Thursday, 4 December 2025

Clause 1 further considered (18:02)

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I just have one question this evening. My crossbench colleagues have asked many prior to now. I thank the minister for engaging in advance of this particular question, as it is quite specific in relation to the legislation. Schedule 2 of the bill amends section 3 of the Worker Screening Act 2020. In sections 6 and 9 of the Worker Screening Act historical homosexual convictions and convictions for transmission of HIV are still listed as offences which would require an applicant for an NDIS clearance to apply to the secretary – soon to be regulator – for the consideration of exceptional circumstances, per section 26 of the act, to be granted this clearance. These offences have long been repealed, so I ask, Minister: why do they continue to remain in the act?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I thank Mr Puglielli for his question and also for engaging with my office in relation to this important issue. In relation to the particular matters in Mr Puglielli’s question, we are informed that these offences have in the past been used to charge for conduct involving children. These offences need to be considered case by case, by the working with children check and the NDIS screen, in assessing whether a person poses an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children. We are advised that there are no substantive changes proposed to the current schedules contained in the Worker Screening Act other than consequential amendments to reflect transfer of worker screening functions to the regulator and also updating to ensure that they are the correct department names.

Importantly, Victoria decriminalised homosexual conduct in 1981. In 2014 the government recognised the unfairness of some Victorians continuing to carry a criminal record because they were convicted of criminal offences because, and only because, of that conduct. In passing the Sentencing Amendment (Historical Homosexual Convictions Expungement) Act 2014 the then Attorney-General noted that although allowing historical convictions to be expunged is simple in concept, it presented a legally complex problem, as the offences that had over the years been used to charge those engaged in consensual homosexual activities were often the same offences that were also used to charge cases that were truly criminal sexual assaults, including assaults against children. The expungement scheme requires a review of the available records for each conviction to ensure that the scheme only expunges convictions that were the result of a person’s homosexual conduct and not convictions in circumstances where charges would have been laid and a conviction would have resulted regardless of whether the conduct was homosexual or heterosexual. Offences can only be expunged if the conduct would be legal today, and for the same reason, the schedules listing offences that are relevant to the working with children check clearance and the NDIS worker screen list a range of historical offences that were once used to charge both consensual homosexual behaviour and behaviour that would still be a crime today, noting that the historical offences do not appear by name in the working with children check schedules but are incorporated via tables in the Sentencing Act 1991.

I want to confirm for the house that historical homosexual convictions will not result in a working with children check or NDIS check assessment or reassessment if they have been expunged. If a person has had a conviction for one of these offences expunged, then it will no longer be on their criminal record and will not be considered as part of a worker screen. However, if the conviction remains visible on their record, then the checking unit will gather the information and assess whether it reveals any child safety risk. Consensual behaviour between adults that would be legal today will not be considered an indicator of risk or contribute to a denial of a worker screen. However, if the offence was committed against a child, for example, it will be relevant to the assessment of an application for a working with children check or an NDIS worker screen.

I appreciate, Mr Puglielli, that that is a very detailed answer, but I wanted to, with respect to your question, make sure that all of that was on the record for you.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: Thank you, Minister, for the detailed answer. I just want to be certain that I have heard correctly. For both of these historic offences that rationale would apply. Is that correct?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: That is correct.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Minister, I just have a couple of questions, please. This is in relation to false or misleading information. When a person or educator provides false or misleading information, is this section of the law intended to capture intention to represent rather than genuine mistakes? I am referring to language barriers with regard to educators in the sector, that them providing any misleading information is from a genuine place rather than from a place of malice, given that much of the workforce is made up of multicultural and migrant women.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Sorry, Ms Gray-Barberio, just so that I make sure I understand your question correctly, you are not talking about vexatious complaints. You are talking about misunderstanding of information.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Misleading information, but from a genuine place. Will there be exceptions to that, given that the sector is made up of largely multicultural women, where there could be language barriers? Will there be accommodation for that?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: It is absolutely intended that there be opportunity at any stage for people to provide information that corrects the record and ensures that the accurate information is the information that is before the regulator.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: I appreciate you clarifying that. I just want to come back to one of my questions that you answered yesterday with regard to the transitional phase of the various transitions from the Commission for Children and Young People (CCYP). I know you said yesterday that there will be a transition phase with that, so what will that actually look like? Will it be, for example, that the reportable conduct scheme will come across first and then it will be the Worker Screening Act? Do you know yet how long that whole process will take?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Obviously commencement is when the new functions begin, and as I indicated yesterday, we are seeking to be faithful to the recommendations of the review, which, particularly in relation to working with children checks, said they should commence within 12 months of the review. Obviously the review was handed down in August. The reforms are significant and will be introduced progressively across 2026 to enable a smooth transition given their complexity and scale. Upon royal assent several critical reforms to the reportable conduct scheme will commence, including removing discretion for the Commission for Children and Young People not to share a substantiated reportable conduct finding with the worker screening unit, enabling the CCYP to share additional information with the worker screening unit about a substantiated allegation and recognising the findings of a reportable conduct investigation in another state or territory which relates to the same reportable allegation. Introducing these reforms as soon as the bill is passed will obviously go a significant way to improving information flows between the CCYP work as previously conducted and the worker screening unit as previously conducted, providing the unit with a broader range of information to inform those decisions, grant a reassessment or reassess a working with children check.

The remaining reforms will commence progressively in tranches. The first reforms will give the regulator responsibility for the worker screening functions, the reportable conduct scheme and the child safe standards, as I said yesterday, and the reforms to strengthen the working with children check scheme will commence next, including providing the regulator with access to a broader range of unsubstantiated risk-relevant child safety information that can trigger the power to recognise, reconsider, suspend, refuse or revoke someone’s working with children clearance without having to wait for formal outcomes such as charges being laid, such as we saw in relation to the Ron Marks case. Use of a new reassessment tool will provide an objective and consistent basis for the regulator’s assessment of unsubstantiated allegations, and as I said, the rapid review is quite clear and we made a commitment, as were talking about yesterday, to ‘under one roof’ by the end of the year and to the recommendations being implemented within 12 months of the review, which was obviously August this year.

David ETTERSHANK: I have got a few questions that I would like to work through with the minister, and I am conscious we have got a pile of amendments. So what I might try and do is just seek to cover those through a couple of case studies, and that will I think expedite the discussion when we get to the processing of the amendments.

Can I just say by way of a preliminary statement that we all agree that child safety is paramount. We know secure employment where workers are safe to speak up acts as a significant deterrent to unconscionable behaviour, and the rapid review emphasised this point. They said:

A workforce that is highly casualised may be less likely to feel comfortable to speak-up and report something if they have concerns. A workforce that is low paid and not properly valued by the community may struggle to attract and retain the most capable people. A workforce that struggles to attract staff may lead to services having to choose between hiring staff they don’t have full confidence in, or reducing capacity and turning children away.

I think that is a very good capturing point. I am sure the minister would be supportive of that finding. We seek to understand how the legislation will operate to create secure terms of employment so that people can speak out and they are not damaged in their employment for doing so, and again, this is consistent with the rapid review. So our questions seek to understand how the act will actually operate in real life and how it will apply to working with children check holders who have had a complaint made against them.

Before I do that, could I just ask a couple of questions arising from our chat last night? Minister, last night you advised that there was an appendix to the rapid review report that set out the groups who had been consulted in the rapid review. I think the context of the exchange was based on your assertion – and I do not want to verbal you here, but I think you basically said it – that groups like the Transport Workers’ Union and suchlike had been consulted and it was all contained in the report. Could I hand up a document? Minister, I am going to give you a document.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, the Clerk advises that it is not appropriate to hand out documents in committee.

David ETTERSHANK: My apologies, I was not quite sure what the process was for that. I guess my question is pretty simple. We have been through the webpage, taking on board your words and looking at Hansard. We have been through the review website, we have been through the review document, and there is no list of who has been consulted. So I am wondering if you could clarify that for us, please.

Michael Galea: On a point of order, Deputy President, I note that this question or similar questions were asked between about nine and 11 times last night by Mr Ettershank, and the minister gave the same clear answer each time. I would not want this committee to enter into the realm of tedious repetition, and I seek your guidance.

David ETTERSHANK: On the point of order, Deputy President, just to respond to the concern: I am not seeking to ask the same question again. Yes, I did ask a question repeatedly because I could not get an answer that I was clear on. What the minister did say was what I have just said, which is that it is in the report. So I am just saying that I have checked the report, and there is no list of people who were consulted. And I have also checked on the review website and there is nothing there. So I am not being repetitious, I am trying to get clarity. When the minister says that there has been extensive consultation and that information is available as to who has been consulted, where is that information available?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As I indicated last night, and for the benefit of Mr Ettershank, page 1 of the rapid review says:

The Review also met with and received information from:

•   experts, peak bodies, unions, providers and service leaders in early childhood education and care, including Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations

•   regulators in other sectors that work with vulnerable people; and

•   groups representing parents and the rights and interests of children.

