'Big weapon' wielded to strengthen childcare safety
The changes were introduced to the House of Representatives on the first day of parliamentary business since the May election.
They follow widespread calls for change after a Victorian childcare worker was charged with dozens of sex offences involving children.
State regulators can already shut a centre on the spot if there is an imminent threat to safety.
But Education Minister Jason Clare said the Commonwealth could also try to lift standards through its available levers.
"We have to do everything that we can to ensure the safety of our children when they walk or when they're carried through the doors of an early education and care service," he told parliament on Wednesday.
"Funding is the big weapon that the Australian government has to wield here.
"The real purpose of this legislation isn't to shut centres down, but to raise standards."
Any childcare operators that fail to meet quality, safety and compliance standards could be prevented from opening new centres and might be cut off from receiving government subsidies, which typically cover a large proportion of parents' fees.
Providers would be issued with a formal notice requiring an explanation within 28 days with the Department of Education able to cancel or suspend an operator's approval.
"Providers that can improve their services to meet the standard will get the chance to do that," Mr Clare said.
"Services that don't or can't or won't will lose their access to funding."
The bill also expands commonwealth powers to publish information about providers that are sanctioned for non-compliance.
State, territory and federal ministers are expected to meet in August to discuss other changes, including mandatory CCTV in childcare centres, establishing a national worker registry and mandatory child-safety training.
Information on centres for which childcare subsidy approvals have been suspended or cancelled can already be viewed on the department's website.
But the legislation would also allow for information to be made public when compliance action is taken against providers, like when an infringement notice is issued.
Commonwealth-authorised officers would also be given more powers to do their jobs through the ability to enter premises without consent during operating hours to detect non-compliance across the sector.
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley said the coalition would need to examine the legislation closely.
"I wanted this issue to be above politics, as somebody who's dropped my own children off at child care and now sees my children dropping their children at child care," she told ABC News.
"I'm incredibly concerned, so I do want to be constructive, but that being constructive doesn't mean giving the government a blank cheque when it comes to goodwill on this issue."
Mr Clare said parents were "not interested in excuses, they expect action".
There were still issues with sharing information on working-with-children checks between jurisdictions, he added, and more work would be done at an upcoming meeting of state and federal attorneys-general.
1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732)
National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service 1800 211 028
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
9 News
22 minutes ago
- 9 News
Australia lifts ban on US beef imports
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here Australia has lifted remaining bans on beef imports from the US as the ongoing battle to secure an exemption from Donald Trump's tariff regime continues. Employment Minister Amanda Rishworth confirmed on Today that a decade-long review into the imports of US beef had been completed. "That review has been undertaken and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry believe that there are the right controls in place in the US to lift that ban," she said. Imports of beef from the US will be permitted after a government review. (Getty) "My understanding is that will be lifted as a result of a decade-long review." That source emphasised that Australia's biosecurity would remain uncompromised by the change, a stance Rishworth also took. Donald Trump announces his global tariffs in April. (Nine) "We are not we are not compromising on biosecurity. I need to make that very clear," she said. "We believe in free and fair trade. And our farmers very much benefit from being able to export their products right around the world." The revelation comes ahead of US President Donald Trump's proclaimed August 1 deadline for increased blanket tariffs on imports to the US. There are fears for Australia's biosecurity. (Getty Images/iStockphoto) Australia is currently subjected to a baseline 10 per cent tariff on all US exports, including beef, with a 50 per cent tariff on steel and aluminium. Trump has also threatened to increase the tariff on imported pharmaceuticals to 200 per cent. The baseline tariff could as much as double to 20 per cent on the August 1 deadline, Trump warned in recent weeks. In April, when rolling out his "Liberation Day" tariff plan, Trump singled out Australian beef. "Australia bans – and they're wonderful people, and wonderful everything – but they ban American beef," he said then. "Yet we imported $US3 billion of Australian beef from them just last year alone. "They won't take any of our beef. "They don't want it because they don't want it to affect their farmers and you know, I don't blame them but we're doing the same thing right now starting at midnight tonight, I would say." A ban on beef imports from the US was put in place more than 20 years ago after an outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, which can lead to fatal brain disease in humans. The blanket ban was lifted in 2019 for cattle raised and slaughtered in the US, but remained for cattle that had been raised in Canda and Mexico, but slaughtered in and exported from the US. It's those latter bans which have now been lifted, after the review reportedly found the US had improved its tracking protocols. Trade tariffs agriculture Australia national USA World CONTACT US
