Bills

Office for Early Childhood Development Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 September 2024.)

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:00): I continue my remarks from Tuesday, when we commenced discussion of this bill. On that day, I particularly focused on the issue of the powers which are sought as a result of this bill for the Chief Executive of the Office for Early Childhood Development. I will therefore spend less time on that today. Today, I will go through the bill briefly in terms of what it is created to do and will come back to where the opposition is landing in terms of its support, most likely with a final position between houses if we conclude our work in the House of Assembly today.

I highlight again that we had expected originally, when the Minister for Education and I departed for WorldSkills, that this bill might have been likely for next week. Therefore, I had hoped to have that time during the school holidays to receive feedback from a range of early childhood education providers and other stakeholders.

I am not complaining about this; I understand that it is a function of the house that bills can come on quicker than expected. But when we did depart, I believe that there were about 30 bills or thereabouts higher than this one in the order of precedence. When we came back, we discovered that the government had guillotined more bills last sitting week than all governments in the combined history of South Australia up until last sitting week had done, and therefore this was elevated somewhat in the precedence.

Therefore, we have not yet had feedback from many of those organisations yet. I have spoken to a couple; I anticipate hearing from a great many more in the next couple of weeks. But if the bill passes today, as it may well with the government's support, then we have time nevertheless between the houses, and if the Liberal Party has any amendments to make or a position to offer, then that will be made clear in the Legislative Council.

The speech could begin here, if those wishing to just have a quick summary of the opposition's position are following. The Gillard Royal Commission into Early Childhood Education and Care recommended, amongst other things, that there be an Office for Early Childhood Development established in legislation as a steward for South Australia's early childhood education sector.

Noting that this sector comprises government and non-government institutions, with the non-government sector including community not-for-profit institutions, small businesses and massive national companies, based either here in South Australia or some interstate, Commissioner Gillard argued that the sector, which she and the government sometimes call a 'system', perhaps aspirationally, is very difficult to coordinate and so a system steward is required in order to achieve strategic targets for our state—so argues Commissioner Gillard.

In particular, the commissioner set an aspirational target for a reduction in the proportion of South Australian children who are developmentally vulnerable when starting school, from the 23.8 per cent currently, which is above the national average, down to 15 per cent. This is the Early Development Census data, which comes out every three years or so. One of the office's functions in the legislation, described as the primary function, is to achieve this reduction.

To that end, the bill creates certain powers for the office, particularly in relation to information-gathering over both other government departments and also non-government providers. Given the other functions, such as 'to align supports and services with the needs of children' and 'to provide overall strategic direction in relation to government early childhood development services', it is set up to provide a level of central coordination for the sector, based on government power and authority, potentially matched by increased government support for non-government providers. We shall see.

It should be noted, as I explained on Tuesday, that this office already exists. It was established as a government department with its own CE, Kim Little, and departmental officers. Like most government departments, it was established under the powers of the Public Sector Act. Establishment under legislation of its own provides certain extra powers not available to other CEs. The Minister for Human Services' CE does not have such power. The Minister for Transport's CE does not have such power, but the Minister for Education's CE in the Office for Early Childhood Development will have certain powers—certain powers available to the Ombudsman and other statutory officers in other departments. So, those extra powers are not available to other CEs. It also sets the functions of the office in legislation, complicating potentially the task for any future government to adapt any policy outcomes, should that be desired.

The matters that the government has provided and the opposition considers favourably include an agreed position between governments and opposition, and I imagine some minor parties as well. The government can play an important role in improving early childhood development outcomes, including through support or coordination with non-government providers. The first three years of children's lives—the first 1,000 days as often described—are a time of rapid development and potential vulnerability. Positive interventions to address vulnerabilities during this stage, whether through the early diagnosis and treatment of a challenging condition or even just the social opportunities created by playgroups, for example, can improve a child's short and long-term prospects.

Playgroups are an example that I will come back to, because we know the value of playgroups. Playgroups in South Australia have a long history of establishment, but they are established in a fairly ad hoc fashion. Some areas have a wealth of playgroups, some have few. Government preschools have a history, going back to the old kindergarten union days, of providing playgroups where they can, but where they are full they do not. Consequently, playgroups were a good example of the work done during the former government's early childhood plan, announced in our last budget before the change in government. Having Playgroups SA supported to better coordinate the establishment of new playgroups, potentially through some grants, was a key part of that plan.