I would welcome Mr Ettershank’s comments that we are all committed to child safety, and if Mr Ettershank is committed to child safety, particularly on a day like today, he should be supporting this bill and moving forward rather than presenting us with repetitious questions. Again, I refer him to my Hansard last night, I refer him to the rapid review and I will continue to do that throughout the course of the debate if Mr Ettershank to ask the same question over and over again.

David ETTERSHANK: I am going to have to take umbrage with the minister’s response there. Minister, you actually said:

The rapid review sets out quite clearly who they consulted with.

This was in the context of specific organisations being consulted. Could I respectfully suggest that the document quite clearly does not set out who specifically has been consulted with.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Mr Ettershank, you are verballing me and, as I said, I refer you to my Hansard on previous very similar questions to those which you have asked. Given that the point of the committee stage of the bill is for the interpretative functions in the operationalisation of, hopefully, the bill being implemented, I would ask that you keep your questions relevant to the bill.

David ETTERSHANK: Look, I appreciate you do not want to respond to what you said but, Minister, I am going to read directly from your words in Hansard:

The rapid review sets out quite clearly who they consulted with.

It was in a very specific context, apparently repetitiously so, and I am putting to you that in fact it does not say that and you have possibly misled the house.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I absolutely reject the premise of your allegation, Mr Ettershank. I just read to you from page 1 of the rapid review, and I continue to refer you to my Hansard.

David ETTERSHANK: Never mind. Minister, again, this is my secondary question from clarifying last night. Again on Hansard from last night, you made several references to extensive consultation. This document, in all of its 427 glorious pages – do you agree that this is a very complex piece of legislation?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Yes.

David ETTERSHANK: Minister, could you please explain how many meetings were held with groups to explain to them in detail how this complex legislation works so that organisations could actually understand the impacts on groups with which they were concerned?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As you know, the bill has been publicly available since tabling, and everyone has the opportunity to review the bill. As I have already spoken to, the rapid review, which was an independent review – not a review conducted by government but a review conducted by Mr Jay Weatherill and Ms Pam White – engaged with a broad range of stakeholders and peak bodies, including union representatives. They consulted with them in the development of the recommendations which are reflected in this bill and the other two which we have passed without the same degree of consternation from you. Perhaps you were not as concerned about those ones. The changes in the bill to overhaul the working with children legislative framework and consolidate key child safeguarding functions reflect the recommendations of the rapid review. Key stakeholders have also been consulted about the implementation of the reforms to establish a complaints function, consolidate oversight functions as far as possible in the Social Services Regulator and align regulation across sectors that work with children. This included a series of targeted sessions with peak bodies across different parts of the services that work with children. Consultations have also been held with unions and impacted entities, including the Social Services Regulator.

In relation to the functions we are now going to omit from the bill, there were consultations with the Victorian Disability Worker Commission, the Commission for Children and Young People, the disability services commissioner and a number of representatives from across the various other parts of the community whom this impacts. Exactly how many meetings, though, I have conducted, Mr Ettershank, is not relevant to the interpretation of this bill, and I ask you to keep your questions relevant.

David ETTERSHANK: It is funny how we always think that our own questions are relevant, Minister, but I thank you for your response. I will move on to some case studies. These are all drawn from real life. Obviously we will not mention names. I just want to map these against the six principles that have underpinned our amendments, and I think that will expedite discussion later.

The first principle we have raised is the one about amending the legislation to have the interim suspension or bar time period be two months, not six months, and that the suspension be for a maximum of 12 months, not 24 months. In this case study, the working with children check holder is a room leader in a long day care setting. The working with children check holder is protected under a family violence intervention order. Their ex-partner has made a complaint about them neglecting their child. The activity complained of has occurred outside the paid work environment. The working with children check holder is immediately stood down by their employer. This is consistent also, may I say, with much evidence in the Royal Commission into Family Violence. Could I ask, firstly: how would the regulator advise that working with children check holder about the complaint made against them?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Sorry, Mr Ettershank, could you repeat the actual question without all of the hypotheticals before it? I appreciate it might be a substantive case, but could you repeat the actual question without all the commentary?

David ETTERSHANK: Sure. There is nothing hypothetical about it, Minister, but –

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Regardless, I just want the question, not the –

David ETTERSHANK: How would the regulator advise that working with children check holder about the complaint that has been made against them?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: To support the expanded ability for the Social Services Regulator to trigger a risk assessment on the basis of any information it receives relevant to child safety risk, the bill creates the new suspension and interim bar power that will enable the regulator to immediately suspend a person’s working with children check clearance or prohibit a working with children check applicant from working while their application is processed. These broader suspensions and interim bar powers aim to close a gap where there is currently no ability to immediately prohibit a person from working with children while the regulator undertakes an assessment or reassessment. The worker absolutely has the right to input into that process. As I have indicated to a number of members of this chamber that have asked me about that and to stakeholders that have asked me about that, in relation to vexatious complaints, there is also opportunity for vexatious complaints to be dealt with.

David ETTERSHANK: I am sorry, I am missing something here. It may well have been something you have answered previously to other persons, but I certainly missed that. Could I go back to the very simple question that I asked, which was: how would the Social Services Regulator advise that person about the complaint that has been made against them? Or would they not advise them?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: It will be a matter for the regulator to operationalise, but obviously if a complaint is made against somebody, they will receive written notice.

David ETTERSHANK: When you say ‘they will receive written notice’, written notice of what? Would they receive notice that their working with children check has been suspended, or would they be advised what the complaint is that has been made against them, or both?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: It would be on a case-by-case basis and would depend on the nature of the complaint. For example, if it is sensitive information and based on something that they have been advised by Victoria Police, they may well not be in a position to tell them the very specifics of what that is. So it will be a matter for the regulator to operationalise. They will be advised in writing of a suspension, they will be advised of that relevant decision and they will have an opportunity to respond to that. But what we do not want is the likes of Mr Ron Marks, who was understood to have serious child pornographic material on a digital device without charges having been laid, and no-one being in a position to be able to do anything about it. But also there are times when the police may not actually want to tip off a person that they have that information on them. So it will have to be on a case-by-case basis. That is why dealing in cases like those you have just put to me here in the chamber is not an effective way for us to have this conversation.

Sitting suspended 6:30 pm until 7:31 pm.

David ETTERSHANK: I think we were still on the first of the principles, and I think were at the question of how long the regulator would take. Sorry, we have not got past that one. We asked about how the regulator would advise the working with children check holder about the complaint made against them. I think we got to the point where we had been advised that they would be told that they had lost their working with children check, but I do not think we got an answer, Minister, with the greatest respect, to the question of whether they would be told about the complaint made against them. I do not want to put words in your mouth, but I think you sort of said there may be police matters and such like. Take the findings of your rapid review, where it found that the overwhelming majority of people are good, honest, hardworking, committed workers. Let us say we are talking about that, so we are not talking about criminals or predators. How would they know what the complaint is against them?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I refer you to Hansard from before the dinner break.

David ETTERSHANK: All right. We did not get an answer before, and we did not get an answer then. Could I perhaps put the question slightly differently. Would they be told if they are not a criminal, if they are just, as in this scenario, an ex-partner who has got a family violence intervention order? Would they be told what is the complaint against them?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I have previously answered your question, Mr Ettershank.

David ETTERSHANK: Minister, again, I do not want to put words in your mouth, so are you effectively saying –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Ettershank, please do not put words in the minister’s mouth. The minister has given her answer.

David ETTERSHANK: Based on your response, Minister, would it be reasonable to assume that they are not going to be told about the complaint against them?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I refer you to my earlier answer.

David ETTERSHANK: I am kind of gobsmacked. Going back again to our scenario, could I ask: how long would the regulator take to examine the complaint?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I refer you to my earlier answer.

David ETTERSHANK: This is getting embarrassing. Thank you, Minister, for that informative response. So would it be fair to say, Minister – or would it be based on your previous statements, because obviously I am a bit slow – that the timeframe for the regulator to examine the complaint is not defined in the legislation?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As I said in my earlier answer, it depends on the matter, and I am not going to continually repeat myself, even though you insist on a repetitious line of questioning.

David ETTERSHANK: It is a bit like ‘I refuse to answer the question on the grounds that it may incriminate me.’

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I ask that you withdraw that, Mr Ettershank.

David ETTERSHANK: My apologies, Minister. I withdraw that unconditionally.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Ettershank, your reference before, which inferred that the minister thought you were a bit slow – I do not know what you mean by that – was not appropriate for the Parliament.

David ETTERSHANK: I take your point. I was simply I think trying to suggest that I might have missed the nuances of the minister’s answer. Minister, if the complaint against the working with children check holder was found to be vexatious – and we know, for example, in this context, if we look at the findings of the Royal Commission into Family Violence, that doxxing and those sorts of things are all too and tragically common – as in the scenario where the ex-partner had dobbed them in, how long would the working with children check holder be unable to work in any employment requiring a working with children check?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The bill makes it an offence for a person to provide false or misleading information to the regulator about a working with children check applicant or working with children clearance holder, which is directly targeted at individuals who may attempt to make vexatious complaints about a person. But the purpose of the bill is to ensure that people engaging in child-related work do not pose an unjustifiable risk to children. This is central to the paramount consideration of the protection of children, which you have indicated you support. It applies at all stages of the working with children check screening process, from first instance decision-making to the internal review.

