Thursday, 20 November 2025

Clause 1 (20:35)

Evan MULHOLLAND: I have only got a few questions. It was acknowledged that there will be a $45 million spend on the new regulator, 100 new staff and 60 new compliance officers. Isn’t this fact alone an acknowledgement that the existing regulator within the department was significantly under-resourced?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I thank Mr Mulholland for his question. I did hear him earlier refer to $45 million. I am looking at my box, but I believe it was $42 million and it was not solely for the regulator. There was certainly an initial amount of money, which will go to addressing some of the immediate issues there will be following the passage of the legislation. There will be further contributions as well to greater investment, and indeed the review itself called for there to be greater resourcing invested in child safety and indeed greater resourcing from the Commonwealth as well in the implementation of child safety regulations.

But the key answer to your question, if your insinuation is that there needed to be more, is – I will put it this way: the new regulatory landscape that we are building will indeed require greater investment. But if what you are intending is to make a criticism of the existing regulatory environment, I would ask you to put a more specific question in that regard, because that $42 million allocation was a much broader investment than just the regulator itself.

Evan MULHOLLAND: It could be said for the staff, although I do acknowledge, as many others have, that the early childhood sector is a sector that is growing quite rapidly. I want to ask at least one question just on the authority for information requests from the minister. It is something that I am interested in. How will this authority for ministerial information requests work while ensuring investigations, ongoing enforcement matters and worker suitability assessments are not compromised or politicised?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: If your key point, Mr Mulholland, goes to the independence of the regulator, the very fact that we are creating an independent, standalone statutory regulator speaks for that very fact. There will be relationships, as there are with any statutory regulator or entity, between government and that entity. As evidenced by this process that we are going through now, we set legislation, we make regulation and we set statements of expectations, so there will be an ongoing dialogue, information sharing and so forth. But we are seeking through this very bill to establish an independent regulator.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I meant that sincerely. Certainly if I was the minister, I would not want the authority to be able to be across or request information about the activities. How does the bill ensure an orderly transition of existing service approvals, active investigations, prosecutions and information-sharing arrangements to the new authority?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The establishment process to ensure a smooth transition without disrupting current regulatory operations is indeed underway in planning, in anticipation of support for this bill. The community can trust that existing regulatory functions will continue following the transition on 1 January 2026 and during the first year of operation as the Victorian Early Childhood Regulatory Authority embeds its operational approach. A dedicated transition team is in place already to ensure continuity of operations. The quality assessment and regulation division’s (QARD) core functions, including licensing, compliance and enforcement, will pass to VECRA, as I said, on 1 January. There will be clear communication with staff and services to ensure that everyone understands exactly what is changing, when and why. And, with the support of the Department of Education, VECRA will also continue to engage with external inquiries and processes, including the Parliament of Victoria’s inquiry, the order for the production of documents from members of this place and the Victorian Ombudsman’s investigation as well. So there are a number of things underway, and there is transition planning in place to ensure the smooth operations and compliance with all obligations.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Just on the sorts of penalties in regulations, how will the government determine the scale and type of penalties permitted, and when will a schedule of penalties be publicly released?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Penalties are obviously prescribed in regulations. These are standard regulation-making powers, obviously. I am not sure that specifically goes to your question. Can you repeat your question for me?

Evan MULHOLLAND: Yes. It was clause 34. I thought it would be easier to ask on clause 1. How will the government determine the scale and type of penalties permitted under clause 34, and when will a schedule of penalties be released?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The only penalties in this bill relate to the misuse of the register, but obviously there is a role to play in the implementation of penalties as they will apply under the national framework as well, and there is probably more to say about that on the subsequent bill.

Evan MULHOLLAND: When will the implementation phase be complete – the timeline for implementation?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: It is obviously established on 1 January. I imagine it is complete on 1 January. Just let me try and find it – 1 January.

