Thursday, 20 November 2025

Clause 1 (21:23)

Evan MULHOLLAND: I have some questions. I am just going to ask them all on clause 1 to make things easier. The Liberals and Nationals will be supporting this bill. All questions are genuinely in support of this bill and purely exploratory. Does the government anticipate any operational delays in the standing up of the national early childhood worker register? I note there is a compulsory commencement date of 27 February 2026. Can you guarantee this deadline will be met?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The register will start on 26 February.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I just want to ask a couple of questions on the paramount consideration – again, I am just asking for clarification there, not with any sort of wrongful intent – and whether that creates a conflict with the Corporations Act 2001 duty of directors and if that creates a legal uncertainty for boards of large providers who now have competing statutory obligations.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I would not doubt that any of your questions are with anything other than the best of intent. Enshrining the paramountcy principle in statutory duty for all decision-making reflects I guess a more contemporary understanding of the provision of early childhood services and the decision-making when it comes to the safeguarding of a child and what that means. Certainly ‘paramount consideration’ means that when making decisions the rights and best interests of children have to come first, ahead of profit and ahead of convenience, administrative ease or reputational risk. It applies to services and the regulator. Other factors can be weighed, but if there is a conflict, child safety and wellbeing outrank them. For example, for services this may mean that if supervision, staffing or layout creates a foreseeable risk, it is to be fixed. It is not to wait for rosters or budgets to catch up. Parent communication must be timely and candid where safety is at stake. For the regulatory authority, paramountcy means earlier, firmer intervention where risk to children is identified and transparency about enforcement so families can make safe choices. But the principle is not standalone, it informs the whole scheme. It underpins the tougher penalties and new enforcement tools, transparency measures, the regulator’s enhanced powers and the sector’s quality improvement obligations. But it certainly does mean that the safety of children must be put first.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Good. I think that is a good thing. How will the government measure or enforce the requirement that all decisions must give primacy to the paramount consideration, particularly where judgements may be subjective?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The concept of best interest or paramountcy of the child is not a new concept in national law. Further, given the use of this concept in several legislative schemes – and our child protection scheme would be one of them – it has been subject to extensive interpretation by the courts and has a settled meaning that prioritises a child’s safety, wellbeing and development when making decisions about them. It requires considering a range of factors, such as the child’s views, their physical and emotional needs, the ability of each parent to provide for them and the importance of the child maintaining meaningful relationships with family members and with cultural heritage, for example. I will leave it at that.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I am just looking at the systemic risk powers – clauses 65 to 77, for reference – and I am just I guess curious about the related provider. Under what circumstances would the regulator suspend an approval based solely on the conduct of a related provider rather than the provider itself?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The bill will obviously, as you have identified, introduce new powers to address noncompliance by related providers, which can be used when there are systemic compliance issues across two or more providers. Does that answer your question?

Evan MULHOLLAND: Yes. I am just wondering what natural justice protections exist for providers who may have had their approval cancelled due to the behaviour of a related entity that might not be under their control.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Broad action can only occur when the regulatory authority is satisfied that there is a systemic risk as opposed to an issue in one provider, and not just a related provider by virtue of being related but more of a systemic issue – so not in response to isolated incidents. Each provider retains review rights, and this preserves fairness, obviously, and ensures a proportionate regulatory response. The provisions safeguard children and sector integrity, and they do not impose blanket burdens on operators. There is the opportunity also to seek review of a determination for being related.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Just on the child safety training, has the government costed the additional training hours required for all staff and volunteers that will have to go through training?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: That will be provided for through the childcare subsidy.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Just on the inappropriate conduct offences, how will the new strict liability framework avoid unfair liability for approved providers and nominated supervisors for conduct they did not directly engage in?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The bill introduces, obviously, the new offences relating to inappropriate conduct, and they include that an approved provider must ensure that no child is subject to conduct that a reasonable person would consider to be inappropriate, as you said, in an education and care service and that a nominated supervisor of an education and care service must ensure that no staff member or volunteer subjects a child to inappropriate conduct. Approved providers and nominated supervisors therefore must take every reasonable precaution to ensure that no child is subject to inappropriate conduct, and this means that if a staff member behaves inappropriately, the staff member, their approved provider and their nominated supervisor are all breaching the law.