David ETTERSHANK: Sorry, are you saying there that the vexatious complaint would be illegal throughout that process? I just misunderstood where you were going there.

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

David ETTERSHANK: If I go back to the royal commission, clearly there are malevolent actors, and that is part of why you are introducing this legislation. So let us assume that that person who is doing the doxxing is a bad actor and they are not going to be persuaded by the penalties in the act against vexatious complaints. How long would the working with children check holder be unable to work in that employment which is requiring it? How long would it be before the regulator addressed that vexatious complaint and the person’s working with children check was returned?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The regulator will only impose suspensions on the basis of child safety risk information, and only for as long as is necessary to assess whether a worker should be excluded because they pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children.

David ETTERSHANK: With the greatest respect, Minister, I do not think that is actually the question. Forgive me, but I am really talking about not who may or may not be captured, I am talking about, in the context of a vexatious complaint, how long it would be before the working with children check was returned.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I refer you to my previous answer.

David ETTERSHANK: I am going to assume that is indeterminate, and I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong, Minister.

Lizzie Blandthorn: On a point of order, Deputy President, I would ask that Mr Ettershank does not assume and does not put words in my mouth. I have answered his question and have referred him to the answers that I have given, and it is inappropriate for him to then rephrase my answers to his preferred version.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I uphold the point of order. I have asked Mr Ettershank not to verbal you. I point out, Mr Ettershank, the dangers of doing that. The committee stage is a very serious and very important part of interpreting legislation in the courts, and it is only the ministers who should be actually interpreting the legislation, no-one else.

David ETTERSHANK: Thank you, Deputy President, duly taken on board, and I certainly do not wish to do any of those things.

Perhaps I will move on to the next principle that will be contained within our amendments, and that is the opportunity for workers to respond to the allegations prior to the interim decision to suspend or revoke a working with children check. Again, Minister, I can assure you this is not a hypothetical. I think that was how you described my previous example. This is not a hypothetical. The working with children check holder is a swimming instructor. A complaint is made against them of psychological harm to a child. The instructor is accused of yelling at the child. The facts are that the swimming instructor is raising their voice so the child in the swimming pool can hear them, but a concerned parent nonetheless notifies the regulator. At what point would the working with children check holder be advised of the details of the complaint made against them?

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

David ETTERSHANK: How many days after the complaint is made does the regulator assess the seriousness of the complaint?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I refer you to my earlier answers, Mr Ettershank.

David ETTERSHANK: Could you remind me when it was that you answered previously the question about the timeframes associated with notification from the regulator?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: You can check Hansard, Mr Ettershank.

David ETTERSHANK: Yes, we actually did check Hansard at length, which is where a lot of these questions have come from. I will not draw any conclusions. The community can do that. What factors does the regulator take into account when considering the seriousness of a complaint?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Unjustifiable risks for the safety of children, Mr Ettershank.

David ETTERSHANK: What right does the working with children person have to be able to respond to the accusations made against them?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Giving workers the opportunity to make submissions prior to suspension or interim bar decisions would prevent the regulator from being able to immediately suspend someone’s ability to work with children in inappropriate circumstances and be contrary to the recommendations of the rapid review. The rapid review found that Victoria’s worker screening legislation was lacking because unlike in New South Wales it does not permit immediate suspension of an individual’s work rights, pending a reassessment, where there is a real and appreciable risk of harm to children. Requiring the regulator to provide for a notification and submission process before they can interim bar or suspend someone would mean that immediate action could not be taken and is insufficiently protective of children’s rights because it would allow risk to children to continue while the notification and submission process runs its course. It is expected that these interim powers would be used judiciously by the regulator where there are red flags of concern indicating it is in the interests of the safety of children to justify their use. During the time the person is interim barred or suspended while a risk assessment is undertaken, the person will be able to make a submission to the regulator, and the regulator will consider the information from the applicant as part of the overall assessment process.

David ETTERSHANK: Minister, thank you for that answer – that was good. That was really informative. There are two questions that come to my mind. The first one is: does the ability of that working with children check holder to respond to the regulator vary with the extent of the alleged offence against them? Let us rule out the predators; let us just talk about the 99 per cent of people who are doing their job and are utterly committed. Does that process of risk analysis make provision or does that make variation with regard to the opportunity to simply respond to the allegations against a worker?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Sadly, Mr Ettershank, we can never rule out the predators, and the basis of these reforms in this package of three bills is about making sure that we can protect children from them. The answer to your question is no.

David ETTERSHANK: That was terrific, to clarify that there is in fact no necessary opportunity, as I am reading it – and I am not putting words in your mouth – to be able to respond to the allegations. Could you inform the chamber as to what factors the regulator takes into account specifically when considering the risk to a child?

Michael Galea: On a point of order, Deputy President, the minister has already answered this question.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I do not think there is actually a point of order. The minister is able to say that for herself if she has.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I refer you to Hansard and my previous answers, Mr Ettershank.

David ETTERSHANK: I really do not think that has been answered, but I will take that on face value. So, Minister, can I get a clear position – and again forgive me for taking time here, because we are talking about ordinary working people – when can the working with children check holder actually make representations to the regulator? In terms of people who are nonlethal and not sexual predators, in terms of just normal working people who have got caught up through this legislation, when can that holder be assured that they will have the opportunity to make representations to the regulator?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I resent your characterisation, Mr Ettershank. This whole package is about keeping all children safe and setting up a regulatory framework that will do that for all children from all predators. But the answer to your question is: at any time.

David ETTERSHANK: Okay. That is fantastic. So, Minister, could you tell me: if the holder can make representations to the regulator at any time, how would that work? What would be the process for them to be able to make that representation?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: They can make representation to the regulator at any time.

David ETTERSHANK: Could I ask how they would be able to make representations to the regulator if they do not know what it is that has caused them to –

Jacinta Ermacora: On a point of order, Deputy President, I think we have had probably a fair amount of tedious repetition here, and a lot of the questions on the topic are generic and relevant to all inquiries and all investigations into individuals and not just this bill, so I do not think it is appropriate that it goes on. It borders on badgering.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think the committee can take note of that. I do not think we are quite to the point of tedious, but we certainly are getting a little bit repetitive, and it would be good if we could move on.

David ETTERSHANK: I will indeed endeavour to move on. Let us move on to the next issue, and that is how categories of reportable conduct are defined. Minister, let us take the example of a grounds maintenance person in local government. The employer requires them to have a working with children’s check to be employed. That is a condition of their employment, and there is no employment without that check, even though the core job requirements do not require frequent interaction with children. A kid throws a rock at the groundsperson. The groundsperson yells at the child. The groundsperson is stood down for causing psychological harm. In this scenario can the minister confirm that this work does not fit the ‘incidental’ definition with children?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As I indicated to you yesterday, Mr Ettershank, I am not going to engage in that example, hypothetical or otherwise, without having all of the relevant facts of a real circumstance or information around the hypothetical that you might be posing. It is impossible for me to engage in a hearsay conversation with you. This is about the interpretation of the act. Section 7 of the Worker Screening Act sets out child-related work and the circumstances in which, in a child safety framework, a working with children check would be required.

David ETTERSHANK: Yes, I agree entirely that it is laid out in section 7, and my reading of section 7 is that if it is a requirement of the job you are covered. Is that wrong?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Deputy President, I would put that these questions are out of order because they do not directly relate to the legislation, the proposals that we have before us. I am happy to answer genuine questions from Mr Ettershank in relation to the interpretation of the act, but it is very difficult when situations are put to me that may or may not be hypothetical. I do not intend in any way to cast any aspersions on the examples that Mr Ettershank puts, but this discussion is not about those, it is about the interpretation of the legislation, and I ask that he keep his questions to clauses in the legislation.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. I think the minister has a point. We are here to go through the legislation and interpret the clauses, not just to explore any aspects of the policy area, so if we could keep the questions to the legislation that would be good.

David ETTERSHANK: I probably expressed myself poorly. I was not seeking to continue with the hypothetical, as you called it, or what is actually a case study. What I was specifically looking at was the interaction between this bill and the Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005 and also the definitions that are contained in the Worker Screening Act. So my question – devoid of any personal context, of any case studies or otherwise – is: if it is a requirement to have a working with children check, does that not automatically capture you within the definition and thus you are covered by the provisions of this act?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Again, Mr Ettershank’s question is difficult to apply, but let me speak to the bill that we have before us. The outcome will depend on the facts of each individual case. The bill expands the types of matters that can trigger a working with children check assessment to include a broader range of information, such as reportable conduct allegations, if that is where Mr Ettershank was attempting to go, that have not yet been substantiated. Currently assessments of a person’s eligibility to hold a working with children clearance are limited to formal triggers: a criminal charge, a conviction, a finding of guilt or relevant disciplinary or regulatory findings. What the child safety review found, what the Ombudsman found in 2022 and what we know is this reliance on formal criminal history and regulatory information means these patterns of concerning behaviour may sometimes be missed or not be able to be acted upon. With what we have here in this bill under these reforms, the Social Services Regulator will be able to undertake a risk assessment and consider any information received about a working with children check applicant, for whatever reason they might be an applicant or a clearance holder, if the information is relevant to child safety – that being the key. This bill is about child safety, Mr Ettershank. If the regulator forms a view that the person poses an unjustifiable risk to children, that person will be prevented from working with children.

