Failing childcare centres will get grace period before funding is pulled
The rules were introduced to federal parliament on Wednesday following a spate of sexual abuse allegations levelled against Victorian childcare worker Joshua Brown, claims of children being mistreated in NSW, and earlier incidents in Queensland.
Education Minister Jason Clare has admitted the government had failed to act fast enough on the issue and introduced the bill to let the government shut centres down, put conditions on their operations, or strip their funding, as one of Labor's first actions in parliament after its re-election.
'I want centres to get to those standards,' Clare said. 'We don't want to have to shut centres down.'
But he said parents deserved to know if conditions had been imposed on a centre so they could decide where to send their children. Without government approval, centres will be denied access to the federal Childcare Subsidy, which covers around 70 per cent of their costs on average.
Labor expanded access to childcare subsidies before the election and has committed to building more childcare centres, driving the sector to expand rapidly, which has created an opportunity for for-profit operators to expand and put pressure on staff recruitment.
Education authorities already have the power to shut down a centre immediately if it poses an imminent risk to safety.
Mohamed, who asked to be identified only by his first name, has a three-year-old daughter who attends a childcare centre where Brown worked, but did not overlap with him.
He said the proposed legislation was 'better than nothing'. 'I think it's a step in the right direction,' Mohamed said. 'They should be losing funding if they don't get their act together. That's the first step. There's always more.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Labor vowed to crack down on consultants, but spending is going up
The Albanese government had more than $637 million worth of consulting contracts in the past six months, up more than $100 million on the previous half-year, despite repeated promises to cut back on external advisers. A biannual statement tabled in parliament on Tuesday revealed the government had 131 consultancy contracts valued at $2 million or more active for at least one day between January 1 and June 30, with some individual contracts worth $30 million alone. The high spend shows the challenge for Labor after it vowed to crack down on overreliance on private consultants following concerns about outsourcing and the 2023 PwC tax leaks scandal. Treasurer Jim Chalmers has previously said the Coalition gave core government work to consultants before Labor was elected in 2022, and pledged to restore the public service. 'When we came to office, the public service was hollowed out with too much spending on contractors and consultants,' Chalmers said in April. Loading The publication of the data will also test Labor's pre-election pledge in April to save $6.4 billion in four years by reducing spending on consultants, contractors, labour hire and non-wage expenses like travel, hospitality and property. Multimillion dollar projects with descriptions such as 'industrial uplift strategy' and 'structural review services' from major firms such as McKinsey and BCG are some examples of department spending on consultancy services. Governments commonly give contracts to consulting firms because they claim to offer independent advice, have solved similar problems overseas or at a state level, and can provide access to experts with specialised knowledge.
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Labor vowed to crack down on consultants, but spending is going up
The Albanese government had more than $637 million worth of consulting contracts in the past six months, up more than $100 million on the previous half-year, despite repeated promises to cut back on external advisers. A biannual statement tabled in parliament on Tuesday revealed the government had 131 consultancy contracts valued at $2 million or more active for at least one day between January 1 and June 30, with some individual contracts worth $30 million alone. The high spend shows the challenge for Labor after it vowed to crack down on overreliance on private consultants following concerns about outsourcing and the 2023 PwC tax leaks scandal. Treasurer Jim Chalmers has previously said the Coalition gave core government work to consultants before Labor was elected in 2022, and pledged to restore the public service. 'When we came to office, the public service was hollowed out with too much spending on contractors and consultants,' Chalmers said in April. Loading The publication of the data will also test Labor's pre-election pledge in April to save $6.4 billion in four years by reducing spending on consultants, contractors, labour hire and non-wage expenses like travel, hospitality and property. Multimillion dollar projects with descriptions such as 'industrial uplift strategy' and 'structural review services' from major firms such as McKinsey and BCG are some examples of department spending on consultancy services. Governments commonly give contracts to consulting firms because they claim to offer independent advice, have solved similar problems overseas or at a state level, and can provide access to experts with specialised knowledge.