A higher proportion of South Australia's children are coming to school with some form of developmental vulnerability than the national average. One of the key measures in the $50 million package that I described—the early childhood budget package in the last year of the Marshall Liberal government—was the provision of $16 million a year, which is an ongoing budget allocation that has been continued by the new government, for an increased scale and numbers of the free child development checks being made available for preschool-aged children.

These checks were identified as a significant lever to improve outcomes for children and better prepare them for their learning at school. That is now being rolled out. To put that into context, everybody in South Australia who has had a child in the last couple of decades would know all about the Blue Book. When a child is born, you have development checks and you go through the system. What is less known—we did the research three years ago—in fact, known to less than half of parents, is that there are two other stages at which those development checks are offered as well.

The problem is, I think it was the 18 months and three years checks, less than half of South Australian parents were getting those checks done at those points—25 per cent for one and 33 per cent for the other. Those checks enable early diagnosis of serious conditions. Those checks can also be a reference point where families can be pointed towards services, whether active services to potentially remediate a vulnerability, or passive services such as playgroups, which I described before, which in and of themselves can help reduce the risk of vulnerability.

That $16 million a year was funded for two things: to add an additional two checks to the system, including a preschool-aged check and another in one of those interim years, and also to massively expand the delivery of those checks. While potentially not being a universal check because it is obviously a voluntary check, the research showed that it was not in the most part because parents were not wanting these checks, it was in the most part because they were not aware of them or, potentially, that they were not convenient. The work was being done, and continues to be done, to roll that out more broadly to find ways to make it more convenient and, indeed, to fund the delivery of that.

The question would often come back when we announced this in 2021: is there funding adequate to the task of providing those interventions where needed? Ultimately, interventions where needed were often going to be universal service provisions anyway: if somebody has an entitlement to something that could be funded under Medicare or potentially through one of the disability programs, then that is a matter for those parts of government to fund.

While there is a challenge in workforce in some of those areas, ultimately there is a saving to government in the longer term too. Mr Deputy Speaker, as a former Minister for Disabilities, you know well that early intervention will often improve an individual's life outcomes, but in terms of the government's service provision the earlier you can provide a service, often that will lower the cost in the long term because you will have a reduced level of service required in many cases.

Putting aside for a moment the consideration of whether a government unit should be legislated, as this bill provides, the premise of a unit within government providing a certain level of policy leadership for the early childhood education sector has some merit. One does not need the recommendations of a royal commission to identify that there are significant geographical childcare blackspots within South Australia where it is difficult to find long day care services. There are workforce shortages across the sector. There are infrastructure challenges.

The Department for Education is primarily responsible for the provision of early childhood services only within the public system—and certainly prior to the Marshall government's recent budget measures there were few examples where the state government played a role in that sector beyond that of either service provider through the Department for Education and mostly public preschools, but not entirely, and also as a regulator through the Education Standards Board.

Non-government service providers, largely long day care services, are mostly funded by commonwealth subsidies and parental fees, with a modest state government subsidy paid to some centres, with various historical arrangements of an ad hoc nature. It has been argued that any attempt to lift outcomes and reduce vulnerabilities for children across the state through the levers available to the early education and care providers is severely limited by the ad hoc nature of the sector, albeit the government is obviously preparing fairly large financial engagement now.

It is likely that many early childhood services will attract a certain level of extra funding as a result of the government's three-year-old-preschool program, given that to deliver on the model to which the government has committed—the Gillard model—a preschool-type offering, or the preschool 'dose' to be available as part of their progressive universal service delivery model, will be required to be delivered at hundreds of non-government long day care facilities. Seventy per cent of children captured under the government's model will not have access to preschools as three year olds but will receive their 'dose'—I use the word again and it is an unusual word; maybe it is the right word, but it is an unusual one—of preschool-type offering in their childcare service.

These non-government long day care services will continue to be funded in their current manner, so there is no subsidy for three-year-old children to have free preschool, as I think many parents who voted for it were potentially expecting. They will have their parental fees, albeit with the commonwealth rebates that are pretty generous, certainly by world standards, for most parents, but there would be a level of state government funding required to support the requirement for there to be a teacher in the three-year-old room for it to be described as a preschool room.

There was a briefing provided by the department and, as I did on Tuesday, I reiterate my gratitude to CE Kim Little, Joanna Blake and Jamie Burt from the Department for Education and Amy Ralfs from the minister's office. I also thank Nic Kimberley, from the minister's office, for coordinating it at brief notice. In the briefing I received, the department assured me that the government had undertaken a wide amount of targeted consultation and that a number of services had welcomed the bill.

