Richard Colbeck's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
type: channel
language: en-gb
creator: OpenAustralia.org, mprss.php script
date: 2026-02-05T22:05:57+00:00
items: Early Childhood Education and Care | Adjournment | Senate debates
items: Cost of Living | Motions | Senate debates
items: Fiscal Policy, Defence Properties | Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers | Senate debates
items: Finance and Public Administration References Committee; Government Response to Report | Committees | Senate debates
items: Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
items: Bondi Beach: Attack | Condolences | Senate debates
items: g208.3
items: g207.1
items: g205.3
items: g196.1
items: Rearrangement | Business | Senate debates
items: Child Care | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
items: Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025; In Committee | Bills | Senate debates
items: Answers to Questions | Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers | Senate debates
items: Energy | Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers | Senate debates
items: Environment | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
items: Child Care | Questions without Notice | Senate debates

Early Childhood Education and Care | Adjournment | Senate debates
type: item
description: I rise tonight after a visit to a little multi-educator family-day-care facility at Latrobe in Tasmania last week. Addisons family day care has been operating for about 15 years as a...
encoded: I rise tonight after a visit to a little multi-educator family-day-care facility at Latrobe in Tasmania last week. Addisons family day care has been operating for about 15 years as a multi-educator family-day-care model. They are currently caring for about 50 children from 35 families, and I've raised this matter before in the chamber. Not long prior, I visited a little place called Abracadabra family day care at Spreyton, which has been operating for 20 years as a dual educator model. Tanya is looking after some children there, and there are about 35 children at that facility, again from a number of families. The issue I want to raise tonight relates to a sincere request for the government to get on with the job of implementing recommendation 5.3 of the Productivity Commission's review of childcare services. If it doesn't, the running of these two facilities will be under threat. I was talking to Natalie last week, and the expense to her service, if this recommendation isn't implemented, will be something in the order of $600,000 to make alterations to the facility. In terms of Tanya's facility at Spreyton, the reality is that it may need to close, and all of those families and all of those children will lose access to the service. Interestingly, I was talking to the local council after I met with Natalie last week, and the deputy mayor said that these services aren't just appreciated in the local community; they are loved. That is the value that's placed on them by the families that utilise these services. In many cases, more than one generation of children have been through these multi-educator family-day-care centres. Just to put it into context, I'll read out recommendation 5.3 of the Productivity Commission review, which is: Allow two family day care services to be run in a single venue in regional and remote Australia. The National Quality Framework should be amended to allow two educators to provide education and care to up to 14 children at any one time at …
date: 2026-02-05T17:34:00+00:00

Cost of Living | Motions | Senate debates
type: item
description: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Henderson be agreed to. A division is required. There being no divisions on Thursdays after 4.30 pm, we shall return to the question at a later time.
encoded: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Henderson be agreed to. A division is required. There being no divisions on Thursdays after 4.30 pm, we shall return to the question at a later time.
date: 2026-02-05T17:00:00+00:00

Fiscal Policy, Defence Properties | Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers | Senate debates
type: item
description: I move: That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Senator Paterson and Senator Chandler in question time today. We saw in question time...
encoded: I move: That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Senator Paterson and Senator Chandler in question time today. We saw in question time yesterday and through the correction that Minister Gallagher was forced to provide to the chamber today the importance of the truth in this chamber and why Australians should be very wary about believing anything that Labor are saying. We heard, through the last debate, the minister make a joke of a serious matter with regard to orders for the production of documents and the complete lack of respect that Labor has shown in this chamber with respect to delivering information that the chamber—the parliament, the representatives of the people—have asked for. They show no respect for that and they do the same in question time. They will do anything that they possibly can to deflect from the truth, from the reality. Yesterday, on a day when interest rates went up by 25 basis points and Australians were hurting, the Labor Party tried to say that the Howard government was the highest-spending government in the last 40 years, and of course we know—because the minister was forced to correct the record today—that wasn't true. The government tries to deflect from its high spending, which is driving inflation up and keeping interest rates higher for longer. It tries to deflect from that. In fact, the Howard government never achieved a spending-to-GDP ratio anywhere near what this current government is doing. The current government's spending-to-GDP ratio, according to their own documents, is 26.2 per cent of GDP. The highest level for the Howard-Costello government was 25.1 per cent in 1996-97. And let's remember, they were coming off the Hawke-Keating years, when spending did run out of control, and it was that Howard-Costello government that put in spending parameters and delivered budget surplus after budget surplus after budget surplus—paid off $96 billion of Labor debt, left zero debt when…
date: 2026-02-05T15:28:00+00:00

