for the Scheme despite increased notifications, the Commission has progressed a risk-based strategy to manage demand. These measures have seen us significantly reduce our oversight of a high number of investigations.

Significantly reduce a high number of investigations. They continue:

Our efforts will continue to be focused on the cases of highest risk, however resourcing for the Scheme has started to impact on the Commission’s ability to run the Scheme in a way that maximises child safety.

This is not hindsight. We are not being wise after the event here. We are not blaming Labor ministers for things they could not reasonably have predicted. They were told about it. These warnings were public, on the record, in reports directed to ministers. They were clear, open and frank. Ministers did not fail to read between the lines – they failed to listen whatsoever. They might as well have tossed every annual report in the bin. And now we know the terrible consequences. I did not think there was any worse to come, but there is. It is not just annual reports, it is the CCYP’s submission to the government review of Victoria’s reportable conduct scheme from November 2022. This was a review purely about the system and it was a submission from the body responsible for administering the scheme, not a disgruntled whistleblower, not a mischief-maker, not a political opponent trying to spin things – any of these might reasonably be discounted or have less attention paid. But these are the words of the Commissioner for Children and Young People:

Base funding provided to the Commission to administer the Scheme has not changed since 2018 …

Given the large increase in mandatory notifications, the Commission is currently under-resourced to administer the Scheme, which creates a risk of delayed responses to serious safety risks to children in over 12,000 organisations across Victoria.

Serious safety risks to children. They continue:

The Commission is implementing further risk-based initiatives to target its limited resources. However, if no additional funding is received, the Commission will be forced to further reduce its oversight of organisations’ responses to alleged child abuse and child-related misconduct in a way that places children at risk.

Finally, they say:

Without additional funding, the unsustainable workload … presents the following risks:

• delays will occur in notifications to police about potential criminal conduct or to Child Protection regarding concerns about a child who may require protection from harm, abuse or neglect

• limitations on the Commission’s capacity to intervene in a timely and effective way to ensure organisations manage risks to children …

• the Commission cannot finalise cases in a timely way, resulting in delayed referrals to other child safety regulators, such as Working with Children Check Victoria (WWCC Victoria). This increases the risk that people known to pose a risk to children will continue to be able to work with children for an extended period

• children will be abused, or continue to be abused, by a person who would have otherwise been prevented from working with children as a result of the Scheme and the Commission’s actions …

Their words, not mine. I do not know what more you can say here. All the systems in the world, all the bodies, all the regulators mean nothing if the ministers responsible for them do not listen when these bodies beg – literally beg – for money to do their job to protect the children of Victoria. I for one have no confidence this new setup will be any better – new system, same ministers, same Labor. Their failures, despite repeated clear, credible warnings, have been shameful – unforgivable. Every single one of them should resign.

Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (17:45): I do not wish to speak for long on this bill, the Worker Screening Amendment (Strengthening the Working with Children Check) Bill 2025. When I consider what has happened and the horrendous failures in Victoria’s childcare system, which has impacted thousands of people and led to 2000 young children and babies being tested for STDs, it makes me feel sick. The Ombudsman highlighted the failures. Victoria, they found, was well behind other states when it came to the working with children check. The Ombudsman outlined the actions that needed to be taken back in 2022, and Michael O’Brien, who was the Shadow Attorney-General at the time, highlighted the need for reform and made a commitment that the Liberal–Nationals in government would make the reforms that were required.

This Labor government has had three years to fix the issues. I commend Jess Wilson, a young mum herself, who did the work, along with Michael O’Brien, to bring forward a bill three weeks ago and we have a mirror bill in this chamber that was introduced on 13 August and is yet to be debated. In the other place the government refused to consider that bill. Today we are considering the government’s bill. Will this bill fix all the issues? No. It falls well short of the reform that is needed. It fails to meet the Ombudsman’s recommendations and the government’s own rapid review that was released last week. What does this government do when urgent reform is needed, like the bail laws, like tobacco licensing and like the ban on machetes? They wait and they wait, and while they wait to introduce the reforms that are needed, more families and children suffer.

They like to use the word ‘urgent’ – urgent bill, rapid review, time critical, urgent reform. Yet they have waited for years to introduce this bill, and further reforms will be delayed for months. We have been very clear that we will work with the government to address these issues and prioritise children’s safety. We would like to see further reforms to link the working with children check database with the police database to identify any issues early; to introduce mandatory training about child safety standards; to improve screening for the secretary to be able to remove a working with children clearance if holding it would pose an unacceptable risk; and to reduce the duration of the clearance from five years to three years.

I remember when our kids were young – we had three kids under five at the time – and both sides of the family lived some distance away. I remember trying to find quality child care for our children. They are our most precious gift and finding care where they will be safe is so important. When I read the news reports of what has happened, and is continuing to happen, of someone caught with thousands of inappropriate images of children who still holds a valid working with children check, it is absolutely horrendous. My heart does go out to every family affected, and I am very conscious of the responsibility we share in this chamber to make sure that we do whatever we can to ensure that this bill does bring about the reforms that are needed to keep our children safe.

The Australian Childhood Foundation has been advocating for change for over a decade, and they support our proposed reforms. This is not the time for political spin to force a bill through Parliament in a day to make it look as though you are doing something when the contents of the bill fail to address the issues at hand. It is not the time for political smoke and mirrors to get the media headline. It is the time for urgently needed reforms that put the safety of our children first. This bill is a small step in the right direction, and we will support it, and we will continue to advocate for further reform.

Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (17:49): Tonight I rise to speak on the government’s strengthening the working with children check bill. Victoria was promised bold reform, and we have waited and we have waited for six weeks – actually eight weeks now – and what we have is something that I think does not even come close to what we hoped for. It tinkers at the edges while ignoring the documented deep issues that have failed our children. Two months ago a childcare worker was charged with more than 70 offences. Since the first complaint against him was made, he has managed to work in 24 centres. This is one of the most extensive alleged abuse cases in Australian history.

