Wednesday, 3 December 2025

 Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (18:15):(By leave) I seek to circulate amendments to be moved in the committee stage of this bill in my name.

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (18:15): I would like to withdraw my instruction motion.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Clause 1 (18:17)

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Minister, can I ask: with the reportable conduct scheme moving to the Social Services Regulator from the Commission for Children and Young People, will organisations still be left to investigate issues within their own centres, or will the SSR investigate circumstances of abuse, neglect and sexual abuse?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The way the reportable conduct scheme works is it is almost as if they contract out the investigation. That will still be the case, but there will be the increased level of oversight of the regulators being brought together and the reportable conduct scheme being within the Social Services Regulator sitting alongside the child safe standards and working with children check, and that information will be able to be shared much more freely.

David ETTERSHANK: I would like to circulate the amendments that are in my name.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: How regularly would this investigation by SSR happen? Will it be with every case, or will it be in exceptional circumstances or adverse situations?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Sorry, Ms Gray-Barberio, just to clarify your question, are you referring to the own-motion powers?

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Sorry, I think it is because we got cut off. But it was a follow-up question to the reportable conduct scheme moving to the SSR. How regularly will this investigation by SSR happen? Will it be with every case or cases that are considered adverse or special cases?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: It would be at the regulator’s discretion.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: If you could just please clarify for the house, Minister: when you say ‘at discretion’, what does that mean? Is there going to be a checklist, or how would they be able to determine the scope of discretion?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: There will be a risk assessment framework. There will be certain factors which would then be measured in each and every case, and at the discretion of the regulator, depending on the seriousness of what is being alleged, the investigation would then proceed or otherwise.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Will there be any oversight of how SSR handles reportable conduct matters?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The SSR is obviously an independent regulator, so the usual provisions apply and then the usual oversight of independent regulators also applies. It is subject to obviously the usual reporting mechanisms in the usual way as well as the other oversight functions of government.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Could you just, please, I guess, reassure the house that the structural issues that we saw with the quality assessment and regulation division (QARD) are not going to be repeated at the SSR landscape?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I assume when you mean the structural issues, QARD was obviously a part of the Department of Education. The bill that we passed previously, as I know you well know, establishes the Victorian Early Childhood Regulatory Authority (VECRA). It sets up an independent early childhood regulator. The SSR, while it is 12 months in and being fundamentally restructured through this process and looking somewhat different to what it looks like now, still is a statutory independent regulator. It is not really comparable to QARD from the outset, let alone with its new functions. I can certainly assure the house that it is subject to the usual oversight and auditing and IBAC et cetera. That will all be the case, as it is for any other statutory entity.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: How will complaints about authorised officers of the regulator itself be handled?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: It would depend on the nature of the complaint. Obviously in the first instance complaints could be made to the regulator themselves, but certainly also the Ombudsman and again other similar functions that apply to whole of government.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Is there an independent complaints pathway and external investigator for complaints against the regulator if they are not performing their functions adequately?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I would refer you to my previous answer, but it would depend on the nature of the complaint. As I said, there is the usual oversight from IBAC in terms of anti-corruption through to the Ombudsman, in terms of effective operation of government in accordance with the regulatory framework in which it exists, for example. There is that option, but it would depend on the nature of the complaint which of those is the answer to your question.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: What are the potential risks of moving all education and guidance regulatory functions to the Social Services Regulator?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: We believe that, in establishing an independent regulator and bringing those functions together, we are actually reducing risk rather than creating further risk. I think it will. We do not foresee any in particular, but if you have got a more specific question, I am happy to go to your concern.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: No, I did not have any specific example; I just wanted to understand how the regulator will be able to respond to those potential risks. We are bringing in the reportable conduct scheme, the worker screening, as well as the working with children check into the Social Services Regulator, and we want to ensure that there is accountability and transparency but also information sharing to ensure that we are not having predators that are able to exploit loopholes in the system. Can you please just explain and once again reassure the house that this is the answer to closing those loopholes?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: It has certainly been my long-held and firm view, as the house well knows, that bringing regulatory functions together actually improves information sharing and ensures that we have systems that can talk to each other and assess the risk together and that we do not have, as the child safety review referred to, breadcrumbs of information sitting in different parts of government, where – as we have seen in some of the terrible cases that have come to light – one piece of information may have sat with one entity or one regulator and another with another and those breadcrumbs never joined up. Very clearly what the rapid review told us is that we need to join up those breadcrumbs. I was already clearly a firm believer in bringing regulation together, because I think there is an inherent interconnectedness in people’s need for regulation to be brought together, because people do not usually just have one issue. There might be a child with another particular vulnerability, and if you can bring the information and the services and whatnot together, then I think you will improve information flow.

