Childcare centres on notice after new safety laws pass parliament
It comes just weeks after horrific allegations of sexual abuse at a centre in Melbourne sparked national outrage, with Labor acting on royal commission recommendations made under the former Coalition government.
Under the laws, a childcare centre's safety will be assessed when it applies for the Childcare Centre Subsidy (CCS).
Centres will also undergo checks to keep the federal funding.
If they fail to meet the standards, the federal government can order them to tighten safety, temporarily halt their CCS money, or even cut off it off altogether.
The new laws also aim to stop childcare operators with a bad history from opening new centres and boosts transparency for parents, allowing them to see if a centre has had conditions put on it or if its CCS application was ever rejected.
Education Minister Jason Clare spearheaded the legislation, which passed the Senate without amendments.
Speaking before it passed, he said the changes were not 'an idle threat'.
'The intention here is not for centres to close but for centres to raise their standards to meet the quality and safety standards that we expect them to have,' Mr Clare told reporters at Parliament House.
'But it's not an idle threat — if centres don't act, then they will close.
'And I think parents will want to know if their centres are not up to scratch.
'And that's why, as part of this legislation, we're saying that, if my department imposes a condition on a centre and says, 'You've got this time to get up to scratch,' they have to tell the parents at that centre what's happening as well so they've got the information they need to make the decisions they need to make.
'To make sure their children are getting the best-quality care and education they can.'
Earlier this month, Victoria Police revealed Joshua Dale Brown, 26, had been charged with more than 70 offences, including sexual activity in the presence of a child under 16 and possession of child abuse material.
He was a worker at Creative Garden Early Learning Centre in Point Cook and had a working with children check.
The Australian Education Union welcomed the new laws, saying in a statement they would 'contribute to the urgent and systemic reform needed to restore community confidence'.
'The AEU is deeply distressed by the recent allegations of abuse in early childhood education and care settings,' the union's deputy president Meredith Pearce said.
'Early Learning is important for children's development and every parent must be able to place their trust in safe, secure and supported early learning environments.
'The changes are welcome, but if we want to ensure we are embedding child safe practices and minimising risk to all children, the practice of under the roof ratio's needs to cease, the threshold for quality standards needs to be lifted, and the workforce needs to be qualified, professionally paid and well supported.'
In his comments, Mr Clare thanked the opposition for working to get the changes through so quickly.
'This is a different parliament and a different opposition leader,' he said.
'I think want us to work together on the big things that matter to help Australians.
'And particularly on the childcare matter where it could have been very different.'
He singled out Sussan Ley and his opposition counterpart Jono Duniam for working 'constructively with us'.
'I take my hat off to them,' Mr Clare said.
'This is what Australians want of us, tis is what they expect of us.
'To be honest, it's what they should demand of us.'
Originally published as Childcare centres on notice after new safety laws pass parliament
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
an hour ago
- West Australian
Work from home a legal right in Australian-first reform
Employees will be legally allowed to demand to work from home two days a week if an Australian-first proposed law is passed. The Victorian government has promised to introduce legislation to make working from home a right in 2026, in contrast to other states that want public servants to spend more time in the office. The proposed law would apply to all public and private sector employees in Victoria who can reasonably do their job from home. Yet to be determined are the legislation's definition of remote work, who can do it and the types of businesses the law would apply to, but the government promised to consult before its introduction to parliament in 2026. It sets up a major contest with business groups in an election year, with Labor seeking a fourth consecutive term that polls indicate it's on track to win. The November 2026 election will be the first as premier for Jacinta Allan, who lags opposition leader Brad Battin as preferred state leader. Ms Allan said legislating the right to work from home was good for families and the economy. "Not everyone can work from home, but everyone can benefit," she said. "If you can do your job from home, we'll make it your right." The coalition's push to end to working-from-home for public servants was partly blamed for its unsuccessful result at the May federal election, despite abandoning the policy before polling day. NSW Premier Chris Minns has described remote-work provisions as a thing of the past but stopped short of seeking an end to working from home, instead ordering public servants to work principally in offices. More than one third of Australian employees usually work from home but that number swells to 60 per cent of managers and people in professional services, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The bureau says 43 per cent who work from home do overtime, compared to one quarter of those who do not.
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
Work from home a legal right in Australian-first reform
Employees will be legally allowed to demand to work from home two days a week if an Australian-first proposed law is passed. The Victorian government has promised to introduce legislation to make working from home a right in 2026, in contrast to other states that want public servants to spend more time in the office. The proposed law would apply to all public and private sector employees in Victoria who can reasonably do their job from home. Yet to be determined are the legislation's definition of remote work, who can do it and the types of businesses the law would apply to, but the government promised to consult before its introduction to parliament in 2026. It sets up a major contest with business groups in an election year, with Labor seeking a fourth consecutive term that polls indicate it's on track to win. The November 2026 election will be the first as premier for Jacinta Allan, who lags opposition leader Brad Battin as preferred state leader. Ms Allan said legislating the right to work from home was good for families and the economy. "Not everyone can work from home, but everyone can benefit," she said. "If you can do your job from home, we'll make it your right." The coalition's push to end to working-from-home for public servants was partly blamed for its unsuccessful result at the May federal election, despite abandoning the policy before polling day. NSW Premier Chris Minns has described remote-work provisions as a thing of the past but stopped short of seeking an end to working from home, instead ordering public servants to work principally in offices. More than one third of Australian employees usually work from home but that number swells to 60 per cent of managers and people in professional services, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The bureau says 43 per cent who work from home do overtime, compared to one quarter of those who do not.