Evan MULHOLLAND: 2026?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Yes, 2026.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Minister, with the regulator VECRA now taking over QARD, what are some of the key differences outside of moving and shifting it to VECRA? What are the differences in VECRA versus QARD, other than just moving and shifting staff and everything, in terms of it being an independent regulator?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Obviously the number one difference is that the regulator will sit outside of the Department of Education as an independent statutory authority, and this goes to a key recommendation requiring implementation following the child safety review. It will be appropriately resourced. Its resourcing will obviously be extensive in terms of the additional functions that it is being required to establish as an independent statutory authority outside of the Department of Education. It needs to set up a whole lot of its own functions, having once relied on Department of Education functions in a corporate sense and in an administrative sense and so forth. Obviously, when we come to the subsequent bill, the range of tasks that it will be required to do and the extent of those tasks – if we take compliance visits, for example – will be greater than is currently the case.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Minister, to your knowledge, how many employees were at QARD?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: 242.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: And how many employees will now make up VECRA?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As it is established, there will be 288, and obviously, as its role continues, that may fluctuate.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Minister, just going off what you were saying about ensuring that the new VECRA regulator will be adequately resourced, do you anticipate this number to increase to meet the demands of the regulator?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The child safety review requires that it be adequately resourced to do the job that it is being asked to do.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Minister, could I just ask you some questions around contractors? It says that VECRA may engage persons with suitable qualifications or experience to assist the regulator in performing its functions and exercising its powers. Can you give an example of an occasion or scenario where you would require contractors and what that actually looks like?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: It is a provision, Ms Gray-Barberio, that allows the regulator to be able to hire lawyers, IT consultants, whatever it is that it might need at any particular point in time, but not on an ongoing basis.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: And will those sorts of details be made publicly available in the annual report for VECRA?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: VECRA will obviously, as a statutory authority, be required to meet the usual annual reporting requirements.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Minister, you spoke on this earlier when you were answering Mr Mulholland’s question around relationships between regulators: what sort of relationship will VECRA have with organisations or statutory bodies like the Commission for Children and Young People (CCYP) to ensure consistency between these regulators with regard to child safety?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: At the current point in time and prior to one of these subsequent bills passing, the reportable conduct scheme, the child safe standards, for example, are in CCYP, and that requires ongoing conversation with QARD as it stands at the moment. Obviously, we are transferring some of those functions into the SSR. There will be the usual information sharing and whatnot as needed, but it is envisaged that some of that will not be – as great as it is at the current point in time – because that will be transferred into the SSR. But certainly what we are seeking to do here is make sure that the opportunity for information flow is as easy as possible so that there are not, like there have been in the past, disjointed pockets of information sitting in CCYP or in a disability regulator or somewhere else, where they are not sharing that information about children in a way that keeps them safe. The necessary relationships will be there, noting the changing nature of CCYP in this context.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Minister, could you just clarify, given the sector is growing at rapid rates – there are about 4000-plus early childhood centres across Victoria – how the sector will be notified of this new regulatory authority, VECRA.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: It is certainly anticipated that there will be comprehensive communications across the sector. There will be additional resourcing to support VECRA to increase its communication and engagement, particularly with parents and the broader community. This includes updating existing website information on VECRA’s roles and responsibilities and how the public can raise concerns about ECEC services. There is a monthly sector newsletter, with education campaigns about children’s rights and service safety. There will be a number of ways in which VECRA engages with the broader community from the outset in relation to its establishment.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: If you could just speak to audiences and communities that perhaps do not have access to computers or have English as their second language, how will you ensure that they are also brought on the journey of the new changes?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Across government, and certainly in the education and community services sector, something that we are always cognisant of is making sure that information is available in different mediums and in different languages. It is envisaged that the necessary communications to ensure their broad dissemination will be in various formats, from the sector newsletters and the like through to updating websites and whatnot. But it is envisaged that there will be accessible communications, if that is really the point of your question.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Can I just ask you some questions around committees? The bill talks about VECRA establishing a committee to provide advice to the authority on matters related to the authority’s functions and powers. Who exactly is going to be on this committee, and how will you be going about choosing committee members?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The ability for VECRA to establish a committee is not covered by other legislation, as is the case with most of its regulatory functions and powers. In order for VECRA to have the ability to establish a committee, it needs to be provided for via this bill, which is the intent of the provision. It is intended that the establishment of committees will generally be limited. For example, the current early childhood education and care (ECEC) regulator seeks advice from at least one reference group in the performance of its functions. Putting this power into the legislation allows VECRA to continue to obtain advice as required to assist in the performance of its functions. There are not currently any plans to establish specific committees, if you like. This will be a matter for the regulator, noting that the current regulator has a regulatory reference group, and VECRA may determine to continue this. As a statutory authority, that will be a matter for them, not for me.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Minister, I actually asked this question in the briefing, and I was not quite satisfied with the response. Perhaps you can clarify: in regard to appointing the regulator, given that this is such a significant role, in the actual legislation there is a provision that for whoever is the regulator there is an option for them to be full-time or part-time. Surely that cannot be the case, Minister – whoever is appointed in this role cannot take this on part-time. Perhaps there is a provision there for this to be job share, so at least that way there is constant oversight over the significance of this role.