That is my encapsulation of the arguments in favour of the bill, if you like. We have some areas of concern that give us pause before being able to offer our support for the bill. I indicated earlier that we will consider the matter further between the houses, particularly relying on the feedback that we expect to receive in the next couple of weeks from a range of those services. There are probably 2,000 stakeholder organisations in South Australia affected, largely long day care services, preschools and out-of-school hours care services and also some fairly significant umbrella group stakeholders as well.

The first matter of concern for the government—and I am sure the minister in his second reading response will make some comment—is the question: why legislate? The Public Sector Act provides all the powers needed to create a department—it has already done so in relation to this department—or a unit within a department. Other government departments do not have their own acts of parliament. There are other acts that are committed to ministers. Those ministers are supported in the administration of those acts by public servants operating in Public Service administrative units, such as departments, as per section 24 and onwards in the Public Sector Act.

Bodies established with their own legislation, i.e., a statutory authority—which this will sort of become—have unique reasons for operating under that framework. Some are bodies that have become part of government or were created by government to operate, or at least appear to operate, independently of the government. For example, universities, the Art Gallery, various arts institutions largely operate under their own acts.

I was reflecting that Greg Mackie, when he was giving testimony, just this Monday, in the Statutory Authorities Review Committee (SARC) of the parliament, which is currently undertaking an investigation into the Museum and the Art Gallery, described a conversation he had with Don Dunstan about why South Australia has more separate acts of parliament for the arts organisations than any other state does.

I paraphrase Greg Mackie's paraphrasing of Don Dunstan. My recollection was that he said, 'Basically, if they are legislated, then they are very hard to change or get rid of.' That was the purpose for which a lot of those acts of parliament were created—and, as the shadow minister for arts, I am certainly happy to see that. But, of course, those arts organisations largely organise their affairs separately from the government of the day, depending on government funding from the government of the day. Ultimately, it is a matter for them to organise their priorities without necessarily having to have recourse to the government of the day—unless they want to explore some opportunity for major restructure, such as the Museum has just done, and ultimately we come back to this bill.

It is worth reflecting—and the minister may have advice in his second reading response—on whether, as an established department through legislation, the operations of the Office for Early Childhood Development will be subject to the strictures of the Legislative Council's Statutory Authorities Review Committee. I look forward to hearing that advice.

Some bodies, established under their own legislation are legislated because the government wishes them to act in a corporatised manner—for example, TAFE SA or SA Water. Some are bodies with oversight or advocacy roles that require a level of independence from government in order to conduct their functions. We are talking about the Guardian for Children and Young People, the children's commissioners, for example. Some are units of government that require special powers specifically set out in the legislation in order to do their work—for example, the Ombudsman or the ICAC.

The reason for legislating in this case, over and above the fact that it was a recommendation of the Gillard royal commission, appears to be the desire to create information-gathering powers for the CE and the office. I talked about them to an extent on Tuesday and I will come back to them.

The other feature of legislated units of government common to all, and this sort of goes to what Don Dunstan was talking about, is that the functions, purposes and duties of statutory authorities are much harder for a new or a future government to amend than those of a regular department or an attached office. So a body created by the Premier under the Public Sector Act, or the Administrative Arrangements Act potentially, can be edited or abolished by a new premier. However, an act of parliament is required to amend the duties of an office created by an act of parliament.

A couple of examples: the department for state development under the Weatherill government became the department for innovation and skills with a number of its other functions separated into separate departments under the Marshall government. The Hon. Steven Marshall had a strong view that one CE should be responsible for one department and reporting to one minister wherever possible with clear lines of authority, not to create silos but to create clarity.

Indeed, the department for industry and skills, as it was, became innovation and skills, and under the new government became I think, innovation, industry and science under the Deputy Premier and is now the Department of State Development again with other departments folded back into it. So departments can be created or abolished or amended by a premier to serve the state efficiently according to the government's priorities of the day. That is not capable of being the case with a department established under an act of parliament.

As a result of the functions of this bill, it establishes the legislated responsibility for the government to deliver three-year-old preschool. I note the fact that the government will of course not be delivering on that promise because they do not have the workforce, and they have set out a new delayed timeline of 2032. However, the good news for the minister and for the government is they can be comforted by the fact that there are no enforcement provisions in this bill if they do not deliver on its requirement.

We will talk about the functions briefly. Clause 6 of the bill sets out the functions for this office. Given that, as a department, if it was established as this one has been already under the Public Sector Act, the premier of the day can set out his priorities or her priorities for any department, instead this parliament, this house, is seeking to take that role and set out the priorities for this department. They do so through the functions set out in clause 6. They are in the bill, but I propose to read them so that members are clear on what is being established:

(1) The primary function of the Office is to act as a steward of the State's early childhood development system, and in particular to reduce the proportion of children in the State who are developmentally vulnerable when starting school.