During the same period, further evidence of systemic failure has come to light. One of these tragedies was a Victorian mother who pled guilty to infanticide. Her surviving twin daughter now lives with permanent brain damage. Despite the verdict and her family’s repeated pleas, she has been cleared to work with children until this day. The working with children check system stamped her as safe to work. This is not a one-off mistake, this is the collapse of a system. Parents have trusted this government to keep dangerous people away. Instead, it has approved people proven to be unfit to care for children again and again.

Instead of recalling Parliament to ban childcare workers under police investigation, the Allan government promised a rapid review. It dragged on for six weeks, and when it finally arrived it did not offer anything new. Every recommendation was recycled from the 2022 Ombudsman’s report, and Jaclyn Symes, the then Minister for Children, had already ignored those same recommendations for years, so they delayed action just to wait for a review to provide recommendations that they could ignore once again. This so-called review was nothing more than recycled words and delayed time. Parents waited, staff waited and the government knowingly left children exposed to childcare workers who were under police investigation till today, making it eight weeks. Now Jacinta Allan has demanded to be congratulated for finally proposing some legislation. This is despite the fact that the Liberal Party offered evidence-based solutions to these key failures more than six weeks ago.

In 2022, in response to the Victorian Ombudsman’s report, the Liberal Party called for all the Ombudsman’s recommendations to be immediately made law. Labor ignored us, all while claiming to care about the safety of our children. Now the government demands congratulations for this bill, but let us be clear about what it does. It introduces new suspension and cancellation powers. It allows bans in other states to apply here in Victoria and it extends the time limit for prosecutions. Yes, those are very important things, but they are also basic housekeeping. They are easy tick box exercises. What it does not do is a bit more telling: no power to act on unsubstantiated intelligence from police or child protection, which was one of the Ombudsman’s core recommendations; no changes to the reportable conduct scheme; no shared intelligence or risk assessment capability; no independent regulator; no support for parents or staff to raise concerns; no mandatory training for workers; and no transparency around enforcement. In fact of the 12 recommendations for Victoria in the rapid review, this bill barely touches on two, and of the Ombudsman’s six core recommendations, not one is implemented. This is not an accident, this is a pattern.

Complaints to the quality assessment and regulation division, the regulator inside the same department that it is supposed to police, have risen 45 per cent since 2018. Enforcement actions have fallen 67 per cent. Over 500 people with revoked, expired or suspended working with children checks were flagged in the last three years. Their workplace remained uninformed. Enforcement actions, which once occurred in one in every 20 complaints, now occur in one in every 88. This is not oversight, it is a system that is not working. And of course there is always that element of secrecy. The government still refuses to release three years of enforcement documents. In New South Wales similar documents exposed abuse, injuries and fraud. Here in Victoria families still seem to be left in the dark. Instead of transparency we have excuses and instead of accountability, spin. When confronted, senior ministers criticised the media for being insensitive.

We have to realise that we are not playing politics. The media is not playing politics when a failure of Labor Party policy is impacting the youngest and the most vulnerable in our community. Where was the sensitivity when warnings from the Ombudsman were ignored, when parents were misled, when hundreds of children had to be tested for sexually transmitted infections? Tone is not the issue; truth is and safety is.

This bill does not fix the system, and many people have acknowledged that. It papers over cracks. It offers the illusion of action while leaving central loopholes wide open. Children remain at risk, families remain in the dark and a government in denial refuses to accept responsibility or a plan. The Liberal and National parties have put forward a comprehensive plan to broaden powers, act on intelligence, a genuine independent regulator, stronger, shorter working with children check renewal periods, transparency in enforcement and the culture change needed to put child safety ahead of departmental self-protection.

We will definitely support this, because it is a small step in the right direction, but it is weak. We need to look ahead and start strengthening this a whole lot more. It is a bandaid over a broken system. Labor wasted six weeks on its review, which did not tell us anything new. They have ignored the Ombudsman for three years now. They have ignored 10 of the 12 recommendations from the rapid review. Victoria’s parents and children certainly deserve more.

Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (17:57): I rise to speak in support of this bill before us today. This is an urgent bill that does make some urgently needed changes. Today in Victoria there are more than 170 people facing allegations who still have working with children check clearance, and that is not good enough. From the outset I note that this work would not be urgent if the government had listened to any of the many, many calls to improve the working with children check system. I am, however, pleased to see it come to the house despite the devastating crisis that has triggered it.

There were warnings in the Victorian Ombudsman’s working with children check report in 2022 and as part of the 2015 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Over a year ago I joined with my good friend and one of my former staff members Emma Hakansson to launch the Our Collective Experience report and call for mandatory education and training on child sexual abuse prevention within the working with children check program. Emma is someone who was sexually abused as a child when she was in the care of someone who held a working with children check. Something that she has made really, really clear is that we can never fully stop people from abusing children, but what we can do is ensure that people who have checks have the education and training to identify when it is happening. It is absolutely essential for adults who work with children that they train to recognise and respond in order to protect children.

I have said in here before many, many times when I have spoken about this – and well before this crisis came to the minds of the chamber – as I have worked alongside Emma trying to progress this work that it is a disgrace that it is more difficult to obtain a responsible service of alcohol permit in Victoria than it is to be left alone with a child in a professional setting in our state. A person has to undergo more training to pour a beer in a pub than they have to do to work with children. We really need to reflect on how we have gotten to this place when that is the case.

I note that the opposition have amendments to address some of the other recommendations of the snap review. Although I largely agree in principle with these amendments, I am not going to support the inclusion of them in this bill. I am really grateful to the opposition for their engagement with the Australian Childhood Foundation on this issue, but this is something that they have made clear to me that they want to get right, and it is absolutely essential for mandatory training to be included in the requirements for granting a check.