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: My advice is that this is a standard provision for these kinds of statutory appointments that has been replicated from other legislation. If you are at all concerned, let me put on the record that it is not envisaged that now or at any time in the future this would be a part-time role. It will be a very big job for whoever takes it on.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Thank you, Minister, for clarifying that; I appreciate it. Can you please provide an example of a situation where VECRA may enter into agreements or arrangements for the use of services of any staff of a department, statutory authority or other public body?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Again, this is a standard provision to facilitate sharing of resources and information in specific or specialist circumstances and could include something like a specialised person within a department or indeed the CCYP. To your point earlier, it is about how we can share resources where necessary and engage resources that might be sitting somewhere else that might be of use, again, to the independent statutory authority, but that would be a decision for them.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: You were actually touching on my next question, which is about acting appointments. Obviously we have had, with the example of CCYP, a deputy secretary from an existing department step into that role, but this role has to be independent. How then do you reconcile the fact that this is an independent regulator, but for an acting appointment you are bringing in somebody from the government? How do you maintain independence? Even though they are in an acting capacity, I do not see anything in the legislation that maintains independence. Could you please speak to that – how we ensure true independence of the regulator there?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I reject the insinuation, as I have in question time in relation to the acting appointment at CCYP, but it is indeed a good example of the type of temporary periods where a minister is going through the process to select and recommend to the Governor a new appointee. In light of ensuring that there is not nobody acting in a role for a period of time, there are provisions to appoint acting roles. Those types of appointments, when we talk about the CCYP or others, go through the necessary processes such as cabinet and/or Governor in Council approval. They are not appointments made on an ad hoc basis, just signed off on at any point in time. If we are talking about the principal regulatory role, then you need to have the provisions to, in certain circumstances, do that. But there also needs to be provisions within the legislation for the statutory authority to make use of other resources, be they government, other statutory authorities or elsewhere.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Who can check the address and contact details of people on the Victorian early childhood workforce register? Who has access to this?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Only people in VECRA, is my advice.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: My final question is: will the register, as per the rapid review, capture past complaints, investigations or terminations? If so, is that in the legislation? Because I could not find it, but I may well have overlooked it.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The register as it stands will capture the factual information – the employment history et cetera – but will not include things like case notes and whatnot. It is a system, not a scheme, if you like. The scheme is the national work that is underway. What the review said was that we should establish a register, and indeed we actually, before the review even reported, used our kindergarten funding system to immediately stand up a version of a register. This will provide for that in legislation and allow that to be expanded on. But the national law work will provide over time for the development of a scheme.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: So just to clarify: past complaints, investigations and terminations will not be in this legislation but in other legislation that is coming. Did I understand that correctly?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: This register will include things like factual information. If you think back to the case of the accused, one of the things in the absence of a system of registration that was difficult was knowing exactly where the person had worked and when. The idea is that what we would have – through what we stood up immediately and through what will be extended through this work in this bill, in a register sitting within VECRA – will be all of the, if you like, factual details: if someone is employed, if they cease to be employed et cetera. So it would include, in your example just then, termination, but it will not have case notes and things within it. What is happening in the national sense is the building of a scheme that allows us to take on a greater level of information to that point. What our review said in that regard is that we should work towards a national scheme because it is a national system, and we do need that so that predators cannot cross borders, for example, so that this moves and applies wherever somebody is. So that work will continue, and if that is not fast enough, then there is also the provision for us to come back and extend our own work if, again, the Commonwealth continues, if that work is too slow.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: You are going to have to excuse me; it is late in the evening. I understand that this is something that is going to be covered at the national level, not yet at the state level, because that is what the national level is working towards: investigations and terminations. Is that right?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: So to be clear about what the national educator register announced in August is and how our register is different from the national educator register – and this speaks to what we announced at our education ministers meeting in August in earlier this year and is expected to be rolled out nationally during next year, subject to the amendments that will come in relation to the national law. The national register will be a database of workers in the ECEC services right across Australia who are regulated under the national law in that national framework. Unlike the Victorian register, the national register will not include information about workers in services regulated under the Children’s Services Act 1996 – and that is limited services; that speaks to things like our occasional care services, for example. Victoria welcomes and is indeed hopeful about the introduction of the national register and that opportunity it presents for that nationally consistent approach to identifying unsafe individuals and detecting predators who might move across jurisdictions. Victoria will continue to support the Australian government to inform the design and implementation of that national register and work towards minimising in the process any I guess administrative burden on approved providers and maximising compatibility of registers. But what we will stand up at the outset in Victoria builds on what we stood up in July through our early childhood workforce register and through Arrival – our kindergarten funding system. That register is capturing all workers in ECEC services – I think there are over 68,000 of them at the current point in time – but services regulated under the national law and Children’s Services Act 1996, and through this piece of work that will be maintained by VECRA and build on that July piece.