Under the bill inappropriate conduct is conduct that a reasonable person would consider to be inappropriate in an education and care service. Whether or not a reasonable person would consider the conduct to be inappropriate in an education and care service depends on the circumstances but could include whether the conduct is generally accepted practice in the provision of education and care; whether the conduct is likely to cause or result in harm, including emotional, psychological or physical harm or injury to a child or children enrolled at the service; the child’s age and stage of development; or whether the conduct is sexual, aggressive or violent. It is also immaterial whether the child has consented to being subject to the conduct, the person subjecting the child to the conduct believes the child has consented to being subject to the conduct or the person subjecting the child to the conduct is related to the child.

These new offences are obviously designed to capture boundary-crossing behaviours which are below the existing criminal threshold – for example, below the thresholds for grooming and assault – but that still create risk to children or undermine trust. Typical examples could include sexualised comments or jokes; overfamiliar physical contact; secrecy with a child; private messaging or messages of ‘don’t tell’ and those types of requests; one-to-one unsupervised time without justification; gifts, favours and favouritism that create dependency; or retaliation or intimidation when concerns are raised.

Evan MULHOLLAND: In responding to that question, you have answered my last two questions, so thank you.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: On the response to that question, I have further questions because under this government – its idea of what is appropriate and what is reasonable could be questionable to a lot of the parents in the South-Eastern Metropolitan Region. I am wondering why what you have just read out was not actually implemented and embedded in the actual bill, where we actually express these concerns about sexual conduct, keeping secrets and the use of mobile phones. I am looking at the use of mobile phones, and I can see that there are an awful lot of fines, but there is nothing in here that really explicitly goes to the heart of sexual exploitation.

I know that it is nuanced throughout the bill. I have been referring to and looking up the 2010 bill and then the 2005 bill, which of course is pre phones that could actually take photos. Given that this is a bill about the safety of minors – children – some of which are not even able to defend themselves in speech, I am just wondering why the bill is not explicit enough in actually unpacking what is considered to be reasonable, what is considered to be sexual exploitation and what is considered to be inappropriate. Those words in a court of law could be expanded upon. I feel that perhaps you have not expressed it in the actual bill in a way that is actually protective enough. I am asking you in this context: why is that? This is a government that has permitted sexualised material in primary schools, allows libraries to do the rainbow toolkit and wants everyone to be having free three-year-old kindergarten, but you have not explicitly gone into what is appropriate sexual conduct and what is not appropriate sexual conduct and when it is actually considered to be abuse. That is not unpacked in the bill, and I am just wondering why.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I would refer you to new section 166A inserted by the bill, Mrs Hermans. It does address these issues and it is spelt out.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: You mentioned in your own comments that the safety of children must be put first, but then you have also talked about a ‘reasonable person’ in an education and care service. As I said, it does not really specify directly what that reasonable person is. It gives fines for inappropriate uses of devices, but it does not actually explain what ‘inappropriate’ would be. There are an awful lot of fines, but a fine is not going to protect the safety of children. I still have questions about why you did not go a little bit further to actually engage in the definition of what child safety is. As I said, I have had to go all the way back, first to 2010 and then to the 2005 bill, to understand your definition of ‘child safety’. I am wondering why that was not a little bit more explicit in the bill.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: This is obviously a national law bill, so these issues have been well canvassed in every jurisdiction around the country and certainly at education ministers meetings. There is the common legal test and there is common law around what that is, but it is certainly fair to say that if behaviour puts a child’s safety or dignity at risk then it is not acceptable, and where behaviour appears criminal it obviously becomes a police matter. The new offence does not replace established criminal processes when we are talking about behaviour at that level. But I would put to you that new section 166A in the bill does set these things out. There are common-law tests about what is reasonable. It is also as a consequence of both of those things very well understood that behaviour putting a child’s safety or dignity at risk is not acceptable. I think this has been considered at length by all of the jurisdictions and is spelt out extensively in 166A, contrary to what you are putting to me right now.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: I guess the concern is that the fast-tracking of these bills has been to protect against the vulnerability and the sexual discourse that has taken place with so many vulnerable young people – little children and babies even. I was just surprised when I was reading it and unpacking it, and I sort of see a slight oversight. Do you feel that there is going to be any additional work done in the near future that may tighten up some of these provisions at all in terms of specifying what sexual exploitation or explicit body exposure would be and those expectations? Because to me it works around it, and I understand it should cover everything, but it just does not explicitly go into it. I wonder if you think that down the track, in the very near future there is going to be a need to tighten up that area at all or whether you feel that this is an adequate bill as it is and that there will be no further work needed to be done on this in the next couple of years.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, you can answer if you wish, but it is kind of asking you for an opinion.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I am happy to give it a go. In part I am prepared to give it a go because I did not have enough time in my summing up to directly address this same point which you made in your second-reading speech, Mrs Hermans. This national law bill has not been rushed. You will have heard me say a number of times in the press in recent months that in many respects it has been frustratingly slow. This has been work that has been in progress over a number of years and it has been extensively thought out, it has been extensively consulted on and it has extensively worked its way through jurisdictions across the country and the experts in each of those jurisdictions, including the national authorities, and it was brought to the national table of education ministers meetings. One of my frustrations when we are talking about a national system, a national framework or national law has been – and I do not say this as a criticism of the Commonwealth but more of our federated system – that it does actually take too long in many respects to change national law. Perhaps if we had had some of these changes in place already, we would not have had the circumstances that we have had.