David ETTERSHANK: Okay, that was interesting. Minister, could you clarify this for me then. Last night, and I was listening very closely last night, you kept on referring to incidental definitions. I am trying to clarify what you were saying there. I am happy to go through some of these clauses specifically, if you like. But we are talking about people that are accidentally captured, where there might be legislative overreach; that is what we are talking about. No-one is disputing the question of the serious crimes of predators or the primacy of child safety. It is about who else gets caught here that should not be and the penalties that might be imposed. So could you perhaps describe how, in this scenario, anyone who is required to have a working with children check is not captured by this legislation, because manifestly your references last night to ‘incidental’ do not work in this context.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Again, I feel words have been put in my mouth, but let me say not every allegation or finding will reach the level of justifying a suspension or cancellation. What we are talking about here is where there is an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children, and I refer you to my substantive answers already given.

David ETTERSHANK: Let us go to the provision in the act then. Minister, what will capture someone is where it is deemed that psychological harm has been potentially caused. Could you tell us where in this legislation, or any of the legislation that is linked to this bill – if psychological harm is a trigger that the regulator will use to assess a person and their alleged offences – we would we find a definition of what psychological harm is?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I am not going to engage in your scenarios, Mr Ettershank. As I have said, we are here to consider the bill and the interpretation of the bill rather than play a game of scenario. It is quite clear under the reportable conduct scheme that where a service believes that something meets a threshold that makes it relevant for reporting to the reportable conduct scheme and it is then deemed to be necessary for investigation – that process would bear out the answer to the question that you are asking.

David ETTERSHANK: Yes, that is a very good point in terms of the person making the report, that it is not for them to judge what is psychological harm. But, Minister, this is also a test that would apply to the regulator to decide who falls within it. So I am asking you: in that context, what is there to inform the regulator as to what would constitute psychological harm or an unreasonable level of psychological harm, given the apparent absence of any definitions in any of the legislation to which this refers – recognising, Minister, we are talking about people’s livelihoods.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Currently, Mr Ettershank, in order to be satisfied that giving a working with children check clearance would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children, the decision-maker must be satisfied that a reasonable person would allow their child to have direct contact with the applicant while the applicant was engaged in any type of child-related work. The bill will incorporate consideration of whether a reasonable person would allow their child to have direct, unsupervised contact with the applicant. Directing decision-makers to contemplate the scenario of unsupervised contact will help sharpen the risk assessment focus on protecting children when they are at their most vulnerable. This is the paramount consideration here, Mr Ettershank.

David ETTERSHANK: That was really interesting, Minister. I thank you for that. But could I just take you back to my question, which was: how does the regulator define what is psychological harm?

Michael Galea: On a point of order, Deputy President, the minister has I believe now repeatedly answered this question, and I would not want us to be approaching tedious repetition. I would be happy to take your guidance.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: How does the minister feel?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: It is certainly a repetitious line of questioning, thank you, Deputy President. Perhaps it would help Mr Ettershank if he also considers the Child Wellbeing and Safety Act, section 3. It is very clear that what we are trying to do here is protect children from unjustifiable risk and apply a reasonable person test to that. I will leave it at that. I will not be continuing to repeat these same answers to the same questions; I will refer you to Hansard, Mr Ettershank.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Ettershank, I think that the minister is getting to the point where she feels that this is tedious repetition. So can you please make your point and then move on.

David ETTERSHANK: Can I just say that we spent quite a lot of time going through the transcript. Can I say that I have not asked any previous questions about the definition of ‘psychological harm’. This is –

Members interjecting.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: You have asked several since we walked in here this evening.

David ETTERSHANK: Yes, I am trying to get an answer to this particular question. Sorry, I should not be debating with the bleachers. I have not, other than in this last couple of minutes, referred to the definition under reportable matters in section 7 of the Worker Screening Act 2020. I have not referred to that before, and I am simply asking a very plain question. How does the regulator understand what is:

(d)   any behaviour that causes significant emotional or psychological harm to a child …

That is it. I am just asking: how would you define ‘psychological harm’? How would the regulator be informed by the legislation or, Minister, your comments in Hansard as to what psychological harm is?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Mr Ettershank, I have answered this question several times since we have come back into the chamber since the dinner break. I have also referred you to the Child Wellbeing and Safety Act, section 3, in the hope of assisting you. I can also let you know, if it further assists you, that the CCYP has guidance on the definition of ‘psych harm’ under the reportable conduct scheme, but that is not specifically relevant to this bill. I have answered it more than once in the chamber since the dinner break, and I will continue to refer you to Hansard. I do not appreciate the tone with which you speak to me.

David ETTERSHANK: I will seek to address my tone to be more respectful. Perhaps we can move on to the appeals mechanism. Minister, could you tell us what obligations are on the regulator to convene an expert advisory panel to hear the working with children check holder? And I am specifically talking here about the expert advisory panel.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The bill ensures the independence of the expert advisory panel through an independent ministerially appointed convenor and panel members. The convenor will convene expert panels to provide advice to the regulator in response to the regulator’s requests. The regulator will be required to consider that advice in making its decision. The bill requires that the minister only appoint persons as members of the independent expert advisory panel if they have qualifications or experience in forensic risk assessment, child development, law, social work, disability, psychology or any other discipline that is considered likely to be relevant to providing advice on internal review applications.

David ETTERSHANK: Thank you, Minister. That was really interesting. Taking that on board, could I ask: what provisions are there in the proposed legislation or in other sources to ensure that it is indeed an independent panel of decision-makers or that there are independents on that panel to hear complaints against, obviously, a decision of the regulator?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I refer you to my previous answer.

David ETTERSHANK: Sorry, my previous question – which I presume you were answering, but you might have got ahead of me there – was specifically about the obligations to convene an expert advisory panel. What I am seeking now, Minister, is to understand if we are going to have a situation where the regulator is going to be hearing appeals against decisions made by the regulator.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Mr Ettershank, if you were listening to the fulsome answer I gave you out of respect and a genuine desire to assist you, I know on review of Hansard you would find that I answered the question you just asked me when I answered the previous question.

David ETTERSHANK: Minister, sorry, I will just seek to have you indulge me, because I know we want to move forward. Is it correct to assume that we will not have the regulator dealing with appeals on decisions by the regulator and that there will be an independent panel that does the review of the regulator’s decisions?

Evan Mulholland: On a point of order, Deputy President, just on repetition, I could have sworn that this question was asked with a few different words mixed up a different way and was answered with the first answer.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think that we are bordering on tedious repetition now and we should move on. Well, more than bordering – we have got there.

David ETTERSHANK: Okay. I thought we were actually working into the nuances of the legislation and its practical application. I am sorry if it appears repetitious. My last question was entirely premised –

Michael Galea: On a point of order, Deputy President, it is not helpful for Mr Ettershank to be misrepresenting the words of the Deputy President either.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Ettershank, if we could just stick to the questions on the legislation without the editorials, that would be good.

David ETTERSHANK: Under the bill, the decision of the advisory panel must be made available to the worker and not just be confidential internal advice to the Department of Education specific to the DE workers. How does the regulator provide their decision to the working with children check holder?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: In written notice.

David ETTERSHANK: The provision in the bill is that the current bill would be subject to review in five years. Obviously there is a question of adequate parliamentary oversight in terms of the impact of the legislation. In considering the principled accountability that is involved here, and given undertakings that the legislation will be reviewed within 12 months, is it reasonable that the legislation be tested within 12 months to determine its impact?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: A number of options were considered in the development of the bill, but it was considered that the review must happen at a point at which there has been enough time for the provisions to become fully operationalised and there is adequate evidence to inform the review.

David ETTERSHANK: Minister, I would like to just ask a question specifically with regard to information. You have talked about the importance of the whole in the communication and suchlike. Am I correct that all staff within the Commission for Children and Young People and staff within the Department of Justice and Community Safety (DJCS) working on working with children checks will be merged with the Social Services Regulator?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Some staff from the Commission for Children and Young People will transfer to the regulator to support the reportable conduct scheme and the child safe standards functions. This has been worked through in consultation with those entities. The transfer of relevant resources, including staff from existing entities, into the SSR, is necessary to continue to deliver functions currently undertaken in the existing format. Obviously we appreciate that these staff have deep experience in and understanding of the sectors they regulate and the schemes that they operate. And for the benefit of the house, all staff movements will be done consistently with the processes established under the Victorian Public Service (VPS) agreement.