But considering the fact that this bill will be coming into effect almost immediately, I am concerned that this would potentially create chaos in the sector. What would be devastating is that that education and training are not shaped in the right way they need to be, which the government has committed to do by October, mandating training that as of right now does not exist. It is just so important to get that right, and I say that as someone who first brought that very issue to this place and has long advocated for it. I clearly support these changes; I am just hesitant to urgently rush them into a bill that will essentially kick in within days. Alongside all of the other recommendations of the snap review, as mentioned, the government has committed to introducing the mandatory training in the next tranche of reforms in October. I can assure them and members of the community – and particularly the survivors who have worked so hard, far too hard in fact, to make this happen and share stories and things and relive their experiences in a way that they never should have had to – that I will be ensuring that I am working alongside them, that it is gotten right and that that commitment is held on the timeline that the government has said.

I just want to say as well that it is crucial that this training is developed by, not in consultation with, the foundation and the many survivors who contributed to the Our Collective Experience report that first raised the issue of mandatory education and training in the working with children check. There were 350 survivors surveyed as part of this project, and it was launched over 18 months ago. It really pains me to think that if this crisis had not happened in the sector they probably would have been asking for a far longer period of time to get these vital changes in the check system to identify child sexual abuse in professional settings. I want to also say that at the International Childhood Trauma Conference just last week, on the day of this announcement the Australian Childhood Foundation were not notified that this change was going to happen. I think that really is demonstrative of the way in which the government needs to improve its relationship and its communications with the people who have been leading this charge far before it came to the forefront of the minds of the government, and that they need to do the work that is required to ensure that they are up close and involved and with them on every part of this journey, because as I have said, it is the only way that these changes will work.

Improving working with children checks is just one major part of improving safety for children and must come alongside broader changes, which I note there are some in this bill. I also note that the royal commission cautioned against an over-reliance on the working with children check system, which is something we also need to be very mindful of. Many of these changes must also be done across the entire country. Mandatory education and training in the check system is something that needs to be done in coordination with our federal government, and we must examine the broader systemic issues within the childcare system, which is why I joined in on the calls for the Commonwealth to hold a national inquiry into child care, because something that has become, unfortunately, very abundantly clear through this process is there is a whole lot more work to do.

In summary, I am grateful to the government for bringing this bill before us today and for treating it with the urgency that it deserves, but it is urgency that it deserved quite some time ago, which was made really, really clear by the survivors that I and I know Ms Payne and other members of the crossbench have been engaging with for a really long time and unfortunately could not get in front of the government to talk about. I would also like to acknowledge the opposition and their amendments. I understand the intention behind them, I am in support of what they actually propose, but because of my work with the people who have been also doing this work, I am fearful that if we rush this through and do not get it right it could have catastrophic consequences as well, and that the people who want to shape this work and want to be part of this work just cannot do it in the urgency that would be required if it was to become part of this bill, noting that we also must hold the government to account to meet their October timeline that they have committed to. In that, I will commend the bill to the house and look forward to asking some questions in committee.

Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (18:05): I also rise to speak in support of this emergency Worker Screening Amendment (Strengthening the Working with Children Check) Bill 2025. Working with children checks – I have had one for my entire working life. I have been thinking about what the check is supposed to be. It is supposed to be this stamp of approval – a shield for children. It is supposed to have all of our taxes and all the power of government behind it. But it is not working as a shield for children, and it has not been. Everyone has been begging for more money and legislative change, and nothing has been done. It is just inexcusable. I would have thought that it would already mean that there would be no child abuse convictions, that there would be no charges for possessing child abuse images and that there would not be anybody under police investigation for anything like this. I would have thought that was already in place. I think every single Victorian had already assumed that this was happening.

I found out that depending on which agency and on which level you are a child educator in, you can have a 24- to 48-hour or even a seven-day window in which you can report an incident that you have seen. I rang up my friend who is a teacher, and I said, ‘Can you imagine any of us even going home that day before reporting an incident where a child was harmed?’ What on earth would you need seven days for? Why would you need 24 hours? I would not even go to my next period.

I do not believe that you do not know what child safeguards are. This is just the worst thing I have ever heard of you doing, to be honest, out of all of the things that have happened. What has finally brought action? Thousands of children – babies and toddlers – having to go and get blood tests for STIs. Those are people in my area. I had to get my husband to look up whether my child went to any of those childcare centres, because I could not do it. Thank God they are not on that list. But maybe there will be more lists coming out. It is just ridiculous. It is absurd. It is grotesque. You did not need to wait for the feds. You did not need to wait for this review. You did not need to wait eight weeks.

I pointed out the last time we talked about this topic that I do not call them paedophiles, I call them paedosadists because paedophiles do not love children – they hate them. It is not a sexual orientation and it is not ‘minor attracted’, it is a predatory sexual deviance, and they are unsafe and unfit to be around children. If they had any ounce of decency, they would voluntarily exclude themselves, not try to normalise what it is that they think is right. We have got concept creep. We have got this Premier and these people in this government abusing parents and abusing child safeguarding whistleblowers, calling them hateful for pointing out problems in the curriculum that are already there. That is why I agree – I do not trust this government to write any kind of child safeguarding training.

I have been looking up for a while now the definition of ‘grooming’. Other states have one. I have not been able to find a Victorian government definition of ‘child grooming’. There is no excuse for not having these things. It is not some kind of futuristic, unknowable thing that needs to have more research done into it to figure out what exactly constitutes a child safeguard. I am pretty disgusted, to be honest. I have heard some things that I had never heard before today. I heard child care called a ‘vital part of the care economy’. I heard talk about how it is so important for Victorians so that they can go to work and pay taxes and participate. Children were called ‘young citizens’. They are our sons and our daughters, and all of us, every single family, are owed better than this.

I do not believe that today is about child safety at all. The fact is you said you would do it all and yet you are doing it in two tranches blah, blah, blah. I do not care about your excuses. It is absurd that you have not cancelled everything on your list, done an omnibus bill and fixed child safeguarding. It is a disgrace. This is about getting a political controversy off the news cycle. Children are not safe in Victoria under Labor, and it is just undeniable.

Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (18:10): I rise to speak on the Worker Screening Amendment (Strengthening the Working with Children Check) Bill 2025 on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria. This bill makes a number of urgent amendments to the Worker Screening Act 2020. Among other things, it will ensure that someone who is banned from working with children in another jurisdiction will automatically be banned in Victoria. This implements a recent joint commitment by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments. It is truly unbelievable that this was not already the case. The bill will require a working with children check to be immediately suspended while it is under reassessment for intended revocation, without exemption. We understand that 173 working with children checks will be immediately suspended as a result of this change. The bill will also allow for the immediate suspension of a person’s working with children check upon being notified of any change or relevant regulatory or disciplinary finding and where it was granted on false or misleading information. This closes a loophole where people could still work for 28 days after a notification was given. Again, it is unbelievable that this was not already the case.

These reforms were announced following Victoria’s long-overdue rapid child safety review. While it is promising to see this be treated as an urgent bill, up until now this important issue has not been treated as an urgent issue at all. It was not until children were abused on a massive scale in Victoria’s childcare system that this government finally listened to stakeholders and committed to a major sector overhaul. It is shameful that this government have sat on their hands for so long and allowed this broken system to continue. Changes to working with children checks have been on the Victorian government’s radar for years. The Australian Childhood Foundation, the Victorian Ombudsman, victim-survivors and MPs across party lines, including me, have warned of this broken system time and time again.

All the way back in 2022 a Victorian Ombudsman’s report highlighted the limitations of Victoria’s working with children check framework. This report followed a youth worker being cleared to work with children despite facing sexual offence allegations. Back further again, in 2015 the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse put forward recommendations of the working with children check system and highlighted the need to shift to a national approach. Victoria has a reputation for having some of the weakest working with children check laws in the country. In Victoria only formal charges, convictions, guilty findings or substantiated disciplinary or regulatory findings can form the basis of a working with children check refusal or trigger a reassessment. These same restrictions do not apply in most other Australian jurisdictions. There a working with children check can be refused, reassessed, suspended or cancelled on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct or incomplete criminal investigations. This is common where a victim does not wish to give evidence or press charges. We welcome the government’s commitment to establish a regulator to deal with unsubstantiated allegations and to expand Victoria’s working with children check reassessment process to include notifications of new unsubstantiated information or intelligence.

Before concluding I would like to welcome the government’s announcement that they will finally address serious failures in the working with children check system and introduce legislation in October for mandatory child abuse prevention education. Centralising existing entities including the worker screening unit, reportable conduct scheme and child safety standards into the Social Services Regulator is central to supporting this work. While it is important that this training is urgently implemented, it needs to be done right to avoid perverse outcomes. These changes are essential to keeping our kids safe, and I hope to see collaboration with the sector, including the Australian Childhood Foundation, on the development of this training and other improvements to the working with children system. I will seek an assurance from the government during the committee-of-the-whole stage that this will be the case. We will be supporting these long-overdue reforms because we can and we must do better.

Nick McGOWAN (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (18:15): It is difficult to know quite what to add to what has been said in this chamber today, because so many speakers across the political divides have covered quite a lot. It is perhaps important to go back and remember what it is we are confronted with other than the inertia and the lack of action by those opposite for too long, and that has been well documented today. In particular what I speak of and what I refer to are the child protection reports received each year. Victoria has the second-highest number, which should be a point of shame for all of us. In 2023–24 that figure was 139,612 child protection reports received. I will repeat that figure: 139,612. 12,275 children were placed in at least one out-of-home care placement during the year. On average per day 9316 children and young people are in out-of-home care. That is a daily average – 9316. These are the children we know about. In terms of those that we have reports on, then it is the question of the investigations that have commenced, and we know that that figure is far smaller than the reports received. We know that in 2021–22 there were 35,479 investigations commenced. Concerningly, in 2022–23 that number went up, because of course the total number of reports went up – 39,404. In 2023–24, investigations commenced – 41,123. In what is an alarming trend not only does the number of reports increase and not only does the number of investigations commenced increase – which we would want, for them to be investigated – but likewise the substantiations also go up.

So many in this place have already referred to Deborah Glass, and I think it is important to read her words rather than mine, because I think they perhaps are most poignant. I am sure that Deborah Glass is sitting somewhere tonight watching this, perhaps at home. I do not know whether she has started a new job, but her words will ring out to every Victorian, not least those parents who were forced to go and have their children tested for STDs or STIs. In September 2022 we all know that the Ombudsman tabled her report. Deborah Glass, the Ombudsman at the time, said:

The biggest remaining gap is the need to amend the Worker Screening Act 2020 (Vic). Working with Children Check Victoria should be able to act on information that indicates someone poses an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children, regardless of whether criminal charges are brought.

She continued:

This is imperative: The powers of Victoria’s screening authority are among the most limited in Australia. Reforms to the legislation are needed to bring Victoria in line with other states and territories, and to promote the rights of children and families enshrined in Victoria’s Human Rights Charter.

Her last sentence perhaps speaks loudest:

Some painful lessons have been learnt. For the safety of our children, more needs to be done.

Deborah Glass

Ombudsman

I do not know how those opposite justify their inaction. I suppose what is more concerning is we have not even seen an attempt to do so. While those right across both houses in fact have spoken in one clear voice that we want and seek change and have been seeking change for years – in fact decades, as we have heard tonight and today and previously – I wonder whether those opposite when they rest their head do so with a clear conscience, because they are charged with responsibility of governing and yet they have failed our most vulnerable Victorians in such a heinous, despicable way. Those opposite will have to live with that. Unfortunately, so too will the children, their parents, their relatives and their loved ones, and our community suffer for very many generations to come because of it.

Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (18:21): I would like to first thank all members of the chamber for recognising the urgency of this bill. This bill is another step in demonstrating that the Allan government is moving with urgency and getting on with its child safety overhaul. This bill will progress the first stage of reforms to the Worker Screening Act 2020 to ensure that the working with children check remains robust and effective. Additional reforms to strengthen the working with children check scheme will also follow in October 2025 to implement recommendations of the rapid review.