I say all of that and thank my interjurisdictional colleagues for the way in which we have worked together to really collectively bring this to the fore now and indeed to add things to it. As a result of our rapid review the paramountcy principle, for example, was added into this first tranche. There is indeed a second tranche coming, and this work never stops. There is always more to do when it comes to keeping children safe and keeping up with ever-changing environments. If you consider the way in which in the last decade early education and care has changed in this country from being largely small providers to completely flipping around the other way, to being a largely market-driven sector, the regulation and the national law and the national framework have not kept pace with that. What this work is doing is addressing many of those issues.

I absolutely reject the premise of your question and the insinuations that there are mistakes here because it has been rushed. If anything, it has been too slow. It is here now. I thank my jurisdictional colleagues for that, and I look forward to continuing to work with them on what will continue to be the necessary improvements to it.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Minister, clause 120 in the bill provides that the regulatory authority may publish information about a range of enforcement actions taken, but the regulatory authority is not actually required to publish this information and there is no requirement that the information be published in a way that is timely. For example, a way that it could be useful is for parents who are thinking of sending their children to a childcare provider. Why doesn’t the bill make public reporting of enforcement actions mandatory?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Clearly one of the core issues that this bill is seeking to address is greater transparency for families, and in the compliance history of particular services there will of course be times where investigations may remain ongoing or may not yet be finalised, where it is not yet appropriate for some things to be published or indeed in order to protect the rights of the child. But there is certainly through this legislation the opportunity for there to be far greater transparency for families, in particular around the nature of their services.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: We have heard concerns raised by not-for-profit providers that this bill, particularly in regard to the increase in fines, may make it difficult to attract and retain experienced staff and services, particularly in the role of nominated supervisor. Minister, what are you and your department doing or going to do to support the workforce, or where in the bill does it say that you will consider these sorts of challenges?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Ms Gray-Barberio, the penalty amounts refer to the maximum penalty that can be imposed for a particular offence. In practice this amount may actually never be reached, but it is intended to be a maximum, and we just want to emphasise that we are serious about protecting children and keeping them safe. Some staff may be deterred by this increase in penalties, indeed, but if they are doing the right thing it should not be an issue for them.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Can you please provide some examples of the types of conduct that the new offences relating to inappropriate conduct seek to capture?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As you have identified, one of the key provisions is the introduction of an inappropriate conduct offence, which will be applicable to individuals and their approved providers and nominated supervisors. Similarly, we are introducing mandatory training for staff and volunteers which will uplift skills and knowledge across the board. The bill will also allow regulatory authorities to direct approved providers to suspend an educator or direct them to supervise that educator, and it also means regulatory authorities can directly oblige a particular staff member to undergo mandatory training. In this way regulatory authorities have more oversight of their individual staff. In Victoria the bill will also allow for disciplinary action and disciplinary proceedings to be taken against a person linked to an education and care service or a person with management or control of a body corporate, and this provision will not target individual educators but those people who are making decisions about how services are run: an approved provider of an education and care service, such as a nominated supervisor of an education and care service; a person with management or control of an education and care service; and a family day care educator engaged by or registered with an education or care service, for example. Sorry, did you also ask me about the sorts of behaviour that they constitute?