David ETTERSHANK: Are these working with children check provisions designed primarily to address childcare workers and early childhood educators?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The working with children check is obviously a scheme that applies for anyone who works with children. My view is that children should be kept safe wherever they are learning, wherever they are playing and wherever they are being supported in their wellbeing and growth, and the working with children check strives to assist us to do that.

David ETTERSHANK: Would it be your assessment that the regulator has the ability to deal with a very large and diverse range of workers in addressing its responsibilities under the bill?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Yes.

David ETTERSHANK: So could you just confirm: would the provisions here apply to, for example – apart from, obviously, early childhood workers – also teacher aides, kindergarten workers, secondary and primary teachers and tertiary university teachers and lecturers?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Teachers, for example, are separately regulated by the Victorian Institute of Teaching (VIT) and so there are different schemes that apply in different ways for different parts of the workforce. What we are seeking to do here is implement the recommendations of the rapid review into child safety in the working with children check, and we are making the improvements that it recommended.

David ETTERSHANK: Would it also be correct that it would potentially apply to all bus drivers and all taxidrivers who might be involved in transporting children?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Again, Mr Ettershank, we are seeking to keep children safe wherever children are learning, wherever they are playing and wherever they are being supported in their growth and wellbeing, and where that requires somebody to have a working with children check, these reforms would obviously apply to them, but that is principally child-related work.

David ETTERSHANK: Are you saying then, Minister, that if the complaint against the person who is the holder of the working with children check is not to do with children, this bill would not have relevance? Or will it deal with all complaints about someone, which could strike to their ability to retain their working with children check?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: We have made it very clear, Mr Ettershank, that what we are seeking to do here is implement the recommendations of the rapid review into child safety in the working with children check. They told us that we needed to make these reforms in order to keep children safe wherever they learn, wherever they play and wherever they are being supported in their wellbeing and their growth. If they are a working with children check holder – the particular provisions that allow them to have a valid working with children check are about keeping children safe.

David ETTERSHANK: So if a complaint is made about a bus driver that that bus driver is rude to a child, would that fall within the purview of the Social Services Regulator?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As I said, what we are doing is seeking to keep children safe. If children’s safety is at threat or is being threatened by the activity of the working with children check holder and it is child-related, then it would be potentially impacted by some of the changes that we are making in the bill. But the work needs to be child-related. It is directly child-related. We are not talking about incidental conduct, and that is clearly set out in the act. But what we are doing here is implementing the rapid review recommendations, which said that we needed to make these improvements to the working with children check in order to keep children safe.

David ETTERSHANK: I am sorry, I did not quite understand your answer. I think we all understand your motivation and drawing on the rapid review, and we will come back later to whether your rapid review trumps the royal commission. But for the purposes of this one, could you just answer me the question, please: if there is a complaint against that bus driver that they have been rude to a child, would the course of action be that a complaint could be made to the Social Services Regulator that that bus driver has been rude and they would be captured by this scheme?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I have been very clear, Mr Ettershank, we are not seeking to capture incidental conduct issues, as the bill – and I would urge those in the house that have not yet read the bill to read it – retains the unjustifiable risk threshold for determining when someone’s working with children check clearance must be refused or revoked. That is, a clearance will only be granted where there is no unjustifiable risk to the safety of children. This is principally about the paramount safety of the child, and the bill will strengthen and clarify the risk assessment test to enhance those protective purposes, as was recommended by the child safety review.

David ETTERSHANK: Minister, could you tell me if this would apply to effectively all nurses in our public and private health systems?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Again – and I am happy to start referring you to my previous answers, Mr Ettershank – this is child-related work, and there is clearly a test where there is an unjustifiable risk threshold for determining when someone’s working with children check clearance should be refused or revoked, and that is where there is an unjustifiable risk to the safety of the child. The scheme, as I said, applies wherever there are people working with children and children are being supported in their learning, in their growing, in their wellbeing, in their playing, because this is about keeping children safe wherever they are.