Finance and Public Administration References Committee; Government Response to Report | Committees | Senate debates
type: item
description: In respect of the government response to the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee report on management and assurance of integrity by consulting services, I move: That the...
encoded: In respect of the government response to the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee report on management and assurance of integrity by consulting services, I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I want to start by acknowledging the contribution of particular colleagues that participated in that inquiry, Senators O'Neill and Barbara Pocock. I appreciate that the government has tabled its response to the report, which I think was an important one in the context of the way that government contracts for services across the board. And I do acknowledge that a number of changes have already been made to the processes for contracting that started occurring during the conduct of that inquiry and have continued since, some of that work in response to recommendations of the inquiry. But there are a few things in this government response that I find a little bit concerning. I'll start with recommendation No. 7. I have to say that I think that the government is either misinterpreting or misrepresenting what the committee said with respect to a central register for conflict-of-interest breaches. There's a lot of discussion in the response with respect to conflicts of interest, and we respect and acknowledge the work that the government has done in relation to managing conflicts of interest and improving processes around declarations of conflicts of interest as contracts are let and education of personnel within various departments to identify and manage those things. But, in my view, a register of breaches of conflicts of interest should be a very small list. The government makes some reference to its work on its code and the 'notice of significant events' clause. It may be that conflicts of interest could be a part of a notice of a significant event. In fact, I would suggest a breach of conflict of interest probably falls in that category. My view would be that, as long as the guidance around notices for giving notice of a significant event as …
date: 2026-02-03T18:33:00+00:00

Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
type: item
description: I rise to make my contribution to the very poorly named Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026. If you'd called it the 'firearms and customs law bill',...
encoded: I rise to make my contribution to the very poorly named Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026. If you'd called it the 'firearms and customs law bill', it would have been much more honest, but I do acknowledge that we are dealing with the horrific events, or the aftermath of the horrific events, of Bondi on 14 December and that there's a desire to make a connection. And, as I said yesterday, we must do everything that we possibly can in this place to ensure that Australia again becomes safe, and we'll pass some other legislation later in the day to do that. But I can't support this legislation, because of the flaws that are in it. The fact that, frankly, the government wasn't prepared to work with the coalition to get bipartisan support for this legislation in the same way that John Howard did after the tragic events of Port Arthur in 1996 is an indictment of this government and a demonstration of the fact that they are about the politics and not the reality of the situation. I was a candidate in the 1998 election for the seat of Lyons, and I won't forget those lawful firearm owners who came to me (a) to put their perspective and (b) to place their trust in me as someone they intended to vote for despite the fact that we'd legislated for them to have tighter access to firearms. Now, I wasn't successful in that particular election, but I haven't forgotten the conversations nor the responsibility. This legislation is a complete demonstration of the failure of leadership of the Prime Minister in managing this. The fact that the legislation was tabled a week ago—nobody had seen it. He hadn't come to the opposition, who had indicated for a considerable period of time since Bondi that we were prepared to work with the government as the Australian people wanted us to do to make some changes. The Prime Minister, despite calling for us to come together, has done nothing and failed to actually do the things that would bring us togeth…
date: 2026-01-20T17:33:00+00:00

Bondi Beach: Attack | Condolences | Senate debates
type: item
description: I rise to make my contribution to this debate, knowing that my words will be small consolation but hopefully some consolation to those of the Jewish community but also to the families who have...
encoded: I rise to make my contribution to this debate, knowing that my words will be small consolation but hopefully some consolation to those of the Jewish community but also to the families who have lost so much out of this brutal event that occurred on what was supposed to be a happy occasion for Australia's Jewish community—the commencement of Hanukkah, on 14 December last year. I offer my condolences to the families of those 15 innocents who were taken so brutally from us and to the broader Jewish community. The fourteenth of December will forever be a day where this country changed forever, with 15 people murdered in cold blood because they were Jewish—where antisemitism and hate invaded one of our most symbolic locations, while the Jewish community were celebrating light over darkness for the commencement of Hanukkah. We have to acknowledge the confronting nature of this attack, driven by the hatred of antisemitism. This is not the country that I thought it was. This is not what I thought we would see in our communities. But we are now forced to confront that this is who we are, because of those events. Antisemitism and hatred live in this country, in our communities, to our national shame. We're now forced to confront what we will do and how we will confront and manage this evil of antisemitic hatred that has taken hold in our country. It is an enormous challenge, but we must do that to honour the lives of the 15 who lost their lives, by making and taking the appropriate actions. How are we to make Australia a safe place again? How is it that those who escaped the Holocaust and came to Australia because they thought it was safe were to lose their lives in such a savage and evil antisemitic attack? How do we ensure that the security guards are no longer required outside our synagogues and our Jewish schools, kindergartens and aged-care facilities? That must be our priority if we are to appropriately honour the loss of life that occurred at Bondi on 14 December. We al…
date: 2026-01-19T15:58:00+00:00