David ETTERSHANK: I understand this is a work in progress, but again, I am just trying to tease out the question of unintended consequences. Assuming that there is that movement from the Commission for Children and Young People and the staff within DJCS – and I take on board what you said about that being worked through – in that case who from the SSR would be responsible for accessing information held specifically within DJCS?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: There will be no staff associated with the functions in DJCS, Mr Ettershank.

David ETTERSHANK: Well, could I ask specifically, then, Minister, in terms of the prison intelligence system, which requires high-level security clearance to access – and that clearance is not held by SSR staff – who will supply that highly sensitive information to the regulator?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Sorry, Mr Ettershank; your question does not make any sense to me, my advisers or departmental staff. Perhaps you would like to clarify.

David ETTERSHANK: That concludes my questions.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I invite Mr Ettershank to move his amendment 1, which tests his amendments 8 to 52, 58 and 60 to 62.

David ETTERSHANK: I move:

1.   Clause 1, page 3, lines 20 to 21, omit “by the Social Services Regulator in place of VCAT”.

This amendment, as we have discussed previously, is basically a natural justice provision. What it seeks to address is that prior to suspending a person’s working with children check there is an obligation on the regulator to conduct an appropriate risk assessment and an appropriate triaging process to ensure that people are not accidentally captured within the regulatory framework when they may have committed no serious offence or any offence at all. If I could give an example of how this has a practical application: under this bill, if a person is working in a sporting club, and that is specifically referenced in the bill, as, let us say, a coach, and if in a moment of enthusiasm they express their encouragement to their players in a manner that a parent finds offensive or potentially causes psychological harm, then that coach could have their working with children check withdrawn. They are required to have that as part of their coaching position. Under this legislation, that coach will be deemed to be not dissimilar to someone who has actually committed serious offences unless an appropriate risk management process is provided and that coach has an opportunity to respond to the loss of their working with children check – recognising that when they have got that letter, they will not even know what the allegation is against them. So that is the rationale behind this amendment, and I would commend it to the chamber.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The government will not be supporting this amendment. I go back to the premise, and it appears critical that I do so. The overwhelming objective, the primary objective and the paramount interest here is the safety of children. That is what is driving this package of reforms – the first two bills that we have already debated and passed and now this one. On a day such as today, where again further demonstration of evil is detailed in our papers in relation to the accused, there can be no greater reminder of how critical these reforms are in keeping children safe, and indeed I cannot say it better than the Premier herself said it today in response to those reports, which was that it is absolutely critical that the regulator, through this bill, will have the authority to act swiftly and decisively and the power to immediately reassess, refuse, suspend or revoke a working with children check where credible information is received. She said, ‘The safety of children is my highest priority and the highest priority of the government.’ That is exactly what we are doing here. This amendment is absolutely contrary to that objective, and the government will not be supporting it.

Evan MULHOLLAND: The Liberals and Nationals will not be supporting this amendment, for very similar reasons to the government. As Minister Blandthorn just said, we have only seen today further evidence of sickening acts that once again shock our community, and the paramount interest should be that of the child. I hate to play identity politics, but with two kids in child care – almost three – the safety of children in this state needs to be the number one consideration. Everything else is unfortunately secondary, because we need to be making sure that our kids are safe in whatever setting they are in.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: The Greens will be supporting this amendment. We agree that child safety is paramount and that decisions need to be in their best interests. But we also believe that independence is important when we talk about child safety and ensuring that children are kept safe and that gaps are closed. But we have seen with what has happened this year that the regulator has failed children because there was a lack of independence and lack of authority, so it is really important in the same vein that there is appropriate scrutiny but also independence at the same time in order for the regulator to be able to exercise their functions and power.

David ETTERSHANK: If I may, I really take umbrage with and I really resent the suggestion that because we are seeking to recognise the rights of working childcare workers – any number of professions, and we went through with the minister last night the 200,000 people that have working with children checks – we are not absolutely committed to the safety of kids. That is not at issue here. What is at issue is how we keep a good, stable workforce, because we know that that workforce is central to how we do not have predators getting into the system. So this is about ensuring that we keep that workforce, that they are treated with some level of respect and not wiped aside as though they are not relevant to creating good, safe environments for our children.

Evan MULHOLLAND: If I could just make an additional contribution, no-one suggests, Mr Ettershank, that you do not have the safety of children as a priority. But I think from the many examples we have seen in this state and across the country, unfortunately – and yes, we need to look after our workers – too many evil people have exploited loopholes where there are loopholes to exploit, and so if we do not right now consider children and their safety as paramount, then there will be more loopholes that people can exploit.

Amendment negatived.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I move:

1.   Clause 1, page 3, lines 24 to 30, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

2.   Clause 1, page 4, lines 1 to 6, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

3.   Clause 1, page 4, lines 11 to 31, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

4.   Clause 1, page 5, lines 1 to 5, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

As I explained yesterday, I would have preferred this bill to have been a whole package of reforms, but for the very reasons we have just talked about, it is absolutely critical that we do not waste any more time, and for the reasons we have seen play out in the papers again today, it is critical that no more time is spent without passing these reforms, particularly the working with children check reforms, which are absolutely critical to closing those loopholes to which Mr Mulholland just referred, which evil predators can get through.

As I said, we regretfully move these amendments, though, because I do fear that in establishing a system that is tight in some areas there may still be loopholes in some services working with children with disabilities. In moving these amendments to take these parts out of the bill, I do want to take this opportunity to particularly thank and acknowledge those stakeholders that have worked tirelessly to seek to have these provisions included in the first instance, particularly the Association for Children with Disability, National Disability Services, Down Syndrome Victoria, the Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare, the Australian Childhood Foundation, Mallee Family Care, Anglicare, Child and Family Services Ballarat, Uniting, Permanent Care and Adoptive Families, Catholic Social Services Victoria, MacKillop Family Services, Odyssey Victoria, Access Health and Community, FamilyCare, Safe Steps, Kids First, Create, Yooralla and Berry Street, Melba Support Services, Able Australia, Alkira, Gateways Support Services, Golden City Support Services, Grace Professional Services, Kids Plus, Scope, MiLife-Victoria, Pinarc, the Bridge, Wallara, Early Childhood Intervention Australia Victoria/Tasmania, Amaze – the list goes on. I did want to particularly call out those stakeholders who have actively called for these provisions, which we are now seeking to omit, to be in this bill. I do thank them for their efforts.

I share their commitment, but in the interests of the passage of this bill to close those holes we need to close in order to make the improvements that we need to make to the working with children check scheme, the government has taken the decision to omit these clauses to pave a pathway for those important changes to implement as much as possible of the Rapid Child Safety Review. Notwithstanding that recommendation 8.1 will not be implemented by virtue of these amendments, all other elements of the child safety rapid review will be implemented, as we committed. So I commend these amendments in those circumstances.

David ETTERSHANK: We warmly welcome the decision by the minister to remove these provisions. Clearly in terms of the peak bodies that represent the organisations, as opposed to the actual employers, and in terms of a range of other stakeholders, there is a strong view that they should not form part of the bill, and therefore we commend the amendments.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I would like to thank the minister as well for her amendments, and I would like to particularly thank my colleague the Shadow Minister for Disability, Ageing, Carers and Volunteers, Tim Bull, as well for the productive way that he has worked with many stakeholders and colleagues here in this place. This is really important and something we sought to action with our own amendment in what was described as a rather inelegant way. I am pleased that we have achieved this outcome for the disability community. The Liberals and Nationals would like to particularly thank the disability sector and all the disability organisations that reached out to us about this part of the bill. It took about a day; again we only had about 12 hours to decide a position on the bill before it entered the lower house. But I think once people saw that part of a previous bill was almost copied and pasted inside this one – I am sure many colleagues were the same – email inboxes were flooded and electorate offices were called. I am pleased we were able to reach this position because, as you would have heard me say earlier, we want this bill passed and we want this bill passed straightaway. There is a lot of good in this bill and that, in my view, is the most important thing.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: I want to thank the minister for this amendment because, like Mr Mulholland said, there was overwhelming opposition from the disability sector with regard to these clauses in the bill. Some of those overwhelming concerns were about the loss of an independent disability-specific commission, and abolishing disability-specific regulators or commissions. The sector was very worried and concerned that this would dilute specialist expertise, reduce accountability and leave people with disability more vulnerable to abuse, neglect and exploitation.

Another one of the themes that came through very strongly from advocates in the disability sector, as well as various disability-led organisations, was the lack of genuine consultation with the disability community. They rejected claims of exhaustive consultation, noting that mostly only service providers were engaged, which was in direct contradiction to both legal obligations and the intent of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability.

Another main thing that the disability sector called for was the contradiction of the royal commission recommendation for an independent, specialist, co-designed complaints mechanism instead of the monolithic super-regulator model that this bill in its original form provided for.