David ETTERSHANK: I think perhaps we can help you with some briefer answers, Minister, in terms of saying that the primacy that we accord to the safety of our children is not in dispute. I think we can all agree on that. This is a question, in my mind, first, about unforeseen consequences of hastily drafted legislation and, secondly, about having some due process and natural justice applied to workers. In the first instance, because there is a bit of ground we are going to cover here, I want to try and get an understanding of the breadth of the workforce that falls within this scope, because it has been largely understood that this is primarily about childcare workers. But I would like to suggest to you that it is actually much, much broader than that, and that is my intent. I am going to take it as a yes that this could apply to every nurse in the state. Could I also ask you: would it therefore apply equally to occupational therapists, physiotherapists, mental health nurses and all aged care workers?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I have never reduced the working with children check or safety of children issues just to early childhood services, and I actually resent the accusation. The fact that this bill has taken so long to get to this stage of the debate is because I have been trying to protect the breadth of the application of this bill well beyond just early education – because my greatest fear is that we settle on a system that protects children in early education – and in particular, in relation to some of the issues I know you have been interested in in relation to disability, to ensure that we clamp down on child safety in early education at the same time as the Commonwealth is asking us to set up a new system of foundational supports for children with disabilities. And we say to all of the evil people out there who might find those cracks in the systems where there are vulnerable children: go over there instead. My point has always been that child safety is not only about children in early education systems but about children wherever they are learning, wherever they are playing and wherever they have been supported or are being supported in their growth and wellbeing. This should have the broadest possible application so that when someone is working with children – we are not talking about incidental activity, Mr Ettershank; we are not talking about non-related child work – and when, unlike the VIT system for teachers, we do not have another system that ensures that there are those protections around them, we have a system that we know we can have some trust and some faith in and that families and children themselves can have trust and faith in that will protect and uphold the paramount safety of the child.

David ETTERSHANK: Again, I think we are in furious agreement about the principles that underpin the legislation. What I am trying to get to at this stage, whilst I understand that there was a dispute over its application to the disability sector and that that has been temporarily addressed, is that my concern is that this regulator is being set up in such a manner that it potentially captures hundreds of thousands of Victorian workers who come in contact with children and who work with children directly or indirectly. We will come back to the incidental clause later, but if we look at the provision of that incidental clause, manifestly it has challenges in its interpretation. Also, in terms of triaging, there are issues. In terms of the rights of workers who have lost their check, then they have lost their jobs. When they have lost their jobs under this bill, they have no right to have that review, or in fact even to know what the allegations are against them, for up to six months, and that is a devastating thing which this bill does.

In clarifying the breadth of this I want to make it clear that I am asking you that because I know this has been sold as a childcare thing but it is much more than that. This is the whole section of the workforce that interacts with kids. We are talking about transport workers, we are talking about educators and we are talking about most of the health workforce falling within this purview. I presume, Minister – please tell me if I am wrong – that this would apply to all foster carers. It would apply to, for example, sports coaches and instructors. It would apply to ministers of religion. Have I got any of those wrong, Minister?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Child-related work is defined in the act in section 7, if you would like to have a look at it, Mr Ettershank. We are not changing who the working with children check will apply to. At the current point in time there are not hundreds of thousands but 2 million cardholders with working with children checks.

I reject the premise of your question – it was really a statement, not a question – that this is in some way weakening procedural fairness. I too have had conversations with unions and others around what that looks like. As you well know from discussions that you and I have had, we were with a range of stakeholders – with everybody in this Parliament indeed and with stakeholders who support or do not support all or other elements of this bill – trying to present this bill in a way in which it got the broadest possible support, because I know that everybody in this chamber, certainly all of those representing the workforce and indeed the vast, vast majority of those who work with children, have the paramount interest of the child as their number one concern. I do not doubt that. But what the rapid review told us was that the law and the regulations do not put the child first, and that is what they asked us to do. It is what we have done in the two bills that we have just passed, and it is what we are now seeking to do in this bill.