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Yes.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The bill also introduces new offences relating to inappropriate conduct, as I have just outlined, and who it applies to. Under the bill inappropriate conduct is conduct that a reasonable person would consider to be inappropriate in an education and care service. Whether or not a reasonable person would consider the conduct to be inappropriate in an education and care service depends on the circumstances. But some examples, to go to your principal question, are: whether the conduct is generally accepted practice in the provision of education and care; whether the conduct is likely to cause or result in harm, including emotional, psychological or physical harm or injury to a child or children enrolled at the service; the child’s age and stage of development; whether the conduct is sexual, aggressive, or violent; and though it would also be immaterial whether the child had consented to being subjected to the conduct, whether the person subjecting the child to the conduct believes the child has consented to being subjected to the conduct; or whether the person subjecting the child to the conduct is related to the child.

It is also intended that the new offences are designed to capture those boundary-crossing behaviours that, as I said earlier, are below the existing criminal threshold, such as sexualised comments and jokes, secrecy with a child, private messaging or ‘Don’t tell’ requests, one-to-one unsupervised time without justification, gifts, favours, favouritism, creating dependency, or retaliation or intimidation when concerns are raised, for example.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: That was a really good, comprehensive answer. My next question is: what kind of guidance will you or your department be giving to the workforce in relation to these new offences and changes in the bill ahead of the operative date?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: There will be strong communications with the sector, both through the regulator itself but also working with our sector partners, who have also been quite engaged in, as I outlined in my summing up, consultation and development. Certainly much of what is being responded to here is what the sector has been asking of education ministers around the country and certainly here in Victoria through our rapid review for some time, and they are all actively and in a very helpful way engaging with us in communicating with sector partners about that.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Minister, could you please just outline what sort of safeguards or assurances are in place for nominated supervisors who may be held responsible for conduct undertaken by other staff within their service?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The intention is that there will be comprehensive training through the training provisions that will be established but also as part of people’s ongoing development activities and so forth. Obviously, as I outlined earlier, there will be other communications from the regulator, from the sector partners et cetera – but principally through those training opportunities.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: My last question is: are the penalties in the bill for early childhood teachers and nominated supervisors comparable with penalties for teachers and principals in primary and secondary schools?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The increases in the penalty amounts are in line with similar penalties for offences in other comparable care and support sectors, such as under the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. Federal level penalty schedules in those sectors indicated ECEC sector penalties are currently on average three times lower where comparable offences exist, despite some outliers. For example, section 187 of the national law, ‘Person must not contravene a prohibition notice’, is an offence with a current maximum penalty of $22,900. However, under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, section 73ZN, a person who engages in conduct that ‘breaches a banning order’ carries a penalty of 1000 penalty units for individuals and 5000 for corporations, so the intention is to align them with comparable sectors.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: I did say that was going to be my last question, but I just have one quick follow-up. You said that is going to be comparable to the care and support sector, but does that include primary and secondary schools?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: There are not equivalent provisions, I am advised.