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
The two-timing Chinese act that made a complete fool of Albo's charm offensive as the world again sits on the brink of all-out war
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's recent six-day visit to China has once again raised hard questions about Labor's stance on our relationship with Beijing, which runs in parallel to our allied commitments to the US, the UK and other core security partners. Trade was on top of the PM's China agenda, despite renewed fears of Beijing's plans to resolve the Taiwan dilemma by force. Australia finds itself in a far more complex region than was envisaged a decade ago, a fact the recent talks seem to largely neglect. From 'undefeated combat brotherhood' to loose security triangles The problem with understanding the current geopolitical setting - who is your friend, who is your ally, and who is your foe - is no longer straight and clear as it used to be. We have truly entered the phase of geopolitical fluidity when old norms and rules are no longer set in stone. A need for an adaptive approach is of growing relevance when it comes to assessing allied dynamics in the Indo-Pacific, particularly with respect to our geopolitical rivals. The Moscow-led allied relationship between Russia and North Korea continues to progress and mature, as was noted during the visit of Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to the country on July 12. During his meeting with the North Korean counterpart Choi Son-hui, Lavrov described the bilateral strategic treaty as "the basis of undefeated combative brotherhood". The alliance between the two nuclear-armed autocratic states will have to form a part of any future strategic calculus vis-a-vis power dynamics in northeast Asia and beyond. It is also worth reminding ourselves of China's close strategic relations with both Moscow and Pyongyang. Following his stopover in North Korea, Lavrov travelled to China to hold a series of strategic talks with his counterpart Wan Yi, even though he spoke to him just days before at the ASEAN summit in Malaysia. Although, it's too soon to look at this trio through the prism of a formed triangular security partnership, such as the 2023 Camp David agreement between the US, South Korea and Japan, the intensity of at least Russia-China high level contacts is telling and should not be dismissed as it happened to date. I doubt anyone imagined five years ago that Russia-North Korea rapprochement would reach current levels and that DPRK troops would see combat in the eastern European theatre of war. Being trapped in a set of self-comforting perceptions in such a dynamic and fluid geopolitical environment is a road with a dead end. What also requires closer attention is another emerging allied security triangle, China-Pakistan-Iran, in which Beijing is claiming a leadership role. It is a well-documented fact that China has close strategic ties with both countries, just like there is a close relationship between Islamabad and Tehran. Over the past two months, these deepened ties were put to the test during two major regional crisis, a near-war between India and Pakistan, and the 12-day war between Israel, the US and Iran. During the latest round of hostilities between New Delhi and Islamabad in May, Beijing was believed to be supplying Pakistani military not just with armaments and training but also with operational intelligence. According to the Depurty Chief of the Indian Army Lieutenant-General Rahul Singh, Islamabad received 'all possible support' from its de-facto ally, including 'live inputs' on India's defensive layout. Aside from political declarations, Beijing's military support for Iran during its latest open clash with Israel last month was more evasive. Yet, it had a limited footprint. During the intensive phase of the conflict, Chinese aircraft were believed to be delivering defence supplies into Iran, while an electronic warfare vessel was operating in the Gulf area, possibly tracking the trajectory of Israel's aerial and missile missions. In early July, the 47th Naval Escort Task Force of the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), while operating in the Red Sea, was involved in a dangerous standoff with a German surveillance aircraft. This action could be perceived as a covert show of support for the Iran-backed Houthi militants, which stepped up their spectacular strikes against western shipping of the coast of Yemen. Pakistan was bolder in its support of the Iranian regime, by also escalating its political rhetoric with references to its nuclear capability and promises to offer its neighbour a de-facto extended deterrence. It is doubtful that the Chinese authorities were blissfully unaware of Pakistan's war of words over Israel. In the future, this triangular relationship may mature into a more substantive organisational structure. No appetite to 'discuss hypotheticals' This message from Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy, was designed to be a bold response to equally bold messaging from Pentagon and the White House, which are seeking a clear commitment to a possible war contingency in the Taiwan Strait from Australia and Japan. 'The decision to commit Australian troops to a conflict will be made by the government of the day, not in advance…', Mr Conroy said. Clearly, Canberra was reluctant to engage in warmongering rhetoric prior to the PM's visit to China. This is all very well. But what is equally clear is that while Albanese prioritises trade with China, others like Minister Lavrov are busy discussing a whole range of strategic matters. 'The importance of strengthening close coordination between the two countries [China and Russia] in the international arena…. jointly respond to the challenges brought about by a turbulent and changing world," read extracts from the statement issued by the Chinese Foreign Ministry following Lavrov-Wan Yi talks. At the same time, Canberra finds it completely normal to engage in political fencing with our key security and defence ally, instead of securing a sit-down meeting between the PM and US President Donald Trump. Labor's ongoing balancing act may have worked in the past when the world's geopolitical dynamics were different. But not now, when geostrategic competition between great powers and respective allies gave way to power contests and conflict. Dr. Alexey Muraviev is Associate Professor of National Security and Strategic Studies at Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia.