While we have tried ad nauseam, at length, to resolve or give comfort around some of the things that might be concerning stakeholders, unions, the workforce or indeed members of this chamber, ultimately what we have to do is weigh up how we protect, through this bill, the implementation of the largest part of the rapid review that we can possibly do. The number one recommendation that Mr Weatherill and Ms White made at the outset was the paramount interest of the child and that these changes to the working with children check needed to be made in order to protect child safety. That is what is happening here. We have sought, within the parameters of the bill, to build into it as much as possible all of the things that you speak of, Mr Ettershank – we believe that they are there – but at the same time I make no apology for child safety coming first.

David ETTERSHANK: Minister, good on you. I think we all agree that child safety should come first. I think that one is probably a bit of an empty horse. But moving on and recognising that we all accept the primacy of caring for kids, would it be fair for me to describe what has happened over the last week or two as a fact that there were indeed negotiations with multiple unions, that there was agreement in principle to a set of due process and natural justice amendments and that those were removed today?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: This response to the child safety review is three bills. The first two of those we have passed without issue. There were some good conversations around those and people worked collaboratively, and indeed there was a particular amendment made to one of those, I think with the unanimous agreement of the house that that was the case. What we have sought to do, as I just outlined in my previous answer, is work with all of the stakeholders, unions included, to come up with a package of reforms that protects the integrity of the bill that the government was proposing and in the broadest possible sense fulfils the objectives of the child safety review. Absolutely, we have sought to try and give comfort to those who were concerned about the inclusion of the disability services commissioner and the Victorian Disability Worker Commission, for example, and we have also sought to give comfort to unions which have raised certain issues in relation to procedural fairness.

From my perspective, in the implementation of the review it was critical that that was a package of reforms that in the broadest possible sense achieved all of the objectives of the review. Through the negotiations and the discussions which you have referred to, Mr Ettershank, it has become clear that we cannot achieve all of those things. What the government has had to do is pick a pathway for this bill to succeed, because we cannot wait for the child safety reforms. We have waited too long. We have tried for three weeks now to resolve everybody’s issues, and it has become apparent to me that I cannot resolve everybody’s issues and have a majority vote for this bill. I cannot in good conscience, and there are some aspects of the bill that I would have preferred to have seen and the government would have preferred to have seen, particularly in relation to protecting children with disability, because as I outlined to the house in the previous sitting week, recommendation 8.1 of the review very clearly said – and indeed Ms Gray-Barberio’s questions went to this before – that there should be a ‘no wrong door’ approach and that we should have an interconnected regulatory system that ensures that those breadcrumbs are vacuumed up and that we do not leave pieces of information about a child over here and then over here and then over here and never actually talking to each other. The rapid review was very clear in relation to 8.1 what needed to happen. We have sought to negotiate with parties to come up with a pathway that protected all elements of the bill but, sadly, it is clear that that cannot happen.

The fastest way to ensure that we can implement these working with children check changes, which in my view are the most important, the most critical, because they go across the whole of the system – as I said, there are 2 million cardholders. It applies wherever there is child-related work, as defined under section 7 of the act, if you need to go and have a look at what actually counts as child-related work. But wherever there are working with children check holders who are working with children, wherever they are, as I said, learning, playing, growing and being cared for, the rules around those working with children check provisions are clear. They are improved and they will become nation-leading, rather than needing to catch up, going to the opposition’s point that the recommendations of the Ombudsman’s report be implemented. This all needs to happen now. So while I would have preferred to have resolved everyone’s issues, it was very clear to me over the course of the last two weeks – it is probably why I have no voice – that is not possible. So while I would have preferred that, the pathway that we are on is the pathway that will get the majority vote in this house for making sure children are safe through the implementation of the working with children check changes.

David ETTERSHANK: Minister, I am lost for words for where to go now, but I am going to have a punt at it. Are you saying that you agreed with the unions to –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Ettershank, if you can ask a question, not interpret what the minister is saying. Committee stage is very important for the interpretation of the legislation, so it is not about putting words in the minister’s mouth. The minister will answer for herself if you can just frame a question, please, rather than trying to interpret what you think you understand from the minister’s answer.