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: Minister, we have referred to section 166 of the Education and Care Services National Law Act 2010. Section 166 – and please correct me if I am wrong here – refers to ‘Offence to use inappropriate discipline’, and interestingly enough the fines way back in 2010 had penalties of $11,400 in the case of an individual and $57,400 ‘in any other case’. But our fines in this bill are $6600 consistently throughout, and $34,200, so a significant drop. It talks about, in section 166, corporal punishment and discipline ‘that is unreasonable in the circumstances’. I do not see anything in here that is protective enough in the use of, let us say, photos or films, or perhaps the case of children being exploited sexually. I might be missing something, but it does not mention anything in what I am looking at right now. I am just wondering, because obviously this is all about protecting young people, babies, little ones from sexual predators. We want to keep them safe, not just in the regulation of how child care is conducted, but we want to keep them safe from paedophiles and from sexual activity, and I cannot see that here explicitly expressed. I again ask: is this a deliberate omission? I cannot see where that provision is in there that absolutely protects children from sexual predators and sexual activity. When you read your statement out – and I will go back, I promise, afterwards and read everything in Hansard to get a really good understanding of what you have read out, because it is late at night and we are all tired and it is the end of the week – you mentioned about the keeping of secrets and so forth as being a lower level, and conversations with innuendos, or whatever your wording was. To me all of those things are highly inappropriate for somebody to be having with somebody else’s little one. I just wonder why the provision is not in the safety bill to express genuine understanding of protection against sexual conduct with the use of photography. The inference is there, but there is no actual penalty for that that has been provided that I can see.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Pursuant to standing order 4.08(1)(b), I declare the sitting to be extended by up to 1 hour.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: I know you have read the information out – you have read it out twice – but it is not expressed directly in the bill, it is inferred. I do not know, I feel uncomfortable with the fact that this is about protecting babies from sexual conduct with people in the workplace and that there is nothing that has been really expressed in terms of use of photos, there is nothing in here that expresses anything that is found – it talks about it having to be uploaded onto a server, but it does not actually say that it must not be used for sexual conduct. It does not actually say that little ones are to be absolutely protected in all forms from all sexual conduct.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I just want to clarify that we are reading the same thing, because I am referring to the new section 166A inserted into part 4, ‘Other amendments to the Education and Care Services National Law’, which does detail all of those matters to which I also spoke in my other answer, and as you said, I read it out at length, but that is indeed the purpose of committee. But I am looking at 166A in the bill, ‘Offences relating to inappropriate conduct’, and it goes through in greater detail, including the penalties, each of those matters I referred to I guess more conversationally in my answer. It also then speaks to the immaterial nature of some of the circumstances, which may include the types of conduct, including emotional, physiological, physical harm to a child, and a child’s age and stage of development – that is all set out there in 166A. So I just want to clarify that we are reading the same thing.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, perhaps you could give a page number or clause number.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The clause number is 79, ‘New section 166A inserted’, and it is on page 45 of the bill.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: Okay. I can see that. Thank you. It does not express enough about what I would like to see in terms of sexual conduct. Obviously it will remain to be seen how protected our children are. But I do thank you for giving me the reference, and I have no further questions at this point.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 109 agreed to.

Clause 110 (22:03)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Gray-Barberio, I invite you to move your amendments 1 to 6, which test all your remaining amendments.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: I move:

1.   Clause 110, page 118, lines 32 to 34 and page 119, lines 1 to 23 omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

“(5) The Regulatory Authority must publish on the Regulatory Authority’s Internet site the following information relating to an education and care service –

(a)   the name and address of the service;

(b)   the name of the approved provider of the service;

(c)   details of the following actions (enforcement actions) taken in relation to the approved provider, a nominated supervisor of the service or a staff member of, or a volunteer at, the service –

(i)   any amendment of the approved provider’s provider approval or service approval for enforcement purposes;

(ii)   any suspension or cancellation of the approved provider’s provider approval or service approval;

(iii)   any direction under section 171 to exclude persons from the education and care services premises of the service;

