Community Management Resourcing
Response to Regulation Impact Statement for
proposed options for changes to the National
Quality Framework
Mobile Children’s Services can deliver high quality
education & care by managing the constraints provided
by both their unique, day to day service delivery routine
& operating in non-purpose built community venues
over which they usually have little control
There are still many children and their families and
communities in rural, regional and remote Australia
who do not have reasonable access to high quality
early childhood education and care.
Community Management Resourcing
ABN: 87 809 241 241
January 2015
Community Management Resourcing
Capable and connected people in thriving community organisations
providing good quality services under sound public policy
Response to RIS for proposed options for changes to the NQF
1.
Introduction
Mobile Children’s Services can deliver high quality education and care by
managing the constraints provided by both their unique, day to day service
delivery routine and operating in non-purpose built community venues over
which they usually have little control
This is Community Management Resourcing’s response to the Regulation Impact Statement
for proposed options for changes to the National Quality Framework.
Community Management Resourcing [CMR] is a business providing governance and
management support to organisations in the educationally focused, early childhood
development sector of NSW.
Now the Principal of CMR, I have previously worked in and with Mobile Children’s Services
for nearly thirty years, including day to resourcing and public policy development.
CMR supports the National Quality Framework [NQF] and its gradual agenda to harmonise
regulatory matters, lift the structural and process quality aspects of education and care
services through a continuous improvement process, and ensure parents are able to make
informed decisions through a public assessment and ratings system.
This response focuses on the sub-set of Mobile Children’s Services [Mobiles] that provide
formal ‘education and care’, Australia-wide, and their prospective transition into the National
Quality Framework [NQF].
CMR supports the inclusion of particular Mobile ‘types’ in the NQF.
This response acknowledges the work of the National Association of Mobile Services
[NAMS] and the Mobile Children’s Services Association of NSW [MCSA], both of which have
provided responses to various inquiries and reviews into the National Quality Framework,
‘childcare and early childhood learning’, funding of Mobiles through the various Government
agencies and the prospective transition of ‘Mobiles’ into the NQF.
CMR supports all NAMS’ regulation, funding and resourcing ‘policy positions’ in their recent
Response to the Productivity Commission’s Draft Report on Childcare and Early Childhood
Learning – See Appendix 1.
About Mobile Children’s Services
Mobiles provide flexible, responsive, innovative, educationally focused services to children,
their families and communities that are experiencing social, geographical, cultural and/or
economic isolation: Isolation often involves a combination of these circumstances.
The day to day service delivery routine of Mobiles involves travel to communities and setting
up childcare and early childhood learning experiences in local facilities, most often nonpurpose built for childcare, including community halls, school facilities, community health
centres, sports facilities and rural properties.
Mobiles work in hundreds of communities throughout Australia, supporting thousands of
children who would otherwise have no reasonable access to an early learning experience,
CMR 2
Response to RIS for proposed options for changes to the NQF
enabling parents to work and allowing business to operate as well as oiling the engine of
local community life.
Mobiles are a critical element of the educationally focused, early childhood development
service system.
Mobiles represent a unique, Australian community response to equity of access to ECEC
services and addressing market failure in remote, rural and regional areas.
[i]
Which Mobile Children’s Services should in-scope under the National Quality
Framework?
To be clear, as there are many different types of Mobile Children’s Service, this submission
is about those services that provide regular, formal education and care when the ‘parents of
children are not present’ [Generally] and the service is formally responsible for a child as in
‘centre-based’, ‘come to us’, Long Day Care, Occasional Care and Preschool/Kindergarten
services.
Most ‘care providing’ Mobiles ‘mirror’ the operations of centre based ECEC services: Long
Day Care, Occasional Care and Preschool/Kindergarten.
A key matter to address in the transition to the NQF is to define which Mobile ‘types’ will be
in-scope under the NQF and those which will not.
Further, State Government regulators will need to identify which Mobiles in their jurisdiction
fit the ‘in-scope’ criteria.