David ETTERSHANK: I am sorry, Deputy President, but that is why I started the sentence with ‘Are you saying’, because I am seeking clarification. What have I missed?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. I thought you were going to interpret what she said, and it is better to just ask a straight question.

David ETTERSHANK: It was just a very long answer, so I am trying to pull together a couple of threads.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. I will allow it this time.

David ETTERSHANK: Minister, are you saying that you have previously agreed with the unions to a set of natural justice and due-principle amendments and they were binned today because you could not get the numbers in the house to get the bill through if you granted those basic workers rights?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: No.

David ETTERSHANK: Thank you for the brevity of that answer, but perhaps we can find a happy medium with a slightly more elaborated answer. Could you explain to me how those two are connected? Because that is pretty much exactly what you just said.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Mr Ettershank, what I outlined at length – I will not repeat myself, and you indeed have asked me to be brief – is that we have sought to give comfort and resolve people’s concerns. It is clear that we cannot do that, but what we have here is a bill that meets the child safety review, that implements the child safety review, and that is what the house is being asked to consider.

David ETTERSHANK: Minister, you have referred repeatedly to the rapid review, which has recommended vacuuming up breadcrumbs. If I take, for example, the question of the disability workforce, if I look at what has been said there about the regulator, because I want to move on to the question of the regulator, because we are saying now that the regulator potentially captures 2 million workers or volunteers or whatever – I thank you for providing that number; I was unaware that it was just so huge – this regulator will be expected to be able to address, subject to the incidental provisions in clause 7, and to deal with 2 million workers. If I look at, say, disability workers, they do have their own channel, apparently – possibly, hopefully – without pre-empting the deliberations today. If I look at the comments from Julie Phillips, the CEO of the Disability Discrimination Legal Service and the chair of Disability Advocacy Victoria, she stated in a recent letter:

… disability service providers do not in any way shape or form represent the disability community, and indeed have been heavily involved in subjecting them to violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation …

She went on:

… a few people with disabilities on a reference group, who do not represent the disability community, and indeed are not allowed to share their discussions with the disability community, does not constitute consultation …

I am wondering what your response to that would be, given your previous statement about the extent of consultation in the formation of this bill?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I have already outlined for the house previously, including in my summing-up, the extent of the consultation that was undertaken in relation to the bill.

David ETTERSHANK: Did that consultation extend to the transport industry and the Transport Workers’ Union?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I refer you to my previous answer, Mr Ettershank.

David ETTERSHANK: Sorry, I missed how that connected. Could I ask: was the transport sector and the Transport Workers’ Union consulted about the application of this legislation? Yes or no would be great.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The rapid review consulted widely, Mr Ettershank, and consultation was further spoken to in my summing-up. I refer you to Hansard.

David ETTERSHANK: So are you saying that indeed the transport industry and the Transport Workers’ Union were consulted by the rapid review?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I refer you to Hansard, Mr Ettershank.

David ETTERSHANK: This is getting interestingly circular. Could you indulge me and share with the chamber what we would find if we were to refer to those pages in Hansard?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: There was extensive consultation on the bill. I have outlined it previously to the house, and I refer you to Hansard.

David ETTERSHANK: Well, that is interesting. Let us see if we can get some different reactions. Were the acute health sector and the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation consulted by the rapid review?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Again, the rapid review consulted widely. I did not conduct the rapid review. Jay Weatherill and Pam White conducted the rapid review, and they consulted broadly. As I have indicated previously, there has been further consultation in relation to this bill. I have outlined it to the house a number of times, and I refer you to Hansard.

David ETTERSHANK: I am really none the wiser. Would it be fair to say that you are just unaware of whether or not the nurses federation and, for example, the Victorian Hospitals Industrial Association were consulted? Is it just that you do not know, or is it that it has actually been covered in Hansard and I just need to go away and read it?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The rapid review sets out quite clearly who they consulted with. I have also detailed in the house on a number of occasions who I have consulted with. Consultation has been broad. It is publicly available. It is available in Hansard, and I refer you to those opportunities.

David ETTERSHANK: I put it to you, Minister, that in fact the transport industry and the Transport Workers’ Union were not consulted.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As I have said, who has been consulted is publicly available. We can keep asking the question a number of ways, but I will therefore continue to answer in a number of ways. I have detailed for the house on a number of occasions the consultation we have been through. The thing I would add to that was the rapid review was open to anyone who wanted to be consulted to apply to do so.