(2) The Office also has the following additional functions:

(a) to facilitate, commission and support research relating to early childhood development;

(b) to support and facilitate the development of systems, policies and processes for the secure sharing of data across the early childhood development system;

(c) to support the universal reach of child health and development checks;

(d) to promote a vision of place-based, responsive and connected service delivery, building early childhood education and care as the backbone of a universal early childhood development system;

(e) to promote universal access to 3 and 4 year old preschool, developing and implementing funding models and connecting preschool providers to the broader early childhood development system;

(f) to develop, implement and fund fit-for-purpose infrastructure and targeted programs and services, including commissioning integrated service hubs, to support the early childhood development of children at increased risk of developmental vulnerability;

(g) to align supports and services with the needs of children by partnering with families, State authorities, non-government organisations and local and Commonwealth governments;

(h) to provide overall strategic direction in relation to government early childhood development services;

(i) to commission or recommission government services, as required;

(j) to promote the recognition of the cultural and linguistic diversity of children accessing services within the early childhood development system;

(k) to promote the participation of children with disability in the early childhood development system;

(l) to promote the participation of children in care, children who are in contact with the child protection system and children who are receiving child and family support services in the early childhood development system;

(m) to undertake strategic workforce planning to support early childhood reforms and service provision;

(n) any other functions conferred on the Office by or under this or any other Act or by the Minister.

It is a fairly long list.

I note that the South Australian Museum has its own act of parliament. In that act there is a requirement for the Museum to facilitate or conduct scientific research. There has been a moment in the last few months where that has become incredibly problematic for the state government because the board of the South Australian Museum, led by former chair Kim Cheater, decided that that was not going to be what the Museum was going to do anymore and sought to remove the 27 scientific research positions that had been undertaking that function under the South Australian Museum Act.

The act was written in such a way that, arguably, they were not breaching the law in doing so, but they certainly breached the spirit of that act and it created enormous problems for the government. The government has now put in $4 million over two years to sort of push that problem past the election, potentially, but unless further funding is provided, or unless the government wants to amend the legislation, they are going to have to address their failure to meet that function which is in the act for that statutory authority. The Premier announced last Thursday that there would be consideration and working with the universities as to how that function might be fulfilled. They do not have an answer for that yet.

That is a long list of priorities that the government has. Many of them are consistent with government policy—three-year-old preschool, for example, being legislated in this way. Some of them are in relation to operational matters. I highlight an example: the bill proposes to commission integrated service hubs. That is not something that alarms me in any way; I think that sounds great. That is what we currently think is the appropriate way to go about bringing services together.

But what happens if—through a result of federal-state relations changing, or offering new service models, or new research offering a different way forward—it requires an act of parliament to change that from being something this office is legislated to deliver? It is not potentially a reason to oppose the bill in itself. It is certainly a matter for consideration and it is certainly a matter for the government to consider as it seeks to legislate offices of the Public Service rather than allowing the Premier to use his powers under the Public Sector Act, as has been traditionally the norm.

Anyway, those are the functions, and when people are debating the merits of whether or not there should be early childhood education services provided by such an office, I just want to be very clear: that is not what this bill does. That work is already done. This office already exists. This bill just establishes whether the functions are going to be there in perpetuity or requiring an act of parliament to change, and/or whether or not the extra powers can be created.

I will finish by talking about the extra powers. Clause 10 of the bill sets out the powers for the chief executive to require information of another government department. In doing so, to be clear, the chief executive can ask another state authority to prepare and provide a report in relation to any matters specified in the notice, so long as those matters are obviously relevant to the functions of the act—that is 10(1)—and if the other state authority refuses or fails to comply with this request for information, the chief executive can report the refusal and failure to the minister and to the minister responsible for that other state authority. The chief executive includes the details of that failure and then:

(4) The Minister may, by notice in writing, exempt a State authority from the operation of this section.

I am not sure which minister. At any rate, we will see what happens there. I assume the Minister for Education is the arbitrator.

So if the chief executive of the Office for Early Childhood Development seeks information from the Minister for Human Services' department and the Minister for Human Services' department says, 'This is a burden. We don't think it's important. We're not going to do it,' then the chief executive of the Office for Early Childhood Development tells the Minister for Human Services and the Minister for Education, and the Minister for Education has to tell the Minister for Human Services to get her people to provide the information, as best I can tell it. If there is a disagreement, I am not sure what happens after that.