(iv)   any compliance direction given to the approved provider;

(v)   any compliance notice given to the approved provider;

(vi)   any suspension direction given to the approved provider;

(vii)   any emergency action notice given to the approved provider;

(viii)   any enforceable undertaking given by the approved provider, the nominated supervisor, the staff member or the volunteer;

(ix)   any prohibition notice given to –

(A)   the approved provider; or

(B)   the nominated supervisor; or

(C)   the staff member; or

(D)   the volunteer; or

(E)   any other person who is in any way involved in, or has been involved in, the service;

(x)   any emergency removal of children being educated and cared for by the service under Division 4 of Part 7;

(xi)   any prosecutions for offences against this Law committed or alleged to have been committed by the approved provider, the nominated supervisor, the staff member or the volunteer;

(xii)   an infringement notice served on the approved provider, the nominated supervisor, the staff member or the volunteer.

(5A) The Regulatory Authority must publish details of any enforcement actions set out in subsection (5) as follows –

(a)   for enforcement actions taken before the commencement of Division 1 of Part 5 of the Early Childhood Legislation Amendment (Child Safety) Act 2025 – as soon as possible after that commencement but no later than 14 days after that commencement;

(b)   for enforcement actions taken on or after the commencement of Division 1 of Part 5 of the Early Childhood Legislation Amendment (Child Safety) Act 2025 – as soon as possible after that action is taken but no later than 14 days after that action is taken.

(5B) The Regulatory Authority must take reasonable steps to ensure any information published on the Regulatory Authority’s Internet site under subsection (5) is accurate.”.

2.   Clause 110, page 119, line 25, omit “may” and insert “must”.

3.   Clause 110, page 120, lines 1 to 3, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

“(b) the role in which a person in relation to whom enforcement action has been taken is or has been employed, engaged or appointed in or as part of an education and care service;”.

4.   Clause 110, page 120, line 10, omit “may” and insert “must”.

5.   Clause 110, page 120, line 14, omit ‘child.”.’ and insert ‘child.’.

6.   Clause 110, page 120, after line 14 insert –

‘(8) This section does not take effect until 27 April 2026.”.’.

These amendments are really anchored in greater transparency, because that is what parents deserve. As I said in the second-reading debate, we have seen in Victoria and New South Wales that allowing only internal reporting or government discretion can lead to delays, cover-ups and a lack of action until it is too late. I said in the beginning that clause 120 in the bill amends subsection (5) of section 270 of the Education and Care Services National Law Victoria to provide that the regulatory authority may publish information about a range of enforcement actions taken. However, we think that specific, proactive and timely reporting of information on enforcement actions should be mandatory for the sake of transparency and also Victorian parents’ confidence in the system to protect their children. The information is also required to be published within 14 days of the enforcement action, and the name and address of the provider must be specified. New subsection 5(AB) also expands the list of enforcement actions to be publicly reported to include suspension directions, supervision directions, training directions, disciplinary actions or the making of orders by a tribunal or court under section 188F. The amendments will commence on 27 April 2026 to allow systems on the government’s website to be developed to clearly display the information to the public. Parents should have the right to know what is happening in their childcare centres, what risks exist, what allegations have been made and what steps can be taken to protect children. Without this openness, trust is broken, and the system will not improve until it is too late. I commend the amendments to the house.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I thank Ms Gray-Barberio for her amendments. While I agree with the sentiment of them, I would argue that they duplicate the existing or proposed publication obligations, including the recent measures arising from the education ministers meetings. I would also put, though, as I did in my answer to an earlier question from Ms Gray-Barberio, that while we absolutely support, and many of the measures in this bill go to, those increased parameters of transparency, it is also necessary to retain discretion over information that is published at times in order for the best interests of the child to be protected, for child welfare reasons and also for procedural fairness, particularly for workers, particularly where there might be ongoing investigations. I appreciate the sentiment, but I argue that it is duplicative and also a little too blunt to deal with particularly child rights and worker rights that might arise with such a blunt instrument. I thank her for the sentiment and the expression of support for the measures, but we will be opposing these amendments.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Like the government, the opposition will be opposing these amendments for the same reasons the minister just articulated. I would like to restate that the Liberals and Nationals will be fully supporting this bill and also understand the excruciatingly long national process that the minister and the government have had to go through in order to get to where we are in strengthening the national law framework, updating all of the assessment processes, introducing a new offence of inappropriate conduct within early childhood settings and addressing gaps in the system, and I express our full support for this bill.