The safety and wellbeing of our children is a paramount concern to this government. The awful allegations of child abuse demonstrate the real need to ensure that the systems in place to protect children in Victoria are strong and are effective, and changes are required immediately. I would also like to acknowledge that the bill does make changes to the Worker Screening Act, and the government understands that more needs to be done. I do appreciate that many of the contributions from speakers on the government side, the opposition and the crossbench acknowledge that, which is why we are taking action to strengthen the working with children check and child safety and early childhood education and care settings with a $42 million boost to the sector and by (1) accepting and implementing all 22 recommendations of the independent rapid child safety review; (2) establishing a new nation-leading regulator that will more than double the frequency of compliance checks; (3) beefing up the social services regulator by bringing the working with children check, the reportable conduct scheme and child safe standards under the one roof by the end of the year, giving it new powers, removing silos and weeding out predators; and (4) introducing mandatory child safety training and expanding professional support programs, including through changes to the national law, to build a greater culture of speaking up and calling on the federal government to prioritise quality and safety in the national childcare system.

While the government is working to implement all of the recommendations of the rapid review, this bill intends to make the following urgent amendments to the Worker Screening Act 2020: (a) ensure that a person who is banned from working with children in another jurisdiction will be automatically banned in Victoria; this gives effect to a joint commitment by the Commonwealth and state and territory governments at the most recent Standing Council of Attorneys-General meeting on 15 August 2025; (b) allow for the immediate suspension of a person’s working with children clearance upon being notified of any charge or relevant regulatory or disciplinary finding, pending determination of an assessment; (c) introduce a power to cancel a working with children clearance where it was granted based on false or misleading information or otherwise pursuant to an unlawful application; and (d) increase time limits for commencing a prosecution of the offence of providing false or misleading information in relation to a worker screening application or reassessment from 12 months to five years and six months, to make sure all that do provide false declarations in effect are captured.

I think these reforms are vital and important. Every child deserves to be safe, and every parent must be able to trust that the system will keep them safe. This work is being undertaken as a matter of urgency. I want to thank everyone – the Premier, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Children – for their collaboration in bringing this to the chamber. I think it is vital legislation that I look forward to debating further in the committee stage. But before we do that, I just want to thank everyone and commend the bill to the house.

Sitting suspended 6:25 pm until 7:31 pm.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (19:33)

Georgie CROZIER: I am just wondering if I could have my amendment circulated, please. I understand that the amendments came late because of this bill that has come into the house today and across from the Assembly this afternoon, so thank you for that indulgence.

Minister, I am wondering if you could please provide an explanation to the house as to why you are at the desk and the Minister for Children, who is responsible for child protection and child safeguarding, including child safe standards, the reportable conduct scheme and the regulation of early childhood services, is not taking this bill.

Enver ERDOGAN: I think it is quite clear and should be very clear to everyone in this chamber why I am taking this bill. The Worker Screening Amendment (Strengthening the Working with Children Check) Bill 2025 is an Attorney-General bill and in the upper house I represent the Attorney-General. Therefore, as it is one of her bills, I have carriage of this legislation.

Georgie CROZIER: Will the Minister for Children be responsible for and take carriage of the next tranche of legislation?

Enver ERDOGAN: I will seek some guidance.

I understand that the Minister for Children will be taking the next tranche of legislation.

Georgie CROZIER: Thank you for that confirmation, because I think there are many questions that parents and members of the community would like to ask the minister in the committee stage. Given she is not here, I might leave some of those questions for when she appears in the committee stage when that next piece of legislation comes forward.

But I will ask you, Minister. In April the Premier ordered the Attorney-General and the Minister for Government Services to conduct a review into the working with children system. What sparked that review?

Enver ERDOGAN: I understand that the Premier did ask the Attorney-General and the Minister for Government Services to undertake that review, but I am not privy to the motivation behind that.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, you have come in here saying you are representing the Attorney-General. The Premier ordered the Attorney-General to conduct a review. Could you take that on notice and come back to us before the end of this committee stage? That is well and truly in the purview of your responsibility and I think the house would like to understand what sparked that review.

You might need to take this on notice given I have a series of questions on this. Did this review recommend implementing the Ombudsman’s recommendations from three years ago?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the government would say that many of the recommendations the Ombudsman made in 2022 were considered by the rapid review. The government obviously initiated its own rapid review, which made 22 recommendations and we agreed to adopt all of them.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, it is a bit late coming in here and saying you are adopting the recommendations from the rapid review. This was from the Ombudsman’s findings and recommendations in September 2022 – three years ago – so I am not going to buy that answer, I am so sorry. I would like to know: did the review recommend implementing the Ombudsman’s recommendations from three years ago – the review that was ordered by the Premier for the Attorney-General and the Minister for Government Services? I just think that is a totally unsatisfactory response to provide to the house.

Enver ERDOGAN: I think, Ms Crozier, the Premier was quite clear. We had our own expert rapid review. That review was more comprehensive and had broader reach in its ambit to look into what has occurred and what the future looks like across the sector, and it made 22 considerable recommendations that the government has agreed to adopt.

Georgie CROZIER: Again, I say that is an unsatisfactory answer, and I would ask you to take that on notice. I would also ask you to do this: did it recommend urgent legislation be required to close any loopholes that were identified by the review ordered by the Premier in April for the Attorney-General and the Minister for Government Services? I mean, you are representing the Attorney-General. I am sure the advisers would know given they come from that office.

Enver ERDOGAN: I think matters for the Minister for Government Services and the Premier’s motivation in relation to that review are probably best directed to the Premier, to be frank. But I would say to you that obviously the Attorney-General is responsible for this bill, and she is responding to the urgent need and concerns that the community have about child safety.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, I will say it again: the Premier ordered the Auditor-General and the Minister for Government Services to undertake a review. You have not answered any of my questions in relation to this really important area. You are just providing government spin on what you are doing now. Could you please provide a copy of the review to the house?