The definition of Mobiles Services in the legislation needs review for clarity.
The definition must address the ‘number of venues’ that a Mobile must have in order to
prevent any Provider claiming a premise as ‘mobile’ and avoiding any requirements that the
premises would ordinarily be subject to as a centre-based premise.
In respect to the definition of Mobile Children’s Services which should transition to the NQF,
this submission addresses those [Currently excluded] Mobiles providing ‘care and education’
as described in Clause 5 [2][h] of the National Regulation and includes those Budget Based
Funding Program [BBFP] ‘education and care’ services described in Clause 5 [2][k] of the
National Regulation, except as follows.
Clause 5 [2][f] of the National Regulation provides a reasonable description of Mobile
Playsession Services which provide an educationally focused, early childhood development
program but do not regularly or generally have ‘responsibility’ for children.
Some Clause 5 [2][f] services are BBFP services and many others are funded by State
Governments. These should be out of scope under the NQF: Safety, child well-being,
learning experiences, continuous improvement, propriety and quality assurance should be
dealt with through a contractually binding Code of Practice under a continuous improvement
process with external evaluation.
In NSW, there are a limited number if 5 [2][f] Mobile Playsession Services that are regulated,
but they offer very irregular care.
CMR 3
Response to RIS for proposed options for changes to the NQF
[ii]
What are the issues in transitioning Mobiles into the NQF?
It seems that most parties are keen that Mobile Children’s Services transition to the NQF:
CMR supports this as it addresses the NQF aim of an integrated, national approach to ECEC
service quality and regulation with strong service type coverage.
Given the constraints provided by the day to day service delivery routine and working in nonpurpose built premises, it is important to note that the level of service funding is a critical
factor in being able to deliver safe and high quality services that are able to put into practice
the principles of the Early Years Learning Framework [EYLF] and their application to high
quality ‘physical learning environments’ as described by indicators in the Guide to the
National Quality Standard.
This submission assumes that Mobiles will transition under a slightly modified form of the
current NQF and have to adapt to any amended legislation and quality assurance process.
CMR’s position is that Mobiles will be able to transition to the current NQF
with only minor adjustments to their operations, at least complying with the
National Law and National Regulation and at least achieving a ‘Working
Towards NQF ’ if not ‘Meeting NQS’ rating.
This submission addresses several key issues in the transition of Mobiles into the NQF:
1.
2.
6.
7.
How would Mobiles cope with the current National Law and Regulations?
How would Mobiles cope with the current National Quality Standard and the indicators
of quality in the Guide to the National Quality Standard?
How would Mobiles cope with the current implementation of the assessment and rating
aspect of the NQF?
What should be the timing of the transition to the NQF for being compliant with the
National Law and National Regulation and for implementation of the assessment and
ratings aspect?
What type of supports will be required for the development of public policy and the
transition of individual Mobiles?
What are the implications of transition for the funding levels of Mobiles?
Unmet demand for ECEC services in rural and remote areas
2.
Mobile Children’s Services and the National Law and Regulations
3.
4.
5.
A key reason Mobiles want to be in-scope under the NQF is that they want to both be, and
be seen as, high quality services fulfilling their role as a critical component of the
educationally focused, early childhood development service system.
To achieve this, they have to be subject to the same regulatory and quality assurance
requirements as their centre-based counterparts.
This section addresses whether and how Mobiles can comply with the National Law and
National Regulation.
CMR 4
Response to RIS for proposed options for changes to the NQF
[i]
Providing education care in non-purpose built premises
Can Mobiles cope with the premise layout, facilities and equipment requirements of the
National Law and the National Regulation?
The following comments are based on experience with the NSW system of regulation of
Mobile Services and the risk management approach to possible non-compliance with
facilities and equipment requirements of Part 3 of the Children (Education and Care
Services) Supplementary Provisions Regulation 2012.
The key issue for ‘care providing’ Mobiles is that they work in non-purpose built premises
in their communities where they have little control over layout, facilities and equipment and
have to implement early childhood practices by adapting to the given layout, facilities and
equipment, as well as transporting equipment.