David ETTERSHANK: Let us assume that in fact the transport industry and the Transport Workers’ Union were not consulted. Are you saying that it is incumbent upon them to have approached the rapid review, which was pretty rapid? Are you saying that it would have been incumbent upon them, and if they chose not to approach the rapid review, then that is their fault, and if they are captured by the legislation, that is their fault?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I do not appreciate words being put in my mouth, Mr Ettershank. I have outlined for the house on a number of occasions who has been publicly listed in the rapid review as having been consulted, including that it was open to others to put forward submissions to the rapid review if they wanted to, as well as the suite of reforms. Again I note that none of these questions were put by you, Mr Ettershank, when it came to the other two bills. But in relation to all three bills, they are all in response to the child safety rapid review, and the consultation around the whole of the rapid review, including all three bills, has been detailed a number of times now.

David ETTERSHANK: Sorry, I am not quite following you there, Minister. Are you saying to us that the other two bills had a similar application to around 2 million working with children check people?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Particularly the bill in relation to the national law has huge ramifications right across the sector. While I do not have available in front of me the number of people impacted by that bill, it is clear to say that it has a sizeable impact as well. What I am saying is that this is a package of reforms that are, as a package, a response to the rapid review and that the rapid review consulted broadly and invited anyone who wanted to submit to it to submit to it.

David ETTERSHANK: I think we might come back to this one. When we have had the dinner break, I will go and check the rapid review, and no doubt that will resolve the question.

Minister, the Office of the Public Advocate’s Community Visitors Annual Report 2024–2025 states that the Social Services Regulator has a record of poor enforcement, low accountability and a lower benchmark for minimum standards of care. I am wondering why you would imagine that should give confidence to the 2 million people that are potentially falling within the scope of this bill?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Thank you, Mr Ettershank, for a new question. As I have outlined to the house previously, the SSR was established on 1 July 2024, and it has undertaken a substantial amount of compliance, enforcement and education activity in 2024–25, contrary to your accusation. A key focus of the regulator has been on implementing the scheme, supporting providers to transition to the scheme and implementing a streamlined registration process. However, it used its broad regulatory powers, where warranted, to address risks to service users. For the record, in 2024–25 the regulator approved 64 new registration applications, bringing the total number of registered providers to 361; received 3896 notifications of notifiable incidents, 1088 of which were subject to a more detailed review; conducted 184 compliance inspections against the social services standards; completed 173 compliance activities relating to the child safe standards; processed 6233 worker and carer exclusion scheme database checks; issued seven exclusions and three interim exclusions against individuals working in the out-of-home care sector; and published a wide range of guidance material to support establishing the scheme in 2024–25. I could go on, but it is clearly evident that the Social Services Regulator in its first year has had a particularly busy and productive year.

It is also fair to say that what this bill does is fundamentally change the nature of the Social Services Regulator as it currently stands. It turns it into a new piece of social infrastructure, if you like, and with all of the new functions that it will have, as I have assured the house on other occasions, it will be adequately resourced to undertake those functions. It is not as if we are leaving the existing structure of the Social Services Regulator and simply asking it to do a whole lot of other jobs. We are fundamentally changing its balance, its nature and the way in which it works and setting it up so that it succeeds in doing the job of keeping children safe.

David ETTERSHANK: Sorry, Minister, I would hate that there was a suggestion that I was accusing – I think that was your expression. I was literally quoting the Office of the Public Advocate. Does that change your position in that regard?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I have outlined the successes of the first year of operation of the Social Services Regulator in its current form, I have spoken to its new form and I have assured the house it will be adequately resourced to undertake the new functions that it has been asked to do.