Enver ERDOGAN: I do not have a copy of the review with me. In terms of this bill, I think we are focused on this bill going forward, especially considering we have had our own rapid review, and a lot of the findings in this bill and the recommendations in the legislation are based upon that review.

Georgie CROZIER: Which review? The Premier’s review that was ordered of the Attorney-General, or are you talking about the rapid review?

Enver ERDOGAN: The rapid review.

Georgie CROZIER: Well, again, Minister, I would ask that the house be provided with a copy of the review. I know you do not have a copy with you.

Enver ERDOGAN: I understand that I do not have any document to release in relation to that review from earlier this year, Ms Crozier.

Georgie CROZIER: Well, let us hope the government does the right thing and releases it through the next process that we will go through. Minister, what was the government’s motivation for not accepting the Ombudsman’s recommendation in 2022?

Enver ERDOGAN: I am not aware of any non-acceptance of that 2022 review. I think what I am aware of is the rapid review that the Premier commissioned, and that is what has led to the formation of this bill.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, are you aware of the recommendation from the Ombudsman, given your responses to my questions?

Enver ERDOGAN: Would you like to be more specific about which recommendation?

Georgie CROZIER: Certainly. I am very happy to be more specific. This is what the Ombudsman’s findings were:

The biggest remaining gap is the need to amend the Worker Screening Act 2020 (Vic). Working with Children Check Victoria should be able to act on information that indicates someone poses an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children, regardless of whether criminal charges are brought.

This is imperative: The powers of Victoria’s screening authority are among the most limited in Australia. Reforms to the legislation are needed to bring Victoria in line with other states and territories, and to promote the rights of children and families enshrined in Victoria’s Human Rights Charter.

Some painful lessons have been learnt. For the safety of our children, more needs to be done.

Then the Ombudsman went on – and it is what I said in my second reading, twice – and I will just remind you, given you are not aware:

Recommendation 1

Amend the Worker Screening Act 2020 (Vic) to allow the Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety to:

a. obtain and consider any information that may be relevant to an applicant’s suitability to work with children

b. refuse an application for a Working with Children Check if reasonably satisfied the applicant poses an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children (including where no criminal or disciplinary history exists)

c. reassess a person’s suitability to hold a Working with Children clearance on the Secretary’s own initiative, and without need for notification of a criminal charge or disciplinary outcome

d. pending determination of a reassessment, suspend a person’s Working with Children clearance where the Secretary reasonably suspects the person poses an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children

e. revoke a person’s Working with Children clearance following reassessment, where reasonably satisfied the person poses an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children (including where no criminal or disciplinary history exists).

So that is the recommendation I was referring to and the finding from the Ombudsman, and all of those issues were made known to the government. The question was not about the rapid review and what the government have done in the last few weeks, it was about why they did not act on that recommendation.

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Crozier, what the government would say is that we are committed to acting in relation to that, because in the end the rapid review has a similar recommendation. It is obviously the goal of government, subject to the cabinet process, to bring in further legislation that will look at some of those issues that you just read out and that were in the Ombudsman’s report and that the rapid review also considered about unsubstantiated claims. It is important that we do get it right, because we are talking about people’s livelihoods and we are talking about children’s safety. We need to do it carefully, and that is why we are having to take the time for the second tranche to implement that recommendation or part of that recommendation.

Georgie CROZIER: But you have not got it right, have you, so far?

Enver ERDOGAN: I would say we are focused on urgently making changes that are needed, and that is why we are here.

Georgie CROZIER: Three years too late, Minister. Last month, Minister, Ron Marks was convicted for the possession of child sexual abuse material. He was convicted and sentenced for accessing almost a thousand images of heinous child abuse material, including bestiality and the torture of children. It is pretty rough; it is just shocking. Police first investigated him in September 2021 when they raided his home and seized the vile images. At that time police took his physical working with children check card, but he continued to hold an active clearance in the system. He was not ultimately charged until January 2025, despite being under investigation for three years. During this time he visited schools, kindergartens, playgroups and childcare centres in the Horsham area because he had an active working with children check. Minister, if the government had implemented the Ombudsman’s recommendations three years ago, do you think this would have immediately allowed Ron Marks’s working with children check to be cancelled?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Crozier, it sounds like you are putting a hypothetical question to me. What I will say is we are focusing on strengthening the working with children checks; that is what we are doing today. It is the first tranche of reforms to increase child safety. We have already taken a number of steps in the last few weeks, but we are committed to doing more.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, it is not a hypothetical. These are facts; he was charged. It is not hypothetical. Police seized over a thousand images. So if the recommendation from the Ombudsman had been in place, do you think it would not have made any difference? Is that what you are telling the committee?

Enver ERDOGAN: I am not going to speculate on what the decision would have been, because obviously there would be experts that would do that, and that is what will happen in prospective matters. I am not focusing on necessarily previous individual cases, because then we would be talking about individual cases case by case and every case is different. But what we are focused on is making sure that we do have a system that will be more rigorous than what it is now.

Georgie CROZIER: More rigorous than it is now? It is non-existent, Minister. Minister, do you acknowledge there is a loophole in the system that does not allow decision-makers to act on intelligence from police, child protection services and other authorities to suspend, revoke or refuse a working with children check?

Enver ERDOGAN: Currently once someone is charged, they can be suspended. But there is a gap, and that is why we have accepted that going forward we need to make sure that where there is a claim, although yet unsubstantiated, the expert regulators can have a look at this matter and make a decision about whether it is safe to allow this person to act or not. The recommendation of the rapid review has been accepted, and we are going to implement that.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, does this bill today close that loophole and implement the Ombudsman’s recommendation in full?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Crozier, to answer your question, today’s bill will not close that loophole, but that is why we have committed to introducing another piece of legislation later this year.

Georgie CROZIER: Still some big gaps. Minister, as a consequence of this bill would Ron Mark’s working with children check be able to be cancelled if he was still under active investigation by the police, or does this bill fail to close this loophole as well?