g208.3
type: item
title: Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025, Environment Information Australia Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025; In Committee | Bills | Senate debates
description: You might remember my private member's bill to get over it.
encoded: You might remember my private member's bill to get over it.
date: 2025-11-27T17:09:00+00:00

g207.1
type: item
title: Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025, Environment Information Australia Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025; In Committee | Bills | Senate debates
description: My question is: how do you intend to manage the standing provisions within the act, which I know the Samuel review indicated should be expanded, which is of concern? As I indicated in my previous...
encoded: My question is: how do you intend to manage the standing provisions within the act, which I know the Samuel review indicated should be expanded, which is of concern? As I indicated in my previous contribution, we already know that environmental groups don't always tell the truth. I go back to 1981, when the Wilderness Society were opposing the construction of coal-fired power stations in Tasmania, rather than renewable energy, and there's the recent action where a court found that one of the environmental groups was actually fabricating evidence against a proposal so that legal action could delay or stop the proposal. My genuine concern is that that process will return with the removal of the exemption and that the forest industry will be killed off by a thousand cuts through that process. You'll say that that wasn't your doing. My view is that the removal of the exemption is what does it. How do you intend to ensure that the industry isn't subjected to a continuous flow of legal actions, which will effectively make it very difficult if not impossible to operate?
date: 2025-11-27T17:07:00+00:00

g205.3
type: item
title: Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025, Environment Information Australia Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025; In Committee | Bills | Senate debates
description: I want to go back to one of the points that I was making about the reason why the exemption came in in the first place, which goes to the issue of the continuous flow of legal action and appeal...
encoded: I want to go back to one of the points that I was making about the reason why the exemption came in in the first place, which goes to the issue of the continuous flow of legal action and appeal against the forest industry, which is why we moved to the RFA model in the first place. I'm curious to understand the standing provisions and how the government intends to manage the situation under the new act so that the forest industry doesn't have to suffer a return to the process of continuous challenge to operations, which is basically a mechanism to disrupt. I suspect that the reason the Greens are supporting this legislation is that they know they're going to be able to go back to this continuous cycle of challenge to the industry. How does the government intend to manage that process?
date: 2025-11-27T17:06:00+00:00

g196.1
type: item
title: Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025, Environment Information Australia Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025; In Committee | Bills | Senate debates
description: I just want to make a few comments and I'll have some questions, Minister, in relation to some of the interactions within the bill. But I want to go back to some comments that you made with...
encoded: I just want to make a few comments and I'll have some questions, Minister, in relation to some of the interactions within the bill. But I want to go back to some comments that you made with respect to the exemption for the RFA process in particular. I happened to be here—I think I'm the only one who was—when the RFA bill was passed. I remember quite clearly the delight of the forestry industry, because the exemption that was placed into the act, with the passing of the RFA legislation, took away the continuation of green lawfare that was imposed on the industry. With every particular harvest they wanted to undertake they had to go through a separate environmental approval process. That's why that process came about; it was because of the green lawfare of environmental groups who wanted to use that to cost the industry out of existence. That's where it came from. You made some comments with regard to my former government leader in the Senate Robert Hill when the RFA legislation was passed—that was the background to that. I remember why. I remember the impact on industry by environmental groups, who we know don't always tell the truth. We know that because a court recently found that they actually fabricated evidence in one particular case where they were looking for an outcome. But it was done to mitigate the impact of that green lawfare. I'm very keen to understand if the operation of the new system will continue to allow industry to operate on a reasonable basis so that they are not on a coupe by coupe basis, for example, required to come back for environmental approval. This sector already operates under an environmental standard. It's called Australian standard 4078 for sustainable forest management. I would be very curious, Minister, to understand how that standard, the Australian Forestry Standard—benchmarked globally against other forest standard systems; established through the principles of ISO 14000—will that be applied? How will industry be able to manage …
date: 2025-11-27T16:26:00+00:00