There were a lot of stakeholders that contacted the Greens: Deaf Victoria, Disability Discrimination Legal Service, Disability Rights and Culture, Disability Advocacy Victoria, VALID, the Health and Community Services Union, Disability Justice Australia, Labor Enabled Victoria, the Victorian Mental Health Legal Centre, the Federation of Community Legal Centres, First Step Legal, Melbourne East Disability Advocacy, Northern Community Legal Centre, Rights Information and Advocacy Centre, Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, Women’s Legal Service Victoria, Victorian Mental Illness Awareness Council, Women with Disabilities Victoria, and the list goes on. It was really important for the Greens to listen to our disability sector. They have the lived experience and the lived reality every day, and it was important to ensure that their voices were not going to be eroded in the process of the original form of this huge bill. It is really important that we welcome the minister’s house amendment on this and appreciate that they are listening to the voices of people living with disabilities every day. I thank the minister and the government.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: While I have already spoken on these amendments and I do not intend to continue to argue the point – my views on this issue are well known – I do think that it is critical that a point that has been raised with me outside of the house and again now here, with all due respect to Ms Gray-Barberio, in relation to the disability royal commission recommendations be corrected for the record. The bill, as it stood, would have established a dedicated complaints mechanism for social services users within the Social Services Regulator, which would have aligned with the disability royal commission’s recommendation for an independent one-stop shop for people with disability. The detail of that recommendation is as follows:

States and territories should each establish or maintain an independent ‘one-stop shop’ complaint reporting, referral and support mechanism to receive reports of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disability.

…

The mechanism should be co-designed with people with disability to ensure entry points are accessible to and effective for people with a range of abilities, language and communication needs.

The mechanism should be placed, if possible, within an existing independent organisation which has appropriate expertise and relationships with services to perform its functions.

Placing these functions within the Social Services Regulator would have been entirely consistent with this recommendation of the disability royal commission.

The disability royal commission also noted in its report that a significant barrier for many people is the complexity of the existing complaints landscape, which is difficult to participate in without appropriate assistance and support. It acknowledged that there are too many regulatory systems and complaints mechanisms and hence spoke to the importance of bringing them all together and having that ‘no wrong door’ one-stop shop. The new complaints mechanism would have provided one clear and accessible pathway for people with disability and all people accessing social services to have their voices heard and raise safety and quality concerns with the regulator.

Consistent with the royal commission’s recommendations, the regulator would also have had a role in referring complaints to other entities where the complaints fall outside its jurisdiction – for example, referring complaints about NDIS services to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission and complaints about early childhood services to the new Victorian Early Childhood Regulatory Authority. Having regulation of social services and disability under one roof would have meant that Victorian social services users could access support through the one pathway, as recommended by the disability royal commission, no matter whether their issue with a service is a regulatory, compliance or service delivery issue, whether it is related solely to their disability or whether it is interconnected between their disability and their other issue with a social service. This simplifies the support process for everyone, including those who have complex needs, multiple points of vulnerability and difficulty accessing services and systems.

I just urge those who continue to raise this issue with me to fully consider the 14 volumes of the report of the disability royal commission and the way in which they are consistent. We can all list the various organisations and people that we have continued to speak to, but again I thank those, including the Victorian Disability Advisory Council, who were here with us in the Parliament today sharing their experiences, for their work in terms of trying actually give effect to this very recommendation of the disability royal commission.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 83 agreed to.

Clause 84 (20:39)

David ETTERSHANK: I move:

2.   Clause 84, page 55, line 4, omit ‘person.”.’ and insert “person.”.

3.   Clause 84, after line 4 insert –

‘(10) Before making a decision to suspend a person’s WWC clearance on the basis of child safety risk information, the Regulator must conduct a risk assessment that takes into consideration the seriousness of any allegation against the person and the level of risk posed to any child.

(11) When making a decision under this section, the Regulator is bound by the principles of natural justice.”.’.

These amendments are seeking to protect workers from being subject to vexatious or unsubstantiated claims. In the situations that we are contemplating here, it is important that there is appropriate triaging of the reportable conduct complaint. A worker who is accused of yelling at a child – psychological harm – is demonstrably different to someone who is accused of sexual assault. It is a lower level of allegation. When a worker is subject to an internal allegation for yelling at a child, for example, it may have less to do with the worker’s behaviour than with the circumstances in the work environment. For example, a worker may raise their voice to a child because the child is about to cause harm to another child in a work environment that has not been properly risk-assessed. A worker in this circumstance may be subject to further training and may be reassigned to non-child-related duties in the interim but does not require to have their working with children check suspended or to be removed from the workplace. Changes may be required to the workplace to mitigate circumstances.

It also may relate to unsubstantiated allegations, as we have discussed. I will not go into that other than to refer the chamber to the findings of the Royal Commission into Family Violence and the regrettably common situation where ex-partners try to inflict financial abuse on a person by depriving them of income or damaging their prospects. An ex-partner may, for example, make an allegation relating to the worker’s treatment of their own children in order to trigger a suspension of their working with children check to deprive them of income. So it is in that context that we seek to, first of all, insert a subclause which requires the regulator, before suspending a working with children check, to conduct a risk assessment that takes into consideration the seriousness of any allegation against the person and the level of risk posed to any child. Secondly – and this seems to me to be a very, very simple and, I would have thought, unarguable, concept – it argues that when a decision under the section is being made by the regulator, they are bound by the principles of natural justice. I think in all the circumstances it is not unreasonable to accept that.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As with Mr Ettershank’s line of questioning, these amendments seem to, at least in speaking to it, jump between both the functions of the working with children check and the functions of the reportable conduct scheme. I could therefore speak to it in a number of different ways, but perhaps I will take what I think are the key points and start with how this bill already protects workers from vexatious complaints. The purpose of this bill, as I have said, is to ensure that people engaging in child-related work do not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children. This is central to the paramount consideration of the protection of children which applies at all stages of the working with children check screening process, from first instance decision-making to internal review. The regulator’s expanded access to child safety risk information increases the ability to investigate and piece together information from a broad range of sources, not just the initial complaint. Procedural fairness safeguards also play a role here, particularly the ability of a worker to provide that information to the regulator for consideration as part of its decision-making process, including reviews. The availability of the independent expert advisory panel to provide advice at the regulator’s request in relation to internal reviews provides an additional important safeguard to ensure that decisions affecting workers are the result of a fair and rigorous process. Additionally, the bill makes it an offence for a person to provide false or misleading information, as I spoke to earlier, to the regulator about a working with children check applicant or working with children clearance holder, which is directly targeted at individuals who may attempt to make vexatious complaints about a person.

To go to one of the other points that Mr Ettershank raises, the bill retains the unjustifiable risk threshold for determining when someone’s working with children check clearance must be refused or revoked, and that is that a clearance will only be granted where there is no unjustifiable risk to the safety of children. However, the bill will strengthen and clarify the risk assessment test to enhance its protective purpose. Currently, in order to be satisfied that a working with children clearance would not pose an unjustifiable risk to the safety of children, the decision-maker must be satisfied, as I said, that a reasonable person would allow their child to have direct contact with the applicant while the applicant was engaged in any type of child-related work. The bill will incorporate consideration of whether a reasonable person would allow their child to have direct unsupervised contact with the applicant. Directing decision-makers to contemplate the scenario of unsupervised contact will help sharpen the risk assessment focus to protecting children when they are at their most vulnerable. Further, a new public interest test will be added to the risk assessment framework to enable the regulator to consider the public interest as an additional consideration when assessing a person’s eligibility to hold a working with children clearance.

Evan MULHOLLAND: The Liberals and Nationals will not be supporting these amendments. I respect and understand the intent of the amendments, but from speaking to and hearing from the minister, I am quite satisfied that the available safety net is in the bill. I also think, through the whole episode we have gone through with child care in this state and across the country, to be honest, we have seen too many examples of a formal legislated risk assessment. We have seen too many examples where systems did not speak to each other, there were delays for some reason or another reason and those delays led to devastating loopholes. If we consider the most important thing, natural justice, that creates a conflict of rights between the primary principle, being the safety of children. I think when it comes to children, from conception to when they grow up, the safety of the child should be of utmost importance and a paramount principle in whatever we do.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: The Greens will be supporting these amendments. We believe that, given that there will be a whole bunch of reportable conduct complaints that will be coming through to the regulator, it is reasonable for a triage of seriousness of allegations to take place.

Amendments negatived; clause agreed to.

New clause 84A (20:49)

David ETTERSHANK: I move:

4.   Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 84 –

‘84A Secretary must notify WWC clearance holder, employer and agency of suspension

After section 80(2) of the Worker Screening Act 2020 insert –

“(2A)   A person or agency notified under subsection (2) must provide the person whose WWC clearance is suspended any remuneration or allowance that the person would otherwise be entitled to under the normal terms and conditions of their employment, engagement or listing while the suspension is in force.”.’.