Enver ERDOGAN: As things stand, Ms Crozier, no. If he is charged, yes.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, can you confirm that under the current system a person can be arrested over child-related offences and still hold a valid working with children check? Does the bill close that loophole?

Enver ERDOGAN: For clarity, Ms Crozier, if someone is arrested and charged, yes. But if they are not charged, no.

Georgie CROZIER: Right. Okay. He was under investigation, arrested. It is a very serious case, and I think you have just highlighted to the committee how flawed the process has been. I will go to the rapid review. Recommendation 6.1(a), working with children checks, changes the working with children check regulatory frameworks to allow unsubstantiated information or intelligence, for example, from police, child protection or other relevant bodies, to be obtained, shared and considered in order to assess, refuse, temporarily suspend or revoke a working with children check. When will it be implemented?

Enver ERDOGAN: The goal is to introduce that legislation later this year, and this bill is obviously being implemented straightaway. But in terms of the timeframe for implementation, as that legislation is not drafted, I cannot really comment on it.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, part (b) of recommendation 6.1 permits a working with children check re-assessment when the screening authority is notified or becomes aware of new unsubstantiated information or intelligence. When will that recommendation be implemented?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think, Ms Crozier, those recommendations around unsubstantiated claims will be included in the next piece of legislation, so you will get an opportunity to kind of interrogate the operation of those parts. But they are not included in this legislation.

Georgie CROZIER: This is the rapid review, and we are talking about children’s safety. In fact today in question time the Minister for Government Services said something along the lines of there being nothing more important than the safety of children, yet when the rapid review is making these recommendations you cannot tell us when they are being implemented. I will go to the next question. Recommendation 6.1(c) is to:

Require organisations to verify or validate that they have engaged a Working with Children Check clearance holder to provide accurate historical and current information of movements across different organisations.

When will that be implemented?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Crozier, we are committed to implementing all 22 recommendations of the rapid review. Some of those recommendations are not necessarily in this legislation, but they will be in the next tranche.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, the rest of the recommendations are to:

Create an internal review process for Working with Children Check decisions and remove the ability to seek review at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

All applicants must complete mandatory online child safety training and testing before being granted a Working with Children Check.

Fund the Working with Children Check screening authority so it is resourced to undertake more manual assessments and interventions under new Working with Children Check settings, noting any efficiencies delivered by the new Shared intelligence and Risk Assessment Capability …

Work with the Commonwealth government and other states and territories to develop a national approach to the Working with Children Check laws and advocate for an improved national database that is able to support real-time monitoring of Working with Children Check holders.

You cannot answer about when any of those recommendations will be implemented because of your answers to the previous questions: you are waiting for the next tranche of legislation. Will the next tranche of legislation incorporate all of those elements?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Crozier, I think the goal of the next tranche of legislation is to acquit as many of those recommendations as possible. Some of them are national. I know the Attorney-General and the Minister for Children have been having discussions nationally. There was a Standing Council of Attorneys-General (SCAG) meeting, as you would be aware, on 15 August where some of these matters were discussed and a commitment was made to working together and collaborating between jurisdictions to make sure we have a system that works for all children across the country. But in this legislation it is very clear what we are focused on in terms of the first step. The next tranche of legislation will try to acquit as many of those recommendations as possible but understand some of those recommendations are national and may take a longer time to implement to get consistency across jurisdictions.

Georgie CROZIER: Not all of them, and most of them can be applied here, so I need you to spell it out to me if you would not mind. Given you said there is a number that need Commonwealth or national regulation and will take some time to be implemented, could you highlight, out of the those rapid review recommendations, which are Commonwealth responsibilities?

Enver ERDOGAN: I appreciate, Ms Crozier, the path we are going to, but I think we are kind of pre-empting the next tranche of legislation that is going to be introduced to this chamber. I am really solely focused on what we have before us – the urgency to fix these elements before us today.

Georgie CROZIER: The reason I ask is because the Liberals and Nationals, as you are aware, have introduced a bill that would deal with a lot of these issues. We are also moving amendments given the importance of it. So you must have some idea around permitting a working with children check re-assessment when the screening authority is notified or becomes aware of new unsubstantiated information or intelligence. What will the impact be if there are delays in the system, if that is not implemented very quickly after the next tranche of legislation? Or will that be? I asked when would it be implemented, and you could not answer it, but what will the implications be?

Enver ERDOGAN: Again, Ms Crozier, with all respect, I think they will be considerations with the drafting of the next bill – making sure there is an implementation plan, making sure measures are there to ensure safety. I do not want to speculate upon what will be included and the time frames for those, but I think the rapid review is clear that we need to aim to implement all those recommendations, and we have accepted that.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, can you confirm that an individual who is under police investigation for child sexual abuse who has not had a formal charge, conviction or formal disciplinary finding can still hold an active working with children check and engage with children?

Enver ERDOGAN: Those changes, Ms Crozier, are not included in this bill. But again, that is the goal for the next bill – to include those elements. Currently when people are charged, that action can be taken; otherwise, it cannot.

Georgie CROZIER: So under the current law and this bill, the secretary will not have the power to cancel a working with children check in that circumstance. Is that correct?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes.

Georgie CROZIER: Okay. And the same would apply to a person who has been arrested for child sexual abuse but not charged. Is that correct?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes.

Georgie CROZIER: Can the secretary cancel a working with children check on the basis of a police investigation or intelligence only?

Enver ERDOGAN: My understanding is no, because there needs to be a charge.

Georgie CROZIER: So given that the Ombudsman really did point out that that was one of the issues that needed more powers, why is the government not allowing the secretary to have more powers in relation to those concerns that have been raised?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Crozier, I think we are committed to giving the secretary more powers in this space, but we are saying we need to get this right. It is about child safety, but we are also talking about people’s livelihoods, especially where it is an unsubstantiated claim. We need to make sure that there is a process in place and that we understand the ramifications, in particular where there are vexatious claims. Obviously the more serious examples you are giving I think would be a lot clearer for any secretary and in particular within the worker screening unit, who are trained to be able to properly assess these claims which contain allegations compromising the safety of children. We have introduced this bill to focus on these elements before us, but also the next tranche will be focusing on those elements you are discussing. We have agreed with the recommendation from the rapid child safety review.