Rearrangement | Business | Senate debates
type: item
description: The fact that we are even having a debate about additional time at the government's instigation demonstrates how grubby this whole process has been. This is one of the most complex pieces of...
encoded: The fact that we are even having a debate about additional time at the government's instigation demonstrates how grubby this whole process has been. This is one of the most complex pieces of legislation that will come before this parliament. It affects industry from a whole range of perspectives. The government didn't even allow the committee process to be completed—a process that this chamber decided on. There has been no proper scrutiny of the legislation by this chamber, which is this chamber's job. That process was scrapped by the grubby deal done overnight by Labor and the Greens. And the fact that the embarrassment will continue out of the Labor Party's process is demonstrated already by the fact that they themselves have to extend time for the debate in the committee stage of this legislation. It is absolutely shameful that senators stand in this place to say that they haven't had the parliamentary resources to have their amendments for this legislation drafted. How shameful is that? And of course we know what sits behind that. The Greens don't have theirs ready either, which is why we're standing here debating additional time, and the government is put in the embarrassing situation of having to extend time for the committee stage of this legislation. I have questions that I would have liked to ask during the committee stage before lunch with respect to the standards, particularly around the treatment of the forest industry, which I've worked very closely with over a period of time. But the minister's response to questions and submissions made as part of the debate here belled the cat on the whole show. Labor are about the politics and the deal. They're not about looking after the environment. They're not about looking after Australian communities. And they're not about looking after people in our communities that rely on an effective piece of environmental legislation. They're all about the politics. Every time a coalition senator stood up to make a contribu…
date: 2025-11-27T15:22:00+00:00

Child Care | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
type: item
description: Last week, I visited Tanya at the Abracadabra family day-care centre in Spreyton. Tanya's been operating there for 25 years, and for a large proportion of that time she has been operating under a...
encoded: Last week, I visited Tanya at the Abracadabra family day-care centre in Spreyton. Tanya's been operating there for 25 years, and for a large proportion of that time she has been operating under a dual educator model. She's now caring for the children of the kids she once cared for, and she's certainly much loved. Recommendation 5.3 of the Productivity Commission report into child care recommended that, particularly in rural and regional areas, the dual educator model be permitted under the national framework. The government, through the minister, has told this chamber twice now that the government will be implementing those recommendations. Recently, the Tasmanian government did their bit in this discussion, which has been referred to by the minister on a couple of occasions, and granted Abracadabra family day care and Addisons family day care at Latrobe an extension and a temporary waiver of the guidelines until 31 January 2026. The question is: when will the government do what it said it would do, which is implement the recommendations of the Productivity Commission review? When will the minister implement recommendation 5.3 of the Productivity Commission review, which will take the pressure off these two family day-care centres, which are providing service in an area of need in north-west Tasmania. The minister has the future of these facilities at the tip of her pen. Tanya is now deciding whether she remains open when school starts again next year. That's the decision that this government needs to make: will it support the provision of childcare services in our region, or will it continue to sit on its hands?
date: 2025-11-26T13:42:00+00:00

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025; In Committee | Bills | Senate debates
type: item
description: The question is that the amendments moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.
encoded: The question is that the amendments moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.
date: 2025-11-26T11:17:00+00:00

Answers to Questions | Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers | Senate debates
type: item
description: I, too, rise to make a contribution to this motion to take note of answers given by government ministers to coalition questions during question time. What question time has again demonstrated to...
encoded: I, too, rise to make a contribution to this motion to take note of answers given by government ministers to coalition questions during question time. What question time has again demonstrated to the Australian community is that you cannot believe a thing that this government says. When they get into a bit of a corner they revert to the old tactics: ramp up the rhetoric, start calling people names across the chamber and then deflect the blame to somebody else. It doesn't matter who they deflect the blame to; they're just not prepared to take responsibility for their own decisions and their own actions. You see it time and time again. Then they all trot out the talking points. They've read the BS in the talking points so many times that they actually believe it themselves. The fact that the assertions being made by government ministers and senators are not true doesn't seem to mean anything anymore in this place. We started today with a conversation and a debate about respect in the chamber, and yet what do we get from government ministers across the chamber during question time? We get personal reflections. We get attacks on colleagues on this side of the chamber. Then, of course, Minister Watt—in something that probably only Minister Watt could do—tries to blame the Turnbull government for something that's happening under his watch now. It's as if the last three and a bit years didn't happen. What have the government been doing for the last three or so years while the Bureau of Meteorology has been developing its website? Have they been wandering around blindfolded? Have they been looking at what's going on? How did Minister Watt allow the BOM to suggest that a project that had cost $96 million had cost $4.1 million? He did acknowledge that he was upset about it, but it is just extraordinary that a project of this nature and of this importance to Australians, from a whole range of different perspectives, could be done so wrong. What does Minister Watt try to do? Bla…
date: 2025-11-25T15:29:00+00:00

