DAM v NSW Department of Education and Communities: Cancellation of Service Approval

This is another case in which an approved provider of a family day care service (in this case "DAM") has sought a review of a decision to cancel service approval by the NSW Regulatory Authority (Department of Education and Communities) under the Education and Care Services National Law. The full facts involved are not detailed in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision (which can be found here) as this case only concerned a stay on the decision of the Department to cancel the service approval until a further, more complete hearing before the Tribunal could be held. The cancellation was to come into effect in April 2017.
The decision indicates that following a monitoring visit by the Department, in which there were alleged breaches of the National Law, the Department issued a show cause notice and subsequently decided to cancel the service approval under s.79. 
The Tribunal decided that a stay of the Department's decision was appropriate as it was in the best interests of the children for the service to continue pending a further hearing (paras. 55-58):

The ultimate determination of the correct and preferable decision must regard the best interests of the child who may receive the benefit of the service as paramount.

The National Law facilitates the provision of a national education and care services quality framework for the delivery of education and care services to children. The fact that the applicant received service approval to run a Family Day Care Service is an indication that the applicant was considered capable of providing quality education and care services to children. The fact that the service has operated successfully is also an indication that it has been viewed favourably by parents of the children who benefit from its service.

The respondent agreed that children would have to go elsewhere if this childcare centre closed down and agreed that there was no serious imminent risk in the Family Day Care Service continuing to operate whilst the final decision is made by the Tribunal.

A successful review would be useless or futile unless the stay was granted. In those circumstances a stay of the operation of a decision pending the review should therefore be granted. The overriding principle in any stay application is that of upholding the interests of justice in the particular circumstances, and the interests of justice in this matter appear to require that the decision not be acted upon until the review is determined.