David ETTERSHANK: They were pretty impressive, the stats you rolled off there – hundreds and hundreds of complaints and things resolved and dozens of others. That is great. The resourcing that you are going to provide to the Social Services Regulator – in your mind, will that be adequate to cover the 2 million people that will fall within the scope of this bill?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The government has committed an initial investment of $42 million to implementing the recommendations of the rapid child safety review, including supporting the shift of the working with children check to the Social Services Regulator so it is adequately resourced to meet its existing and expanded remit. As I said, that is the existing number of cardholders that are currently resourced within the existing structure, who will be, as part of this, moved into the Social Services Regulator. So it brings with it those resources, plus the government has made a further investment of $42 million. It is our view and indeed it is the recommendation of the review – and as I said, we are committed to the recommendations of the review – that it be adequately resourced to undertake its functions.

David ETTERSHANK: Can I just take that as an unequivocal undertaking that the regulator will be resourced, staffed and managed in such a manner that it will be able to adequately and contextually assess the ability of workers to retain their working with children checks across that diverse range of industries that we have agreed fall within the purview of this bill?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: At the outset, I refer you to section 7 of the act, Mr Ettershank. It is not about what you agree falls within the purview of the bill but what is defined as being in the purview of the bill. As I have assured the house, we will implement every recommendation of the rapid safety review.

David ETTERSHANK: Minister, could I take you back to the understanding that existed with the unions and the Victorian Trades Hall Council. Is it your view that the issues that they raised with you were of sufficient merit that they would warrant amendment of this bill?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I am not going to give a blow-by-blow description of private conversations and consultations that I may have conducted, Mr Ettershank, but as a former union official, I made it very clear to those representing the workforce that coming from the perspective from which they were coming, I could understand why they were seeking comfort around some of the things that they sought comfort about. But at the same time, it is my view that the bill adequately provides for those issues. While we did seek in a number of ways to work with all stakeholders – not just unions, others as well – to try and address what they saw as risks or concerns in the bill, we think the bill fulfils the child safety review and balances the needs of workforce providers and others at the same time as fundamentally being about the paramount best interests of the child. What we are doing here is ultimately implementing, in the broadest possible sense, as many as possible of the recommendations of the rapid review.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Minister, if I can just ask you some questions around worker screening, what oversight mechanisms will there be for providers to make sure that they do not misuse the personal details of the workforce or the educators, and how will the register protect worker privacy?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: It will only be those with authorised access within the regulator. Obviously, as we talked about earlier in response to your questions, all of the necessary oversight protections – the Ombudsman’s protections and IBAC et cetera – apply around that to ensure that there is no corruption of that. But it will be authorised access within the context of the regulator.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Minister, if I could just ask a question regarding new part 3.4A, section 92B(3), is that consistent with human rights law for a person who commits an offence as a child to be considered an adult in any circumstance?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Ms Gray-Barberio, sorry if we have misunderstood you, but are you referring to the compatibility with the charter of human rights?

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Yes.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The bill obviously pursues the important objective of protecting child safety. In doing so it promotes the protection of a child’s best interests in accordance with section 17(2) of the charter, which seeks to protect the bodily integrity, mental health, dignity and self-worth of a child. The bill also seeks to promote the rights and protection of service users, including their rights to equality, life, privacy, freedom of movement and protection from inhumane and degrading treatment. The statement of compatibility notes that the bill engages and limits some charter rights but that overall the limitations are justified by the need to achieve the paramount consideration of protection of the children and of service users. The statement of compatibility notes that the decision-making procedures of a working with children check and the ability to revoke or suspend are likely to engage some other rights. Does that speak to that particular part of your question?

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Yes, thank you. Minister, why does the paramount consideration not apply to the regulator in carrying out functions for the working with children checks or the working with children clearance holders?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Within the Worker Screening Act 2020 there is already the paramountcy, but it was not in the SSR, so that is what we are putting in.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: I have just got a couple more questions. Minister, when are you hoping to implement this bill? Will it be sometime in January next year?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Parts of it are progressive, but royal assent is when some of the earliest functions will come in – for example, the reportable conduct scheme – and then others will follow.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: My last question is just around who is actually going to be appointed to be leading this regulator. How will that process happen?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: There is an existing Social Services Regulator. Mr Jonathan Kaplan is the regulator. The bill obviously, as we have talked about, provides for associate regulators, for example. They are also Governor in Council appointments, so they would be new appointments within the infrastructure as well.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Great. Thank you.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.

 Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (19:14): I move, by leave:

That the sitting be extended for a further half-hour.

Leave refused.

Progress reported.