Child Care Benefit Fraud: DPP v Winpea

This is another criminal case heard by the Victorian County Court in relation to Commonwealth Child Care Benefit fraud. This case concerned a Family Day Care (FDC) educator, Morris Deia Winpea who pleaded guilty to one charge of dishonestly causing a loss to a Commonwealth entity, contrary to section 135.1(3) of the Criminal Code (Cth). Between 3 August 2015 and 7 December 2015 the educator dishonestly caused the loss of $48,844.78 to the Commonwealth. The charge related to submitting false time sheets to three different FDC services: Manhale FDC, Discover & Learn FDC and Dorsey FDC. 
The court sentenced Morris Daia Winpea to a period of nine months' imprisonment but suspended the imprisonment for a period of two years and released the educator on a recognizance release order in the sum of $2000 to be of good behaviour for a period of two years.   

The educator is one of nine educators who have been charged with similar offences associated with FDC services involving the Deng group, see previous blog post for more information on the Deng group prosecutions.

New Guide for Creating a Child Safe Organisation

The Victorian Commission for Children and Young People has issued an updated Guide for Creating a Child Safe Organisation which also supports the Victorian Child Safe Standards.

Cancellation of Childcare Benefit Approval: Sweet Melon Family Day Care Pty Ltd and Secretary, Commonwealth Department of Education and Training

This was a case heard by the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal in which Sweet Melon Family Day Care Pty Ltd (a Victorian based provider) sought a review of the decision of the Department to cancel its child care benefit approval issued under A New Tax System (Family Allowance) (Administration) Act 1999 (Cwlth) for failing to meet the conditions of the approval. The Tribunal comprehensively reviewed the non-compliances by the provider under the Administration Act affirmed the decision of the Department, stating:

It is clear from the evidence that SMFDC has not complied with all applicable statutory requirements imposed on it as an approved child care service. The scale, repetitive nature and seriousness of non-compliances can only be described as reckless breaches of SMFDC’s approval under section 196 of the Administration Act. Recklessness is evident from the fact that sessions of care were claimed by SMFDC even when its educators cleary reported children were absent, or when the information available to SMFDC showed that the number of children in care exceeded the permissible limit in the National Regulations. In these circumstances, cancellation of SMFDC’s approval is the preferable sanction. (para.36)

Commonwealth Enforcement Action Against Family Day Care Providers

The Commonwealth Minister for Education and Training has issued a media release in regard to a six month blitz on family day care providers in relation to payment of Child Care Benefit. MyBusiness also carried a report on this action.

Quality Assessments of NSW Services

The Sydney Morning Herald has carried a report on the frequency of quality re-assessments of childcare services in NSW under the National Law.

Regulation of Childcare Services

According to a report on SBS, a number of childcare groups have expressed concern at the amount of regulation of the sector at a public enquiry hearing. 9News also carried a report on the hearing. The submissions were made as part of a Senate enquiry into the effect of red tape on childcare. You can also access the previous written submissions here.

Proposed WA No Jab, No Play Laws

Perth Now carried a report on the status of no jab, no play laws in Western Australia.

Action Against Sydney Child Care Service for Not Paying Student Educators

MyBusiness carried a report of action being taken against the owner of Joys Child Care in Sydney for not paying two student workers for an entire year.

Inadequate Supervision (Section 165, National Law): Chief Executive Officer of Department of Communities and Belhamine

In a case heard this month, before the West Australian State Administrative Tribunal (WASAT), an order was made which gave effect to the terms of settlement in relation to a matter brought before the tribunal by the WA Regulator (Department of Communities) for contravention of section 165(3), National Law by family day care educator, Julie Anne Belhamine.

The facts of the case are set out in the report of the case, and in particular the attached agreed set of facts (annexure A). In summary, the educator who works for Nature Alliance Family Day Care, allowed a 2 year old child to leave her premises unsupervised, through a door that was unlocked. The child was noticed missing and found by the educator some 210 metres from her house standing with an adult member of the public. A penalty of $1500 was imposed on the educator and she was also required to pay $500 towards the Department's legal costs.

Proposed Commonwealth Sanction Against Early Years Care Family Day Care Services

The Illawara Mercury reported on the Commonwealth Department of Education and Training's intention to cancel the child care benefit approval of the provider of the NSW Early Years Care services.

Cancellation of Childcare Benefit Approval: Sunrising Family Day Care Pty Ltd and Secretary, Commonwealth Department of Education and Training

This was a case heard by the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal in which Sunrising Family Day Care Pty Ltd sought a review of the decision of the Department to cancel its child care benefit approval issued under section 195, A New Tax System (Family Allowance) (Administration) Act 1999. The Tribunal comprehensively reviewed the non-compliances by the provider under both the Administration Act and the National Law (as the NSW regulator had taken action against the service too), as well as the actions proposed by the provider to prevent these issues from reoccurring in the future. It, however, affirmed the decision of the Department, stating:

For the reasons stated above I have come to the conclusions that the Applicant is not a suitable person to operate a child care service; that the Applicant has committed numerous and repeated breaches of its statutory obligations; that as a result it should be subject to sanction and that because its proposed “new business model” is so seriously defective as to provide no basis for it to be allowed to continue operation, that sanction should be cancellation. (para.195)