At any rate, clause 11 is potentially the more interesting one. I am sure you guys can work that out. Clause 11 is—

The Hon. N.F. Cook interjecting:

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I think that that may be a potential solution. I apologise for having my own side conversation with the Minister for Human Services there. Clause 11 is the one on which I have potential concerns. Clause 11 sets out that the chief executive can require and seek information from a specified entity, which can basically be anyone who is relevant to the early childhood services sector, anyone who is relevant to the functions of this act. That information can be on really any matter that can be related to the functions of the act.

The entity must provide that information within the period specified by the chief executive. That is quite significant power, and we are reliant on the chief executive to use it in a reasonable way because an entity who refuses or fails to comply with such a notice is guilty of a new offence with a $5,000 penalty. Again, if the state authority refuses or fails to comply with the notice, the chief executive may report the refusal or failure to the minister and, indeed, there is that offence provision of $5,000.

The minister may, by notice in writing, exempt an entity from the operation of this section. So the Minister for Education again is then in a position to alleviate that $5,000 fine. I imagine that this power will likely not be abused—I would certainly hope so. This is already a fairly regulated area, and there are certain information provisions that have to be provided to government in return for government funding. I am unclear as to why these new provisions are so necessary, this stick is so required to get this information, especially if it is largely going to be in relation to providing funding to services—long day care services, for example, if it is related to the three-year-old preschool program.

There is a financial transaction there that can require certain information to be provided. What would really concern me is if a family day carer, operating as a sole trader in effect, or a small business, a small mum-and-dad operation in a childcare centre, or some other organisation associated with the early childhood sector—somebody running a playgroup, for example—had this notice provided to them by the chief executive seeking information that was useful to the department but not necessary for the people of South Australia to be accumulated by government necessarily, that person has got a $5,000 fine hanging over their head.

That is something on which we are seeking feedback more broadly from the sector to ensure that there is not fear of a compliance burden. I am not outright stating that this is going to be a problem: I am seeking to have more feedback from the sector to see if they think it is going to be a problem.

Also, in relation to the sharing of information between entities at clause 12, there are some fairly significant information-sharing powers there, and they, I am assured, are welcomed by many in the sector and the institutions that are identified as being captured by them. I am reassured by the Office for Early Childhood Development that that is the case, and I certainly hope that is, but we are going to the trouble of checking because there are $10,000 penalties there for misuse. I suspect that with the information being sought to be shared, a $10,000 penalty is probably appropriate. We do not want this information to be misused. I imagine that part is going to be less controversial.

With all of that, I recognise that a number of the things this bill talks about are welcome developments. A number of them were started under the former government, a number of the programs referred to were started under the former government, and I am pleased to see them continuing. The new government has added to that list of programs, particularly through the measures set out in the Gillard royal commission, and a number of those pieces of work are progressing with or without this legislation.

This legislation sets some of those things in stone and it provides opportunities for the government to have new powers. We are giving serious consideration to those and will confirm that position between the houses.

Ms HOOD (Adelaide) (12:34): I rise in support of the Office for Early Childhood Development Bill 2024. There has been a vast change in the way we juggle parenthood compared with our parents or perhaps more so our grandparents' generation. My grandmothers Bobby and Lois and my mother, Penny, were all farmers' wives when they had their young children. As an example, I was only ever babysat by my grandparents. I never attended child care as a small child and my mum picked me up every day from school or from the school bus, which was on Moyhall Road near the Bool Lagoon drain.

Fast-forward to my generation as parents and the early years and that of my two children, and how we are raising them could not be more different. When my children were babies and I was a part-time working mum, I relied on child care and now, as a full-time working mum, I rely on before school care and after school hours care, in particular because my family support, as is the case for many others, does not live in our city. My mum, stepdad and my dad, otherwise known as granny, grandad and grandad Robin, live more than 3½ hours away at Naracoorte and Bool Lagoon.

The experience of working families has changed dramatically over the last generation and, to be frank, I feel in some ways our system has not kept up with that change. As an example, my son attended a local public kindergarten in my local community where drop off was at 9am and pick up was at 3.30pm. It is the most incredible kindy with dedicated educators and staff, a wonderful kindy community, and the memories and friends made will last a lifetime, but the reality is that those drop-off and pick-up times for parents just do not really suit working families.

If you travel a few kilometres into the city where my daughter went to kindy at a children's centre, there was a long day care option for parents to pick up their children by 6pm in the evening. Again, two incredible public kindies with amazing staff just a few kilometres apart, but the drop-off and pick-up times for working families were completely different. So something needed to be done.