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
In the current climate, the Coalition looks cooked
'We are in that situation with the Liberals,' with the electoral changeover to new generations of Australian voters, says Samaras. 'The Libs are extra vulnerable to takeover at the ballot box. If the teals can form a network or coalition or whatever you want to call it, they could be it. They could push the Liberals completely off the electoral map.' While there are fewer than 10 Liberal-held seats in the cities available for possible teal takeover, there are country seats that could be open to challenge by community independents like Helen Haines, who represents the predominantly rural Victorian seat of Indi. Rather than rage against climate realities and renewables investment, Haines is preoccupied with making the transition work for her constituents. She's proposed a 20 per cent share in the profits from big renewable projects for regional communities, for instance. Climate wasn't always a losing argument for the Coalition. It won some of the critical early battles of the climate wars. Barnaby Joyce was the original Coalition climate warrior. From the Nationals backbench, he illuminated the political pathway for Tony Abbott to follow. Climate scepticism worked for Tony 'climate change is crap' Abbott. It worked for Scott 'lump of coal' Morrison, until it did not. It did not work for Peter 'nuke 'em' Dutton. And it won't work for Sussan 'moderniser' Ley. If she goes there. But, thanks to the Nationals, it might not much matter. Because Barnaby, once again, is leading the Coalition into the rejection of climate change policy in all its manifestations. His current campaign is to abolish the Nationals' commitment to net zero. Which seems odd. Because he was the party's leader who signed on to net zero in a deal with then-prime minister Scott Morrison only four years ago. Even 'lump of coal' Morrison could see that Australia would be marooned, missing out on the global $US200 trillion ($311 trillion) renewables investment boom, unless it could commit to the bare minimum of plausible climate policy – net zero emissions by 2050. Such national responsibilities mean nothing to the rabble-rousing Joyce and company. The populist obscurantists in the Nats are more interested in incendiaries than investments. They only agreed to Morrison's net zero plan because he bribed them with some $30 billion in government spending promises plus an extra seat in the cabinet. But today there are no bribes on offer. Opposition parties have no access to the Treasury or seats in the cabinet. So Joyce is unchecked. He's been joined by his former rival for the Nationals leadership, Michael McCormack. They have enough internal support and momentum to succeed. The man supposed to be leading them, David Littleproud, is meekly following them. Not formally, not yet, but it seems inevitable that he will. His job is on the line otherwise. 'The Nats will be great,' says Samaras. 'They're not losing anything out of this. Their rural constituencies are older and their seats are safe.' Joyce & Co are fomenting a country-versus-city resentment – the countryside is being destroyed by toxic solar farms and fascist new power lines so that rich city investors can make money from them. But the Liberals? What do they do? They don't have a formal position at the moment. It's under review, and the party is divided. One argument is that they adopted net zero and lost anyway. So why not ditch it? The counter is that they didn't lose because of net zero, that it was overshadowed by an unpopular nuclear reactor plan. And that a party that aspires to government must have a credible climate and energy policy as a prerequisite to power. Loading But the Liberals face a wicked dilemma. With their junior Coalition partner exuberantly trampling climate change for the next three years, the Libs will have three options. One, join the Nats and suffer more electoral damage. The Liberals were all but driven out of the cities in the May election. Of the 88 seats classified by the Electoral Commission as metropolitan, Labor holds 71. The Liberals hold just nine. They can't aspire to government without a recovery in the cities. And if they embrace Barnaby's climate policy, they can pretty much forget about that. Two, the Libs can outline a separate policy and spend three years arguing with the Nats over it, which would be divisive and ugly. And how do you take two conflicting policies to an election? Three, the Libs can terminate the Coalition and go solo, much as Littleproud did by splitting with the Libs in the Eight-Day War in May. But that would be likely to mean being sentenced to permanent opposition – or oblivion – for both. The Libs don't have enough seats in their own right, and the Nationals don't have enough votes and rely on Liberal preferences. When Barnaby first launched the climate wars over a dozen years ago, they were directed against Labor. Today, the Nats' climate war is waged against the Liberals just as much. A war against the enemy has turned into a war against the supposed ally. It's not that Labor's renewables plan is rolling out smoothly. One of the gurus, Ross Garnaut, gave a damning speech this week calling the energy transition 'sick'. The entire national enterprise was 'on a path to comprehensive failure'. There is a big and rich political fight to be had. Not in raging against the reality of climate change or the advantages of energy transition, but in interrogating the government's execution of it. The smart course for the Coalition is not to attack Labor's goals but its incompetence in reaching them. A colleague of Kos Samaras, fellow Redbridge director and former Liberal campaign chief Tony Barry, sees the opportunity cost of the Nats' climate crusade: 'There are massive problems with the rollout for [Minister for Climate Change and Energy] Chris Bowen, and if Barnaby Joyce retired tomorrow he'd be beside himself. Barnaby keeps giving him a 'get out of jail' card.' Loading As the pollster for this masthead, Jim Reed of Resolve Strategic, puts it: 'The public debate about climate change is largely over, but the conversation about what to do about it, how urgently and at what cost still rages.' But a Coalition lost in delusion and distraction can't prosecute these real problems while it's caught up in ideological and irrelevant ones. 'The Liberals,' concludes Samaras, 'are in the killing zone'. It's just that, like the Black Knight, the Coalition seems unable to grasp the reality of its situation. As the victorious Arthur goes on his way, the Black Knight, now legless as well as armless, demands that the king come back and keep fighting. 'What are you going to do, bleed on me?' retorts Arthur.