Amendments negatived; clause agreed to; clauses 111 to 116 agreed to.

Clause 117 (22:08)

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I move:

1.   Clause 117, line 1, omit “16HAH” and insert “16HAK”.

2.   Clause 117, page 142, line 11, omit ‘regulations.”.’.’ and insert ‘regulations.”.’.

3.   Clause 117, page 142, after 11 insert –

‘16HAI Direction to suspend education and care by staff member (other than a family day care educator) or volunteer

Section 178A of the Education and Care Services National Law (Victoria) applies as a law of Victoria as if –

(a)   in subsection (2), for “provider a notice” there were substituted “provider and the relevant staff member or volunteer (as the case may be) a notice”; and

(b)   in subsection (2)(c) after “provider” there were inserted “and the relevant staff member or volunteer (as the case may be)”; and

(c)   in subsection (3), for “provider a show” there were substituted “provider and the relevant staff member or volunteer (as the case may be) a show”; and

(d)   in subsection (3)(a) after “provider” there were inserted “and the relevant staff member or volunteer (as the case may be)”.

16HAJ Direction to suspend education and care by nominated supervisor

Section 178B of the Education and Care Services National Law (Victoria) applies as a law of Victoria as if –

(a)   in subsection (2), for “provider a notice” there were substituted “provider and the relevant nominated supervisor a notice”; and

(b)   in subsection (2)(c) after “provider” there were inserted “and the relevant nominated supervisor”; and

(c)   in subsection (3), for “provider a show” there were substituted “provider and the relevant nominated supervisor a show”; and

(d)   in subsection (3)(a) after “provider” there were inserted “and the relevant nominated supervisor”.

16HAK Direction requiring supervision of staff member (other than a family day care co-ordinator) or volunteer

Section 178C of the Education and Care Services National Law (Victoria) applies as a law of Victoria as if –

(a)   in subsection (4), for “provider a notice” there were substituted “provider and the relevant staff member or volunteer (as the case may be) a notice”; and

(b)   in subsection (4)(c) after “provider” there were inserted “and the relevant staff member or volunteer (as the case may be)”; and

(c)   in subsection (5), for “provider a show” there were substituted “provider and the relevant staff member or volunteer (as the case may be) a show”; and

(d)   in subsection (5)(a) after “provider” there were inserted “and the relevant staff member or volunteer (as the case may be)”.’.’

These are relatively minor but important amendments to put on the record insofar as the law will apply in Victoria. I acknowledge, in relation to discussions that are ongoing around the package of reforms, the amendment to the Early Childhood Legislation Amendment (Child Safety) Bill 2025 in my name is in substance to modify the application of proposed new sections 178A, 178B and 178C in the bill as they apply in Victoria for the show cause process under those provisions to include the staff member or volunteer affected by the relevant direction to the approved provider. As I said in my summing-up, this is a reflection of the good faith consultation and matters raised with me, particularly by the United Workers Union, as to the importance of workers, not just the provider, receiving a show cause notice under these provisions, and I thank them for that constructive engagement.

Evan MULHOLLAND: The Liberals and Nationals will be supporting these amendments. Although we received the amendments quite late, we see no issue with these amendments. I thank the minister’s office for the constructive way in which they have explained it.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: The Greens will be supporting these amendments. It is important to have workforce engagement, and their needs are met by these amendments.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 118 to 125 agreed to.

Reported to house with amendments.

 Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (22:11): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (22:11): 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 has agreed to the bill with amendments.