There are always safety and child well-being concerns about each of the standard EC
practices as they are adapted to the premise layout, facilities and equipment. For
example: Food handling, craft preparation, hygiene practices, such as nappy changing and
toileting, as well as supervising sometimes poorly fenced or gated premises.
Regulation needs to be flexible enough to allow Mobiles to provide a service in the
circumstances of the many and varied Mobile venues.
It also stands that some premises should not be used as a Mobile venue. The
appropriateness of a venue should be ascertained after a rigorous risk assessment process
addressing the physical risks of venues [Slip, trip, falls, asbestos, poisons, standing water,
exposed electrics etc.] and deciding whether critical EC practices can be adapted and
implemented in a venue [Supervision, toileting, food handling, nappy change etc.].
Clause 10 of NSW’s ‘Supplementary Provisions’ legislation for Mobile education and care
service addresses this issue by allowing them to undertake a standard risk management
process for those Part 3 Facilities and equipment requirements that they don’t comply with.
This has been a very elegant and useful solution to regulatory compliance in non-purpose
built premises and should be a solution for Mobiles in all jurisdictions.
As well, any premise related requirements of NSW’s ‘Supplementary Provisions’ legislation
are mostly written in ‘outcomes’ language rather than setting out ‘prescriptive’ requirements.
This has allowed NSW Mobiles to implement their own well thought out risk control measures
which address such things as health, safety and supervision at each venue.
Where the legislation is prescriptive on any premise related requirement, it is usually for high
level risks which itself complies with standard risk management practices. Where Mobiles are
non-compliant with the requirements they can implement a range of risk control measures as
detailed in a Venue Management Plan.
There are many similarities in this risk management approach to the ‘waivers’ of the National
Law and National Regulation.
Arising from the above, the principle should be that Mobiles under the NQF
should be subject to all requirements of the National Law and National
Regulation with some leeway, as addressed by the ‘service waiver’ system,
on some facilities and equipment related requirements.
CMR 5
Response to RIS for proposed options for changes to the NQF
[ii]
Complying with the requirements of the National Law and National Regulation
As a matter of course, CMR assumes that Mobiles will have to comply with all requirements
of the National legislation.
Can Mobiles comply with all the requirements of the National Law and National Regulation?
The NQF has been fully operational for three years.
All Mobile Services have had ample time to review the National Law and National Regulation
to ascertain if they either comply or have the capacity to comply.
Whilst some jurisdictions have aligned all or much of their out-of-scope legislation with the
National Law and National Regulation, it is clear that the NQF legislation addresses
standard issues in the delivery of ECEC services that should be addressed by any
existing legislation: Propriety of providers and staff, approvals for services, staff
qualifications and numbers, records, confidentiality, supervision, high risk hygiene practices,
policies and procedures etc.
Chapter 2 Approvals and Certificates
Whilst the system of provider and service approval in Chapter 2 of the National Regulation
may be different to what was in place in any jurisdiction before 1.1.2012, the system has
standard requirements and has not been and would not be difficult to comply with.
Chapter 2: Part 2.2 Service Approvals: Division 1: Clause 25 Additional Information about a
proposed ECEC service premises has implications for Mobile premises, current and future.
Most requirements can be satisfied. Premise plans are a normal requirement of any
application process and a must-have for managing emergencies. Some aspects may require
re-wording or allow that Clause 25 (2) has a sub-clause (2) applying to Mobiles or a separate
‘information not required’ clause for Mobiles, at the regulatory authorities discretion.
Chapter 3 Assessment and Ratings
All out-of-scopes will have to develop expertise in the assessment and rating system of
Chapter 3 of the National Regulation – See Section 3 for a discussion.