That is why I am so proud to be part of a Malinauskas Labor government that through this bill is establishing the Office for Early Childhood Development as a steward of South Australia's early childhood development system. The office will work collaboratively to mobilise long day care, early learning centres and government services in every community to importantly deliver a new offer of universal three-year-old preschool.

Universal three-year-old preschool was a recommendation of the Royal Commission into Early Childhood Education and Care, which recognises that in South Australia nearly one in four or 23.8 per cent of children are developmentally vulnerable in one or more domains when they commence school. This must be addressed, and the Malinauskas Labor government is addressing it.

Three-year-old preschool will be rolled out progressively from 2026, with initial focus on regional and remote communities. Access to preschool and wraparound out-of-hours care in these communities will support not only children's development but also workforce participation, particularly for women, and improved economic outcomes in the regions. Additional supports will be provided for particularly vulnerable children, with integrated hubs and additional preschool hours being made available to children who need it most.

It is understandable that these reforms require significant resources, and that is why the SA budget 2024-25 included an investment of an additional $1.9 billion in early childhood services and supports over the period to 2032-33. This investment represents a once-in-a-generation commitment to reducing the rate of South Australian children entering school developmentally vulnerable. The rollout of these reforms also relies heavily on the early childhood education and care workforce. That is why we are investing $96.6 million in early childhood education and care workforce initiatives to support attraction, qualification pathways, retention and quality.

I would hazard a guess that all of us in this place know an early childhood educator and know just what incredible, intelligent, empathetic and dedicated people they are, but we do need more of them to support these reforms, so I welcome this significant investment in the early childhood workforce. I also want to acknowledge the minister, Blair Boyer, and his staff, his department and the new office for early childhood for their hard work on this bill and on all these reforms. It is so incredibly important, and I thank them for their important work.

In closing, if one day I am a grandmother I will gladly babysit my grandchildren, but I also know, thanks to the reforms of this Malinauskas Labor government, that it will not be the only option available to my son and daughter if they go on to juggle work and family life. They will have access to a modern-day early learning childhood education system supported by the Office for Early Childhood Development that supports working families and ensures our little ones have the best chance of reaching their full potential. I commend this bill to the house.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD (Reynell—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (12:39): I rise to speak in wholehearted in support of the Office for Early Childhood Development Bill 2024. The nurturing, early learning and access to positive environments for our youngest South Australians is absolutely crucial to their wellbeing and positive development in their early years and, indeed, across their lifetimes and generations.

Early childhood education plays a vital role in that overall mental, emotional and physical development and wellbeing of children, particularly those who are more vulnerable. A young person's formative years, typically from birth to age five, are critical in shaping a child's cognitive, emotional, social and physical development. We know that positive early childhood education offers profound benefits in those early years that extend well into adulthood and that help prevent long-term negative outcomes associated with a lack of proper care and support in the early years.

Children in contact with the child protection and family support system often face multiple adversities, sometimes including the impact of poverty, intergenerational trauma, mental ill health, and exposure to domestic violence and sometimes substance misuse. These factors can absolutely hinder a child's development, placing them at higher risk of behavioural issues, learning delays, and emotional and mental health problems.

The provision of early childhood education can absolutely serve as a protective factor. It provides a stable, nurturing environment that fosters learning and growth during times when things may be really difficult in a child's home. As well as providing that nurturing environment, one of the most significant impacts of early childhood education is its ability to improve cognitive development. Research shows that children who participate in high-quality early childhood education programs develop better language, literacy and mathematical skills compared to those who do not. For especially vulnerable children this cognitive support from an early age can create pathways towards success in school and increase their chances of breaking cycles of intergenerational trauma that can inhibit their learning.

Social and emotional development can absolutely be advanced through access to early childhood education. Stable, nurturing relationships with educators in an early childhood setting can help children develop trust, empathy and self-regulation. These skills are crucial for forming healthy relationships across the course of one's life and managing emotions, which are often areas of difficulty for children who may have experienced trauma or instability at home. Through positive interactions in early childhood education, children learn to navigate social situations, cope with stress and build resilience, skills that are critical for their future wellbeing.

We know that these benefits and many others that improve outcomes for South Australian children require a holistic approach across the entire early childhood development system. The royal commission was a unique opportunity to understand what we need to do to establish South Australia as a place where all families have the support they need to give their children the best start in life.