Georgie CROZIER: Those loopholes that I referred to that the Ombudsman actually made findings on and made recommendations to fix – those loopholes continue under the Allan Labor government because this bill does not close those loopholes. Is that correct?

Enver ERDOGAN: They are matters that we are aiming to implement in the next tranche of legislation.

Georgie CROZIER: So not now. So we are months away still from closing these loopholes, and our children are at risk because of that?

Enver ERDOGAN: We have taken steps – and that is what today is about – ensuring we have a safer system that is immediately implementable. We need to also understand, as part of passing legislation, that we need to be able to implement those changes in a swift way and in a rapid way, and that is what we are aiming to do today. But those elements will be included in the next tranche. It will be this year.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, can you guarantee that these loopholes will not be exploited?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the goal is to close all those loopholes, and that is why we have committed to implementing all the recommendations from the rapid review, understanding that the Attorney-General only received the rapid review on 15 August. There was a SCAG meeting on 15 August and here we are, just over a week later, responding with urgent legislation. Again, I take this opportunity to thank everyone in the chamber for accepting this urgent bill. We are going to do the work, but you need to understand that when you are drafting legislation you need to be careful to get it right. Safety is the priority, and the safest way we can do this is by getting the legislation right so that we do not cause more harm.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, you have had three years. You have known about it for three years. The Attorney-General did not hear about it just a couple of weeks ago, like you referred to then. The Attorney-General was provided these findings and recommendations three years ago, and your government did nothing. Nothing, and look what we have go – thousands of children being tested for STIs, parents beside themselves, a system in crisis. We need to build trust back into the system, yet we have still got these loopholes. Our amendments would have closed those loopholes. Why would you not accept that? Why have you not worked to close those loopholes as quickly as possible given the potential that thousands of children still remain at risk?

Enver ERDOGAN: We are focused on getting these reforms right. Do it once, do it properly. That is why we are committed to establishing a whole new regulator, which will deal with unsubstantiated claims and these kinds of situations that you raise where there are allegations. We need to make sure that the infrastructure is in place, the personnel are in place to do this right. Child safety is the number one priority, but there also needs to be natural justice.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, I do not think parents will be any more reassured by what the government is doing. I think they think it is a quick fix for a political problem. But I want to go to a reference one of your MPs made in their contribution. They spoke about parents preferring council and not-for-profit childcare centres and were highly critical of the private sector. Given the basis of the backbencher’s comments, has any modelling been done by the government on what the sector would look like if the private sector was not included in the childcare industry?

Enver ERDOGAN: From the outset I wish to state that from my perspective as a parent who has children in both systems, I think the private sector plays a really important role and a lot of the educators and staff in the private sector, as well as the public sector, do amazing work and do provide a safe environment for many parents. From my perspective, this is not about a debate about ownership of these facilities. It is about making the system as safe as possible for all children so that all parents can have peace of mind.

Georgie CROZIER: Minister, I am reassured to hear that given it would cause a huge amount of distress to many people, but thank you for that clarification. Given the minister responsible is not here, I do not think I can go to my further questions. I will wait for the next tranche of legislation to come in and ask the minister some questions.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Minister, I want to ask you some questions around the natural justice period. The bill removes the 28-day natural justice period for category C professional misconduct cases. Removing this timeframe risks undermining procedural fairness. How has the government balanced this change with the need for ongoing procedural fairness? And what safeguards are in place to ensure justice is not compromised?

Enver ERDOGAN: Thank you, Ms Gray-Barberio, for that really important question. We are talking about people’s livelihoods in this debate as well, we need to understand that, especially people that are working in the field. But obviously others more broadly will be affected, not necessarily just workers but volunteers as well. I think that is why we are committed to establishing a new regulator. The social services regulator will have an internal review team mechanism, so that will be an internal kind of review mechanism.

That team will be staffed by experts in this field that understand and can get the kind of intelligence-led assessment process. So people will have an opportunity to apply for a review once a decision is made and there will be an internal review process, and of course people will still keep the right to apply to the Supreme Court for broader administrative review if needed.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: When you are talking about experts that are going to be staffing this regulator, are you referring to authorised officers?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Gray-Barberio, that is a very detailed question and a good one. I understand those details are being worked on about the make-up and how this internal review mechanism will work.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: If this is the plan, how long is this going to take? This is going to require recruitment and operational staff. Is this going to be a long period? We are talking about safeguards to ensure that justice is not compromised. Has the government thought about a timeline around this?

Enver ERDOGAN: I cannot provide a timeline for you, Ms Gray-Barberio, today, but what I will say is that these are really good questions especially for the next tranche of legislation, which will be embedding that system of review that you are talking about.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: I want to talk about the appeals and review process. Is there a clear, accessible appeals and review process, and how quickly can a wrongly suspended educator have their clearance reinstated?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Gray-Barberio, I think these will be the matters that are probably better put during the next tranche of legislation. It is our goal to introduce legislation in October, so it is going to be debated this year. This legislation has a key focus on those matters before us, so in terms of that regulator, the make-up and its operation, I think those questions are better put for the next tranche of legislation.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Thank you, Minister, but I actually think this question is valid for this tranche, because it is related to natural justice, so would you be able to seek advice?

Enver ERDOGAN: I will seek some advice.

Ms Gray-Barberio, I understand that, per this legislation, people will still have 28 days, but while they are suspended. So they will get an opportunity to reply, because they will be given notice that they are being suspended or are under review. They will have 28 days to respond, but during that period they will not be able to work unless they are cleared.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Can I get confirmation from you: on the working with children check, who is responsible for reinstating that – who has that power?

[The Legislative Council report is being published progressively.]