Clauses 42(g) and 45(h) and (i) have a similar risk management approach to Clause 10 of
NSW’s ‘Supplementary provisions’ Regulation, although there is a mismatch with some
elements related to the physical environment – See following comments
Waivers: CMR agrees with Clause 93 of the National Law if it means that a ‘service waiver’
for any selected element of the Regulation or NQS means the services ‘meets’ the
requirement and doesn’t compromise the possibility of an overall rating of ‘meets’ or
‘exceeds’ requirements – See Section 3.
Waivers: CMR agrees with Clause 100 of the National Law if it means a ‘temporary waiver’
for any selected element of the Regulation or NQS means the service ‘meets’ the
requirement and doesn’t compromise the possibility of an overall rating of ‘meets’ or
‘exceeds’ requirements – See Section 3.
A great difficulty for services working in non-purpose built premises, where they have little
control of premise layout, facilities and equipment, is creating a high quality ‘physical learning
environment’: Other EC practices related to safety and well-being suck up the oxygen or
there is just not enough time or physical energy to continually re-arrange the ‘physical
learning environment’.
CMR 6
Response to RIS for proposed options for changes to the NQF
Nevertheless, Mobile premises are ‘emergent curriculum’ served on a platter for local
children.
Chapters 5,6,and 7
All out-of-scopes will have to develop expertise in matters raised in Chapters 5, 6 and 7.
Chapter 4 Operational Requirements
Of most importance to Mobiles are the requirements for day to operations
as detailed in Chapter 4 Operational Requirements
All out-of-scopes will have to develop their expertise and adapt their current learning program
to the framing provided by the EYLF, as detailed in Part 4.1: The EYLF represents best
practice.
While services can develop expertise and comply with Part 4.1, there are some aspects
where facilities and equipment may make it difficult to provide a high quality ‘physical
learning environment’ per the quality indicators in the Guideline to the NQS – See later.
No elements of Part 4.1 need a waiver related to premise layout, facilities and equipment.
All out-of-scope services have to develop expertise and adapt their current practices to the
requirements of Part 4.2 Children’s Health and Safety.
The matters addressed are standard EC practices: Food handling, illness, injury,
emergencies, administration of medication, collection of children, infectious diseases
Part 4.2 mostly requires procedures to be put in place and there is little prescription which
would impinge on how Mobiles implement these EC practices and adapt procedures to their
premise layout, facilities and equipment.
No elements of Part 4.2 need a waiver related to premise layout, facilities and equipment.
Part 4.3 Physical environment is the key section of the National Regulation where Mobiles
may have some difficulty and where ‘waivers’ may be required.
To be clear, Mobiles should only seek some leeway on premise related issues and should be
afforded the same leeway and no more as other service types for the staffing related
standards and waivers of Part 4.4 Staffing arrangements.
All out-of-scopes will have to develop expertise and adapt their current practices to the
requirements of Part 4.3.
Part 4.3 is mostly written in ‘outcomes’ language, leaving it up to a service to develop their
own procedures adapted to the premise layout, facilities and equipment.at hand. This is good
for Mobiles.
CMR 7
Response to RIS for proposed options for changes to the NQF
In general, Mobiles usually have difficulties with or the level of risk is high in the following
areas:












Especially the safety and cleanliness of venues - The requirements are in ‘outcomes’
language
Especially the adequacy of fencing to deal with ‘child escaping’ and intruder - The
requirements are in outcomes language. There is also a waiver for this clause, but the
language is non-prescriptive [?]
The adequacy of furniture, materials and equipment either provided by the premises or
transported to the premises: The requirements are in outcomes language
Especially the adequacy and safety of laundry and hygiene facilities – The
requirements are in outcomes language
The amount of available indoor and outdoor space – Mobiles should attempt to comply
and there is a ‘waiver’ for the requirements. A key issue is the number of children that
can be safely educated in some smaller venues or venues with restricted or unsafe
outdoor areas.
Especially the adequacy and safety of toilet and hygiene facilities – The requirements
are in outcomes language, with services able to determine what are adequate toilet,
washing and drying facilities
Adequacy of ventilation and natural light - The requirements are in outcomes language.