Universal three-year-old preschool was a key recommendation from the Royal Commission into Early Childhood Education and Care in recognition that in South Australia nearly one in four children are developmentally vulnerable in one or more domains when they commence school and that one in three children here in South Australia come to the attention of the child protection and family support system at some point during their lives until the age of 18.

We are reforming our education system to ensure early education and intervention are critical pieces of how we invest in our children and our future. This reform sits alongside and aligns with the transformation of our child protection and family support system. We know that if we are to respond to the complexity of issues that children and their families face we need efforts across every part of our system, across every area of government. This excellent bill really speaks to this very important effort.

The bill we progress today establishes the Office for Early Childhood Development to provide statewide strategic oversight and direction of South Australia's early childhood development system. This also sets up the mandate for the office to collaborate and to engage with the many organisations and people who intersect in the early years of a child's life.

Our government's significant investment into early childhood workforce development rightly increases the recognition and value of early childhood education workers in Australia, 92 per cent of whom are women. It endeavours to attract and retain a highly skilled workforce for the long term and will contribute to shifting attitudes that devalue feminised work.

Alongside this, I highlight the recent federal government's announcement to fund a 50 per cent wage increase for early childhood education and care workers. This commitment is crucial to attraction and retention in the sector into the future. This wage increase, phased in over two years, will mean that a typical—one of those incredible—ECEC educators who is paid at the award rate will receive a pay rise of at least $103 per week, increasing to at least $155 per week from December 2025.

As was stated at the time of that announcement, ECEC workers are some of the most important workers in the country, and they absolutely deserve to be appropriately remunerated. I congratulate all those ECEC workers, and their union, who campaigned so hard towards this wage increase.

I am deeply passionate about the connection between child protection and family support and education, and indeed whole-of-government efforts, in ensuring children and young people in contact with the system are well supported to achieve in education and elsewhere. As I have also talked about, it is crucial that those in contact with the child protection and family support system have access to the benefits that early education offers.

Our draft Children and Young People (Safety and Support) Bill 2024 rightly embeds a public health approach framework, widely recognised as the preferred approach for child protection and family support. The bill also introduces a requirement for a whole-of-state strategy for children and young people to be created as a framework for collaboration and coordination across government, and the provision of supports and services to children and their families. It recognises the need to mobilise sector and community partners in keeping children safe and ensuring they have the best chance to thrive.

Children and young people in care and in contact with the system are deserving of the opportunity to access quality learning from preschool right through to vocational and tertiary education. In fact, it is life-changing in terms of developmental progress and in terms of providing that wonderful sense of community family.

The safe and structured environment of early childhood education can serve as a haven where particular children feel supported. This sense of safety is vital for healthy brain development and children being better able to explore, learn and thrive in a nurturing early learning environment. The office this bill supports will work collaboratively to mobilise long day care, early learning centres and government services in every community to deliver a new offer of universal three-year-old preschool.

Additional supports will be provided for particularly vulnerable children, with integrated hubs and additional preschool hours being made available to children who need them most. Three-year-old preschool will be rolled out progressively from 2026, with an initial focus on regional and remote communities. Access to preschool and wraparound out-of-hours care in these communities will not only support children's development but also support workforce participation and improved economic outcomes in the regions.

This bill also has another really important and positive consequence. We know that a lack of access to quality early childhood education and care is a barrier to women's economic participation. Women continue to spend more time than men on unpaid care work, which limits participation in the paid labour force and has cumulative impacts on lifelong economic security.

Access to long day care and the costs of long day care before children reach preschool age can have a disproportionate impact on women. Women who participate in the unpaid care of children in Australia spend one hour and 15 minutes more than men each day on this unpaid work. The introduction of universal three-year-old preschool will support women's economic participation by alleviating some of that unpaid care burden and better matching care hours to standard working hours.

I am really proud of our government's 2024-25 commitment to invest an additional $1.9 billion into early childhood services and support over the period to 2032-33. This investment represents a once-in-a-generation commitment to reducing the rate of South Australian children entering school developmentally vulnerable and it will empower women.

The reform the Office for Early Childhood Development will oversee will see us leading the way in creating a system that makes it easier and more accessible for modern, working families to balance working and raising children and will help ensure that vulnerable children are not left behind. I thank and congratulate the minister and his team on this important work and I commend the bill to the house.

Ms O'HANLON (Dunstan) (12:52): I, too, rise to speak on the Office for Early Childhood Development Bill 2024. Labor took to the 2020 election a commitment to establish a royal commission into early childhood education and care. This commitment was underpinned by the now universal knowledge that the first 1,000 days of a child's life are crucial to their brain and social development. But that was coupled with acknowledging the alarming statistic that nearly a quarter of South Australian five year olds are starting school behind their developmental milestones, nearly the highest proportion of all states.