Clause agreed to; clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (21:06)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Gray-Barberio, I invite you to move amendment 1 on your sheet 13C, which tests amendment 2 on that sheet.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: I move:

1.   Clause 3, after line 17 insert –

“authorised officer means –

(a)   an authorised officer within the meaning of the Education and Care Services National Law (Victoria); or

(b)   an authorised officer within the meaning of the Children’s Services Act 1996;”.

This amendment is in relation to the minimum number of authorised officers. Our amendment proposes proportionality of authorised officers. The bill in its current form does not legislate a minimum requirement for the number of authorised officers employed or appointed by VECRA. We are concerned that without a mandated baseline of resourcing and proportional oversight there could be a risk of inadequate monitoring, delayed investigations and reduced support for services, particularly as the number of approved providers continues to grow.

New section 17A requires a minimum threshold of no fewer than 60 authorised officers and legislates an appropriate ratio of authorised officers to early childhood education providers. I guess it is clear that the intention with this amendment is that the sector is growing at a rapid rate, and it is important that the sector is properly resourced. This amendment also requires the minister to publicly report annually to Parliament on the number of authorised officers employed or appointed by VECRA, the ratio of authorised officers and actions taken to maintain adequate regulatory coverage.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I thank Ms Gray-Barberio for her amendment. We will not be supporting this amendment. At the outset I make it very clear that the government, as I said in my summing up, has committed to implementing every single recommendation of the rapid child safety review, including recommendation 13.1, which says ‘to make sure funding is in line with the number of services to be regulated’. We have committed to doing that. Indeed the Financial Management Act 1994 applies to VECRA, including the requirement to report annually to Parliament.

But further to that, I would be concerned that this minimum number would be too low and would set a baseline that is well below what we already have and certainly pose what we committed to after the rapid review, and that we can do much better than this. We are doing better than this, and we will as a government continue to make sure that what we do is in line with the number of services to be regulated, as was recommended by the review. So we will not be supporting this amendment.

Evan MULHOLLAND: After discussions with, I believe, the minister’s office, I agree with I guess the intent, but I do not agree with how to get there. I agree with the minister that this could set a baseline whereby a minimum expectation is required. The funding there is in line with the amount of services that will obviously grow into the future. I just do not think it should be mandated in legislation, so the Liberals and Nationals will not be supporting this amendment.

Council divided on amendment:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Gray-Barberio, I invite you to move amendment 1 on sheet 15C, which tests your remaining amendments.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: I move:

1.   Clause 3, page 4, after line 26 insert –

“Integrity and Oversight Committee means the Integrity and Oversight Committee established by section 5(a) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003;”.

My next amendment is on the veto of the proposed early childhood regulator. This particular amendment really just speaks to increased oversight for the early childhood regulator. It would allow the Integrity and Oversight Committee to have veto powers over the appointment of the early childhood regulator, allow for that additional layer of oversight and allow for the regulator to be truly independent. We believe that the Integrity and Oversight Committee would be an appropriate committee to provide this additional layer of oversight. The committee will have 30 days to block or allow the appointment, and this amendment is based on similar models as outlined in both the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 and the Integrity Oversight Victoria Act 2011.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The government will not be supporting this amendment. The provisions in the legislation are in line with existing processes. They are in accordance with government guidelines. They provide sufficient scrutiny and accountability. They are not dissimilar to the appointment of the head of the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority or the Victorian Institute of Teaching, for example, or in other portfolio areas the Environment Protection Authority, where they are appointed by the Governor in Council, and that is also entirely appropriate in this instance. The Integrity and Oversight Committee is responsible for monitoring and reviewing the performance of agencies like IBAC and the Victorian Ombudsman and not these types of appointments. It is much more akin to the VRQA and the VIT, for example, or the EPA in another portfolio area, by way of example, so the government will not be supporting this amendment.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Again, I appreciate the intent of this amendment. I am thankful that it has been moved. But I think the IOC is specifically for integrity bodies, not for statutory regulators in different portfolios, so I do not think it is an appropriate place. Therefore the Liberals and Nationals will not be supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause agreed to; clauses 4 to 61 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

 Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (21:21): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (21:21): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.