This is a very simple provision which states that when a worker has been suspended they are entitled to be paid while they are suspended. This is a condition that exists across a range of public and private sector awards. We would simply point out – and I think we have discussed at length – the fact that there may be any range of circumstances in which people are caught up accidentally. Recognising that the preponderance of workers in this sector are women, are poorly paid and need their jobs to pay their mortgages and to feed their kids, it is not unreasonable that during this process, which we understand will be done in a prompt manner by the regulator, they should continue to be remunerated, and that is what this amendment seeks to address.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The government will be opposing this amendment. It is unclear what power the state would have to introduce and enforce this amendment without risk of constitutional invalidity, is my advice. As we know, workplace relations powers are a matter for the Commonwealth. I would also be extremely concerned, not even withstanding that point, that given the intent of this legislation is to keep children safe and to keep predators out and held to account, we could actually find ourselves in a situation where, to take a current example, the likes of Ron Marks, who was found to be in possession of digital child pornographic material but was not charged for some period of time and was not able to have his working with children check revoked under the previous system – somebody like that – if this amendment was actually even constitutional, would then be eligible for back pay. So I appreciate what Mr Ettershank is seeking to do here, but we need to set up a regulatory framework that applies across the board that does not reward, closes loopholes, holds predators to account and certainly does not in any way seek to recompense people like Ron Marks for being held to account.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I want to state that the Liberals and Nationals will not be supporting this motion, but perhaps Mr Ettershank would like to have a conversation. I am very interested in his idea to bring the industrial relations powers back to state governments. It has been a while.

David Ettershank interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I am a bit more of a federalist, to be honest, but thank you for putting this forward. I just, like the minister, do worry, and you can see the headlines already. You can see the headlines already about the government paying someone remuneration for having their working with children check suspended when they are guilty of the most evil acts. I just cannot stomach that.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: The Greens will be supporting this amendment. We believe in the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

David ETTERSHANK: In closing, we heard from the minister last night that there are 2 million working with children checks in Victoria. I think that was the minister’s figure. That is a lot of people, and no doubt there will be amongst those 2 million people some reprehensible people, some people who not only should not be working in child care but should be in prison. I am not making any prejudicial statement relating to anybody entering the justice system, but clearly that is a reality. There should be a consequence for malpractice, but I think even the rapid review found that for the overwhelming majority of workers in this sector – and we are talking about hundreds of thousands of workers who fall within the scope of this legislation – it is reasonable that we assume that they have not done anything wrong until proven to the contrary. This is not a radical proposition. This is a basis of our democracy and this is a basis of our justice system, and in that regard Ms Gray-Barberio’s comments are exactly right. Let us not assume that everyone is a predator. Let us allow for due process. Let us allow for that. That does not compromise the safety of our kids. I think it is really reprehensible that whenever we talk about due process or natural justice the response is relating to predators and the like. It is just really inappropriate, because it besmirches the huge number of people who require working with children checks who do their jobs diligently and well every day but manifestly can very easily fall within the confines of this legislation.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I would simply refer Mr Ettershank to page 37 of the rapid review into child safety and the working with children check, which says:

… Victoria’s Working with Children Check laws are not fit-for-purpose and must be rebalanced in favour of child safety.

New clause negatived; clauses 85 to 90 agreed to.

Clause 91 (20:57)

David ETTERSHANK: I move:

5.   Clause 91, page 59, line 27, omit “24” and insert “12”.

6.   Clause 91, page 60, line 6, omit “6” and insert “2”.

7.   Clause 91, page 60, line 8, omit “3 months” and insert “month”.

These amendments have two parts to them. The first one is on the overall duration of the interim bar and to reduce the maximum time for an interim bar from 24 months to 12 months. The second component is to review the interim bar to reduce the time in which the regulator must review the enforcement of that interim bar from six months to two months and then when the regulator has to review the bar from every three months to every month. I can anticipate where criticism of this might come, which is by again going back to the predator approach. Let us be clear: if we are actually talking about it in the context of a predator who has been found by the police and prosecuted by the police, their interim bar is going to be the least of their problems, and they are not going to be posing a threat to anyone. This is about the people who get caught in this process and their right to timely justice and timely processes. It would have been apparent from the previous discussion that we have had through the committee what our feeling is when, for example, that footy coach who has had their working with children check removed has to try and explain to the other members of that footy club why they have had it removed when they do not know. They have to go and tell those people, ‘Look, I’m not a sex offender. I don’t know why I’ve lost my licence, but I’m not a sex offender. I don’t know why I’ve lost my working with children check, but I’m not a sex offender.’ And that coach’s kids have to give a similar explanation. That is how this legislation captures people, and it is atrocious.

Look at the timeframe for the regulator – half a year, six months, on something that may prove to be nothing, because there is not effective triaging – and then we have these timeframes put in place. We are seeking simply to come back to some reasonable timeframes, because the reality is that if we are talking about predators it is not going to apply. They are going to be in the criminal system. This is about the hundreds of thousands of people who require those working with children checks to do their jobs, to assist their communities and to volunteer in any range of workplaces, whether it is aged care, community kitchens – you name it. All of these people are potentially affected, and the effect on their character to have that check withdrawn – the questions it puts over their credibility – we would suggest is absolutely outrageous. To be frank, I am really disappointed that the opposition, given the weight they accord to volunteers and the weight they accord to the rights of the individual, would look at something like this and not see it as devoid of natural justice and devoid of due process and entirely unjust.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Again, the government will be opposing these amendments. Mr Ettershank anticipated where I would go, which is the protection of children being the paramount consideration here. The length of time has been carefully considered, and again, various options were considered, but ultimately the absolute, paramount consideration has to be the safety of children. I have referred a number of times in the house tonight to a case of a Victorian man who was known for his involvement in children’s cultural education programs who held a valid working with children check for four years after being arrested over accessing child abuse material, but because he had not been charged he was able to maintain his working with children check. I absolutely agree with Mr Ettershank that the majority of people – and the Premier and I have said it at every opportunity – who work with children day in, day out, who work with them in our education and care settings, who work with them in other children’s services and who work with them wherever they are learning, wherever they are playing and wherever they are being supported in their wellbeing, are people who have the absolute best interests of those children at heart. When considering the need to establish a framework that will apply across the board, keep children safe from predators and make sure that people who should not have a working with children check do not have one, very sadly, we cannot legislate against evil, so we do need to legislate for a system that protects children from evil. When we consider the case of a person who was known to have child abuse material in a digital form who had been arrested for it but had not yet been charged for nearly four years, then that is exactly the reason why these provisions are absolutely critical and exactly the reason why we will be opposing Mr Ettershank’s amendment. As Mr Mulholland eloquently put it before and as the child safety review calls for, the rebalance here has to be in favour of the child.

Evan MULHOLLAND: The Liberals and Nationals will not be supporting this amendment about time periods. It is always interesting when colleagues of a different political persuasion exude knowledge of the Liberal Party and what we might support. To have lectures from Mr Ettershank that we should support the right of the individual, given how many times in this place Mr Ettershank has voted against rights of individuals in this state, is quite ironic. The Liberal Party also supports support for those who cannot help themselves, support for those who cannot defend themselves and support for those who cannot speak for themselves. Those people are children. Those people are one- and two-year-olds who cannot communicate to their family about what has happened to them. I completely agree with Minister Blandthorn’s example, and we have seen numerous examples where there have been cases where there has been no charge or there have been delays in charges or the court system which have meant that those people are not captured by the system, and we need the system to be foolproof in favour of children.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Just quickly, the Greens will be supporting Mr Ettershank’s amendment. We feel that bringing down the timeframes, as suggested in this amendment, is reasonable.

David ETTERSHANK: Thank you to all the people that have contributed to this discussion. Can I just point out that the example the minister has provided us with is of the system that this government has had oversight over for the last 12 years and which has failed. Now she talks about it as though there is no responsibility for the failures of the past and they are going to come in with these fabulous changes as though they do not have responsibility for the failures of the past. Putting that aside, can I just say that there is an underlying logic here that the care and safety of our kids is mutually exclusive to the right of people to due process, natural justice and justice being done in a timely manner. I think it is shameful that people would set up this juxtaposition, these discrete worlds of safety and democracy. Where does that take us? I mean, seriously – of course we all agree about kids’ safety. But you set up this division between basic democratic values and the safety of kids, and that is fallacious, mischievous and misleading.

Amendments negatived; clause agreed to; clauses 92 to 110 agreed to.

Clause 111 (21:07)

David ETTERSHANK: I move:

53.   Clause 111, page 88, line 16, omit ‘information.”.’ and insert “information.”.

54.   Clause 111, page 88, after line 16 insert –

‘(3) A notice under subsection (1)(a) must include any advice provided in relation to the review or application by an independent expert advisory panel in response to a request under section 92E.”.’.

These amendments are about providing a review process that is removed from the regulator. Obviously we have canvassed this issue, so I will keep it short. To put it bluntly, it makes no sense to have the regulator review its own work. It is like marking your own homework. An independent review panel to investigate and adjudicate workplace complaints where a decision to remove or suspend a worker’s working with children check has been made is critical.