A royal commission was subsequently established by former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who had formidable experience in the field of education and who set the standard for early childhood education in 2012. The royal commission examined, amongst other things, how universal quality preschool programs for three and four year olds can be delivered in South Australia and confirmed quality early learning programs can have a significant and lasting impact on children growing up in disadvantaged environments.

On the basis of that and the specific recommendations of the royal commission, the Malinauskas government took immediate action to begin building the workforce required to deliver three-year-old preschool and expanded out-of-hours school care, and today this bill seeks to build on that by establishing the Office for Early Childhood Development as a steward of South Australia's early childhood development system.

Being a mother of four children, I feel well placed to speak to the extraordinary importance of early childhood education. Anyone who has experienced a toddler knows that learning to regulate their emotions and to interact with their peers in an appropriate way is crucial to their learning experience. I have fond—or perhaps not so fond—memories of one of my children as a toddler screaming the entire way around the supermarket and was very thankful when they finally learned that that simply was not a socially acceptable way of negotiating being allowed to walk, not run, if allowed out of the supermarket trolley. And I am sure most parents and other caregivers will also have fond memories of our littlies learning the hard-won lesson of sharing.

On a more serious note, these are actually fundamentally important life lessons that are reinforced by the experiences of play-based learning and interaction with other children that occurs in a quality preschool environment. Equally important are their language and cognitive skills, the ability to communicate and develop general knowledge, and a child's physical health and wellbeing, which can be casually observed in a setting of trained early childhood educators.

These are all areas which are measured by the Australian Early Development Index, and how we know that as of 2018 South Australia was indeed the second worst state in the country in terms of the percentage of developmentally vulnerable children, meaning the approach of the Malinauskas government was demonstrably overdue and a very welcome initiative.

This bill provides the legislative mandate for the office to provide statewide strategic oversight and direction of the early childhood system, and to collaborate and engage with the many organisations and people who intersect in the early years of a child's life. The office works with communities, Aboriginal leaders, local government, non-government and government providers in health, human services and child protection, and government and non-government ECEC providers to support children to thrive. The office will work with a range of providers to mobilise long day care, early learning centres and government services in every community to deliver a new offer of universal three-year-old preschool.

I specifically want to thank the providers of early childhood education in my electorate. I have had the great pleasure of meeting with many of our local preschool and childcare operators, and I can say without exception they are committed professionals, dedicated to the growth and wellbeing of the littlest members of our community. They are keen to step up to provide a service to all three year olds and to work with the government to ensure that early childhood care and education is provided in a way that works for families, that allows parents—often mums—to get back into the workforce and, in so doing, ensures that parents and caregivers can have complete confidence that they are giving their three and four year olds the very best to a successful start in life.

I want to acknowledge that delivering early childhood education is hard work, and the people who work in this sector are everyday heroes without whom society would simply come to a grinding halt. I also want to acknowledge and thank both the Minister for Education and the Premier for their dedication to change the status quo, and their devotion to children and young people in this state. I want to acknowledge the work of the staff of the Office for Early Childhood Development, who are committed to reducing the rate of childhood developmental vulnerability, to create better lives for all young South Australians and their families.

This is an example of the kinds of reforms that only Labor governments are able to deliver, and this Malinauskas Labor government understands that our future will be defined by how we treat our children, by the care they receive and the quality of their education, and we will not let South Australian children down.

Mrs PEARCE (King) (12:57): I also rise to speak on the Office for Early Childhood Development Bill 2024. I do so because the science has made this abundantly clear. Making an investment in the early years pays the biggest dividends to providing our young people with the absolute best chances to thrive in life. The way a child grows, learns and develops in the years before school is absolutely pivotal. It lays the foundations for a better life in all components of their life, be it their wellbeing, their educational outcomes, their ability to form connections within the communities in which they are living in and so on.

This government is absolutely all about doing what we can to help create the best start for every child and working to facilitate a future in which every child can thrive and learn through getting the support that they need. It is why we established the Royal Commission into Early Childhood Education and Care, and why we are working to implement the recommendations made.

One of those is what has led us here today: to legislate the office for the early years to lead the early childhood development system, with a mandate to increase the proportion of South Australian children who are developmentally on track when starting school and to be able to reach the goal defined in recommendation one—reducing the rate of South Australian children—

The SPEAKER: Member for King, would you like to seek leave to continue your remarks?

Mrs PEARCE: Yes. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.