The updated September 2020 version of the Guide to the National Quality Framework (NQF) has now been published by ACECQA. The new edition contains guidance on the:
The Centre for Independent Studies has just published a report called Rationalising Regulation: Helping The Economy Recover From The Corona Crisis. The report considers a number of regulatory areas, including the childcare sector. The report very briefly assesses the sector concluding that (at p.10):
Greater consideration should be given to staffing ratio requirements and whether the tangible benefits incurred by children justify the considerable costs of such regulation. The variation between state jurisdictions, particularly in the 36 months to preschool age group, is another aspect of staffing ratios that should be reconsidered.
It is recommended that Australian governments reconsider staffing ratio and qualification requirements in childcare to improve service affordability and reduce the need for associated government subsidies.
I have previously written on the issue of rationalising regulation in the sector (see my article in The Sector), but it is disappointing that again a report has been produced on this topic which fails to comprehensively assess the issues. See also other previous blog posts.
Further to a previous post, WA Police have charged a childcare worker with aggravated assault in relation to alleged incidents at Goodstart Early Learning Banksia Grove, according to a report in WAtoday.
7news.com.au have carried a report about a Queensland childcare worker charged with child sex offences. ABC News also carried an earlier report. These reports are based on a media release issued by Queensland Police.
This is another case adjudicated by the West Australian State Administrative Tribunal involving children getting burnt feet while outside. In this case 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 167, National Law, by the approved provider (Think Childcare Services Pty Ltd) by failing to ensure that every reasonable precaution was taken to
protect children being educated and cared for by it from harm and from
any hazard likely to cause injury. The facts of the case are set out in the statement of relevant facts (see Annexure A).
In summary, at the approved provider's Nido Early School QV1 service, during an evacuation drill, three children burnt their feet when walking through a couple of outdoor yards with rubberised soft fall and synthetic grass. All three children suffered second degree burns which required medical treatment.
A penalty of $15,000 was imposed on the approved provider with a further $2,000 to be paid to the Department for legal costs.
In Western Australia, uniquely, such matters as this are generally heard as disciplinary matters under the National Law (WA). See the article by David Oliver in The Sector that explains the process in detail.
The Department of Communities have issued a media release on this case.
According to a media statement issued by the Queensland Minister for Education, a new campaign has been launched to help prevent children being left behind in buses. Look Before You Lock promotes the importance of early childhood
services taking every possible action to ensure children in their care
are transported safely. More information can be found at the campaign website.
This is an unusual and complex case heard by the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Queensland. It concerns an application by Brisbane City Child Care Pty Ltd (applicant) for leave leave to appeal against the decision of a judge in a lower court to dismiss the applicant's case.
The facts of the case, in summary, are that the applicant owned and operated a childcare centre and they entered into a contract to sell the child care centre to a third party (Affinity Education Group Ltd). The Regulatory Authority (Queensland Department of Education) issued the required consent to the transfer of the service approval for the childcare centre under the National Law on conditions relating to fire and emergency evacuation and egress, and educator-child ratios, amongst other matters (under s.66(2)). Affinity withdrew from the purchase due to the conditions. The applicant did not accept that Affinity was entitled to terminate the contract. The Authority subsequently repealed its decision to issue the consent to the transfer of the service approval. Before the lower court the applicant sought a declaration that the imposition of the conditions on the consent to the transfer of the service approval was beyond power. The primary judge considered it inappropriate to grant the relief that the applicant sought on the basis of lack of utility, the third party was not a party to the proceeding and the applicant was seeking an advisory opinion. However, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal and referred the matter back to a lower court for trial, remarking (at paras. 62-3):
The ongoing relationship between the parties in relation to the sale of the child care centre is a relevant consideration for addressing the substantive dispute between them. Although the objective and guiding principles of the National Law and the objectives of the national education and care services quality framework must be at the forefront of the decision-making of the Authority, the dispute between the applicant and the Authority is not about avoiding best practice in the provision of a child care service, but about the timing and content of condition that can be imposed by the Authority in relation to the transfer of the service approval.
The applicant’s notice of appeal did seek orders from this Court in relation to the proper construction of s 65(2) and s 66(2) of the National Law. The application for leave to appeal was argued on the basis, however, of endeavouring to show that leave to appeal should be given and that, if the appeal were allowed against the summary dismissal of the proceeding by the primary judge, the matter should be remitted to the Trial Division for the substantive issues between the parties to be decided. All that needs to be observed at this stage in relation to the substantive issues is that the applicant’s construction of s 66(2) of the National Law is sufficiently arguable in the context of the other provisions of the National Law, but particularly division 3 of part 3, to warrant consideration on the merits.
WA Today carried a report of a police investigation after parents complained of scratches on their child.