Energy | Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers | Senate debates
type: item
description: Senator Cadell predicted that we'd get a rolling out of the talking points, and that's exactly what we got. There was a point of discussion about reality, but, unfortunately for the Australian...
encoded: Senator Cadell predicted that we'd get a rolling out of the talking points, and that's exactly what we got. There was a point of discussion about reality, but, unfortunately for the Australian people, reality is the problem. Labor promised 97 times before the 2022 election that they would reduce energy prices by $275 by 2025. Here we are, in 2025. What have we seen? In the last year alone, power prices have gone up by 23.6 per cent. That's the reality that the Australian people are facing. And guess what? At Christmas, just a few weeks down the track—frighteningly—because Labor, to get themselves through the last election campaign, only put up six months of energy price subsidy, the energy subsidies will be gone, and what will the Australian people be left with? Higher power bills. It was always going to be the case. Once the energy subsidies disappear, the Australian people are left with higher energy prices—over $1,300 a year higher under this Labor government. Subsidies will be gone, and power bills will still be there at a higher level—23.6 per cent in the last 12 months. When the kids are going back to school, with all the expenses and costs for the kids to start school again, the higher power prices will still be there. When the credit card comes in for Christmas, the higher power prices will still be there. Yet we heard the Labor Party 97 times before the 2022 election say that they would reduce Australians' power bills by $275 by 2025. That's the reality. That's the reality that Australians are facing. You cannot believe a single word that this government says with respect to energy. You can't believe Mr Bowen. You can't believe the Prime Minister. You can't believe the Treasurer. You can't believe anyone opposite. They'll trot out the talking points. They'll blame everybody else. But it was their promise that they would reduce power prices for Australians by $275 by 2025. What are we seeing with respect to industry? Industry are starting to walk out the doo…
date: 2025-11-03T15:49:00+00:00

Environment | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
type: item
description: The coalition calculated at the time of the election in May this year that at least a whopping 9.75 billion square metres of land had been approved for clearance for renewable projects by Ms...
encoded: The coalition calculated at the time of the election in May this year that at least a whopping 9.75 billion square metres of land had been approved for clearance for renewable projects by Ms Plibersek, of which well over 6.53 billion square metres had a known disturbance footprint. Does the minister have the latest updates of those figures to provide to the Senate, or will he, yet again, like on so many occasions under this government, fail the accountability and transparency test?
date: 2025-11-03T15:34:00+00:00

Environment | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
type: item
description: Minister, is it the case the Albanese government has been so reckless that it doesn't actually know how much land and wildlife habitat has been approved for clearance for renewable projects under...
encoded: Minister, is it the case the Albanese government has been so reckless that it doesn't actually know how much land and wildlife habitat has been approved for clearance for renewable projects under its watch? Or is it, as seems more likely, that the primary reason the government has continued to refuse to provide figures is that it knows the numbers would further expose the complete environmental hypocrisy at the centre of its renewables agenda?
date: 2025-11-03T15:34:00+00:00

Environment | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
type: item
description: My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Watt. Minister, on multiple occasions last year, your predecessor as environment minister was asked by the coalition in...
encoded: My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Watt. Minister, on multiple occasions last year, your predecessor as environment minister was asked by the coalition in question time and in OPDs to provide the number of hectares of native vegetation and wildlife habitat approved to be cleared for renewable energy projects in the years of the Albanese government. Naturally, this information goes to the very heart of the government's environmental credibility or otherwise. So, Minister, why to this day has the government still refused to release that data?
date: 2025-11-03T15:32:00+00:00

Child Care | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
type: item
description: That is not correct. It's a federal regulation that covers that matter. The future of those two childcare centres lies at the tip of your pen, and your implementation of recommendation 5.3 would...
encoded: That is not correct. It's a federal regulation that covers that matter. The future of those two childcare centres lies at the tip of your pen, and your implementation of recommendation 5.3 would save those two centres from closing. When are you going to complete that work?
date: 2025-10-30T17:25:00+00:00

Child Care | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
type: item
description: Recommendation 5.3 of the Productivity Commission's report recommended supporting multisite services. The Abracadabra family day care centre in Latrobe caters for 33 children over 25 families....
encoded: Recommendation 5.3 of the Productivity Commission's report recommended supporting multisite services. The Abracadabra family day care centre in Latrobe caters for 33 children over 25 families. The Addisons childcare centre in Spreyton caters for 50 children over 37 families, and the nonimplementation of recommendation 5.3 means those centres will have to close. (Time expired)
date: 2025-10-30T17:24:00+00:00