7NEWS
an hour ago
- 7NEWS
Australia lifts ban on import of US beef
The Albanese Government has lifted a ban on United States beef, in a major move to appease the Trump Administration and to try and end tariffs on Australian exports. The US has had beef access into Australia since 2019. The announcement on Thursday will allow for expanded access to include beef sourced from cattle born in Canada or Mexico, which is legally imported and slaughtered in America. Albanese Government sources say in late 2024 and early 2025, the US introduced more robust movement controls, which means that all cattle from Canada and Mexico can be identified and traced to the farm and through the supply chain. Minister for Agriculture Julie Collins said the government has done all the necessary checks. 'The Albanese Labor government will never compromise on biosecurity,' she said. 'The US Beef Imports Review has undergone a rigorous science and risk-based assessment over the past decade. 'The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is satisfied the strengthened control measures put in place by the US effectively manage biosecurity risks. 'Australia stands for open and fair trade - our cattle industry has significantly benefited from this.' Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie says the Opposition is waiting for a briefing from the government on the details of the announcement. But the Coalition is concerned protocols may have been watered down, risking disease entering Australia. 'We know this is because of the Prime Minister's inability to repair our relationship with the United States,' McKenzie said. 'Anthony Albanese must not sacrifice our beef industry and our farmers to repair the diplomatic deficiencies of his relationship with the United States.' Aussie beef has had back-to-back record-breaking export years, with last year worth $14 billion.
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
Australia may be target of legal action on climate
Australia could become the subject of legal action after an international court said countries have an obligation to prevent climate change harm and redress damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The non-binding advisory opinion was issued by a 15-judge panel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague in The Netherlands overnight. It opens the way for countries to potentially sue each other over climate change impacts. Social justice group ActionAid Australia, which lobbies for women's rights, said the advice was a wake-up call for the Labor federal government. "This ruling is a powerful tool we can use to demand that those most responsible for this climate crisis be held accountable," the group's Vanuatu country manager Flora Vano said on Thursday. Ms Fino, who travelled to the Hague last year to deliver testimony as part of the court proceedings, said women and girls on the frontlines of the climate crisis will be able to fight for justice and accountability. ActionAid Australia executive director Michelle Higelin said the ruling was clear. "Australia must do all it can to keep global heating to 1.5 degrees," she said. "This is not a choice, this is an obligation to take stronger and more urgent action." ActionAid wants the government to "urgently" transition away from fossil fuels and increase funding to low-income countries, including those in the Pacific, to support climate adaptation efforts. Global science and policy institute, Climate Analytics, which has an Australia-Pacific region office, said the court has pointed to potentially serious legal consequences. Action could be taken under customary international law if countries don't put forward climate targets aligned to the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. "Importantly, these obligations also apply to countries whether or not they are Parties to the Paris Agreement," it added. Australia's current commitment to the Paris Agreement includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. The world court's opinion comes after Vanuatu University law students argued that the people of Pacific island countries are unjustly bearing the brunt of climate change compared to high-emitting economies. "The degradation of the climate system and of other parts of the environment impairs the enjoyment of a range of rights protected by human rights law," presiding judge Yuji Iwasawa said, reading out the court's opinion. The court decision "confirms that states' obligations to protect human rights require taking measures to protect the climate system ... including mitigation and adaptation measures," judge Hilary Charlesworth, an Australian member of the court, said in a separate opinion. The 133-page opinion was in response to two questions the United Nations General Assembly put to the UN court. The first was: what are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? The second was: regarding the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? A response is being sought from the federal government. Vanuatu Minister for Climate Change Adaptation Ralph Regenvanu described the court's opinion as a "very important course correction in this critically important time". "For the first time in history, the ICJ has spoken directly about the biggest threat facing humanity," he said at The Hague.