Sector experience is vital for reviews – people who understand the workplaces, who understand the industries and who understand the settings in which discretion is exercised by educators or by bus drivers, all of whom are captured by this. Experienced childhood educators have an operational understanding of what happens on the ground. They understand very complex workplace dynamics. It is only reasonable that in a review process of a decision by the regulator that the people who do that review are, firstly, experts on the relevant subject, experts on the relevant workplace and experts on the relevant practice, and secondly, not employed by the regulator.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The rapid child safety review recommended the replacement of the VCAT appeal process with a dedicated internal review process for working with children check decisions so that those involved in reviewing these important decisions apply and are experienced to apply a child safety lens. Identifying and assessing child safety risk often requires specialised skills and knowledge in areas such as forensic risk assessment and child safety and development. The bill requires the Social Services Regulator to establish an expert panel that can provide independent specialist advice in relation to individual applications for review. Review decision-makers within the regulator will also need to be suitably qualified or experienced, and this will strengthen the ability of the regulator to identify and assess the significance of risks to the safety of children. It will also promote consistent and high-quality decision-making, as the regulator will be able to implement lessons drawn from expert panel advice to enhance the identification and assessment of risk when assessing or reassessing worker suitability. I will leave it there other than to say we oppose Mr Ettershank’s amendment because the process as it has been set up in the bill responds directly to the recommendation of the panel to replace VCAT with an internal review, and it is one that will be conducted by a suitably qualified expert panel, as I have spoken to.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: The Greens will be supporting Mr Ettershank’s amendment. We believe that the panel needs to be independent and that it should not be an internal review panel. It needs to be an independent review panel, as suggested by Mr Ettershank in his opening remarks.

David ETTERSHANK: Just in closing, I will reiterate that really we are setting up a situation here where the regulator marks its own homework and where literally we could have the same people who make a decision then sitting there as an internal panel and reviewing their own previous decision. I mean, this is just Soviet-style decision-making, where literally, apart from all of the other due process and natural justice things we have been talking about, we have a situation where the regulator marks its own homework and where it reviews its own decisions and undoubtedly comes up with an impartial and fair decision. I mean, pigs will fly.

Amendments negatived; clause agreed to; clauses 112 to 118 agreed to.

Clause 119 (21:13)

David ETTERSHANK: I move:

55.   Clause 119, after line 2 insert –

‘(1) In section 91(2) of the Worker Screening Act 2020, for “Secretary must” substitute “Secretary must, as soon as possible,”.’.

56.   Clause 119, line 3, before “For” insert “(2)”.

They say that justice delayed is justice denied. All that these amendments do is require the secretary to provide a person subject to a reportable conduct complaint the reasons for that in a timely manner. It is that simple. There is nothing in this legislation that ensures timely communication to the recipient of that suspension, and that seems to me just to be entirely unreasonable and unacceptable. The flip side of that coin is it is not unreasonable to expect that the regulator would do that in a timely manner. As it stands, as the legislation is currently drafted, that timely manner could be six months from the time of them being suspended from having their working with children check, and that is frankly outrageous.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: At some points tonight I have questioned whether Mr Ettershank has actually considered all of the provisions of the bill. It is clear in the bill that notices have to be given asap by the worker screening unit. It is clear in the legislation that notices have to be given asap by the worker screening unit. It is implied in the operational provisions across the Worker Screening Act. I would simply add to that that it is also a fundamental component of administrative law. The government will not be supporting this amendment.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: The Greens will be supporting this amendment.

David ETTERSHANK: I just want to make the point that we were accused of repetition when we were trying to get an answer to the question about the amount of time that would elapse before a person would be advised, and we were utterly unsuccessful in getting that information. To suggest that we have not read all of this modest piece of legislation, which we got three weeks ago, is probably true, which is why we have asked these questions, to which we have got very few answers. In that context, we think, to err on the side of caution if we may, that it is not unreasonable to put an obligation on the regulator to do their job in a timely manner and not leave it to the vagaries that the minister suggested.

Amendments negatived; clause agreed to.

New clause 119A (21:16)

David ETTERSHANK: I move:

57.   Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 119 –

‘119A New section 91A inserted

After section 91 of the Worker Screening Act 2020 insert –

“91A   Show cause process for suspension of WWC clearance

(1)   If the Regulator proposes to revoke a person’s WWC clearance in accordance with section 91, the Regulator must first –

(a)   give the person written notice of the proposed revocation; and

(b)   invite the person to make a written or oral submission to the Regulator within a reasonable period as specified in the notice.

(2)   Before finally deciding whether to revoke a person’s WWC clearance under section 91, the Regulator must consider any submission made by the person in response to a notice under subsection (1) within the specified period, unless the person notifies the Regulator that the person does not want to make a submission.

(3)   If, after considering any submissions, the Regulator decides not to revoke a person’s WWC clearance, the Regulator must give the person notice in writing as soon as possible after making the decision.”.’.

I think I have actually canvassed most of these issues. This follows on from an earlier amendment which struck to having an independent review panel with regard to a review of regulator decisions. This is simply pushing the point, for want of a better term, that there must be independent expert advice, and it mandates that the convenor of the advisory panel must select members who have at least five years experience in the relevant industry.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The government will not be supporting these amendments. Again, I have outlined to the house on a number of occasions that this internal review process has been specifically recommended by the rapid review in replacement of the current VCAT process. It does provide for an expert panel. It requires that expert panel to be exactly that: people who are experienced in child safety and development. This amendment is unnecessary.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: The Greens will be supporting Mr Ettershank’s amendment.

New clause negatived; clauses 120 to 147 agreed to.

Clause 148 (21:18)

David ETTERSHANK: I move:

59.   Clause 148, page 109, after line 10 insert –

“(1B) In convening an independent expert advisory panel to consider a request for advice on the internal review of a worker decision, the Convener must not appoint a panel candidate to be a member of the independent expert advisory panel unless the panel candidate has qualifications relevant to the subject matter of that decision and has at least 5 years’ experience working in a relevant industry.”.

I think I have already spoken to this subject. It basically strikes to the question of the expert advisory panel candidates and the need for them to have appropriate experience, appropriate industry context and appropriate technical knowledge. That is what we are seeking to pursue with this amendment.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As I have already outlined to the house, but for the benefit of Mr Ettershank I will do it again, the bill ensures the independence of the expert advisory panel through an independent ministerially appointed convenor and panel members. The bill requires that the minister only appoint persons as members of the independent expert advisory panel if they have qualifications or experience in forensic risk assessment, child development, law, social work, disability, psychology or any other discipline that is considered likely to be relevant to providing advice on internal review applications. So this amendment is again unnecessary.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: The Greens will be supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause agreed to; clause 149 agreed to.

Clauses 150 to 394 (21:21)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The minister’s amendments 5 to 252 propose to omit part headings 4.1 and 4.2, part and division headings preceding clause 329, and clauses 150 to 394 from the bill and have been tested by her amendments to clause 1. Unless any member wants to ask questions or to deal with any of the clauses separately, I propose to test the omissions as a single question. If you are voting for what the minister is proposing in the amendment, you vote no. If you are opposed to the minister’s amendment, you vote yes.

Clauses negatived.

Clause 395 (21:22)

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I move:

253.   Clause 395, line 21, omit “Chapter 4” and insert “Division 4 of Part 3.2 of Chapter 3”.

254.   Clause 395, line 29, omit “Chapters 2, 3 and 4” and insert “Chapters 2 and 3”.

Amendments agreed to.

David ETTERSHANK: I move:

63.   Clause 395, line 20, omit “5 years” and insert “12 months”.

I think we have sort of spoken to this one previously, but the proposition here is, given the very, very significant impact on the industry – well, a range of industries – arising from this legislation, that it is appropriate that we not wait five years to review its impact. So we are suggesting that that review should occur in 12 months time, after the bill has come into operation. Very simply, we just fear, as would have been apparent from our questions, which are for the best possible reasons seeking to ensure good and safe industries, that that review will not be done in a timely manner.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The government is opposed to Mr Ettershank’s amendment. As I outlined in a line of questioning earlier, we considered various options. This is in line with most other statutory reviews and is considered to be an appropriate amount of time for the bill to be operationalised and for enough evidence to be collected to then be able to conduct a proper review.

Bev McARTHUR: The opposition will not be supporting Mr Ettershank’s amendment.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: The Greens will be supporting Mr Ettershank’s amendment.

Amendment negatived; amended clause agreed to.

Clauses 396 to 444 (21:26)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We move to the minister’s amendments 255 to 315, which propose to omit the remainder of part 4.3 and all of part 4.4 from the bill. Part 4 is clauses 396 to 444. This has been tested by her amendments to clause 1. Unless any member wants to ask a question or to deal with any of the clauses separately, I propose to test the omissions as a single question. Again, because it is an omission, if you support the minister’s proposal, you should vote no to the clause. The question is that the part division and subdivision headings and clauses stand part of the bill.

Clauses negatived.

Clauses 445 to 465 agreed to; schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Long title (21:27)

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I move:

316.   Long title, omit “the Disability Service Safeguards Act 2018, the Disability Act 2006,”.

Amendment agreed to; amended long title agreed to.

Reported to house with amendments, including amended long title.

 Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (21:29): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (21:29): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The DEPUTY 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 with amendments.