There is also a waiver for this clause, but the language is non-prescriptive [?]
Especially the adequacy of nappy change facilities - The requirements are in
‘outcomes’ language. There is also a waiver for this clause, but the language is nonprescriptive [?]
Especially the ability to supervise individual children [Bolters] and groups of children in
and between indoor and outdoor environments and individual toileting and other
hygiene practices - The requirements are in ‘outcomes’ language. There is also a
waiver for this clause, but the language is non-prescriptive [?]
Especially food and craft material preparation and handling where there is a risk of
cross-infection, poisoning or allergic reactions – This is not directly dealt with in Part
4.3. The physical environment [The layout, facilities and equipment] does play a large
role in the safety of these practices. Food matters are dealt with in Part 4.2 mainly as a
nutrition and adequacy issue, with a sub-clause written in outcomes language
regarding ‘safe practices for handling, preparing and storing food.
Especially dealing with emergencies and mastering the procedures and equipment
required to prevent or lower the likelihood of further injury or illness. This is not
directly dealt with in Part 4.3, being dealt with in Part 2 Division 2 and 5. First-aid kits
are dealt with in Clause 89. A risk assessment of emergencies that might arise at a
premise is required Clause 97 [2] When delved into, this requirement is a major energy
and time consumer. Emergency communication equipment is dealt with in Clause 98.
The requirements are not prescriptive about facilities and equipment.
Sleep and rest are not dealt with in Part 4.3, being dealt with in Part 4.2 Clause 81.
Whilst there are no prescriptions for facilities and equipment, sleep and rest practices
take up a lot of staff time and space, and require a relatively large amount of
equipment, often transported.
Again, most of the ‘difficult’ practice areas or issues can be dealt with by services developing
their own procedures, adapted to the layout, facilities and equipment at hand as well as
transporting their own equipment or packing equipment away after each session.
Overall, the National Regulation has very few specifications, allowing services to design and
implement their own risk controls for the various practices that would require attention to
premise layout, facilities and equipment.
This is good for Mobiles.
CMR 8
Response to RIS for proposed options for changes to the NQF
The most prescriptive requirements for all children’s services would be
complying with the various ’standards’ documents as ‘authoritative
sources’: Health, hygiene, manual handling, food handling, infection
control, sun protection etc. These would apply to Mobiles irrespective of
the National legislation.
As such, the only area where Mobiles may need some leeway, the premise,
materials and equipment related requirements of the National Regulation,
provides only a minimal barrier to Mobiles providing a service in their nonpurpose built venues.
However, it needs to be clear to funders and regulators, that transporting
and handling equipment, running an EC program and implementing
standard EC practices and risk control measures in Mobile venues is a
time and [Physical and emotionally draining] energy consuming exercise
that may detract from some other practices such as ‘interactions’ or
continually reworking the venue over the day to be an exciting ‘physical
learning environment’.
A standard risk control measure for the day to day operation of Mobiles is
to ensure that staff numbers are relatively high and above the mandated
educator:child ratios. This must be the decision of funders in each
jurisdiction.
More consultation is required to ensure that the above is ‘fair comment’ for Mobiles in all
jurisdictions, keeping in mind that there should be a Quality Measure type program for each
funding source in each jurisdiction – See later section.
If there prove to be difficulties, just implementing NSW’s Venue Management Plan strategy is
tried and true and may only require tweaks to the ‘waiver’ system. Such tweaking along the
lines of an explicit risk management approach, as in conducting excursions, may benefit all
services or be specific to Mobiles in a minor way.
A Quality Measures program should be undertaken by the funders and regulators in each
jurisdiction to support the transition.
An Australia-wide representation and resourcing project would address the big picture
aspects of the NQF’s components and support individual State Governments and services in
transition to the NQF.
3.
Mobile Children’s Services,
Assessment and Rating
the
National
Quality
Standard
and
To provide a high quality ECEC service and ensure respect for their role in the ECEC service
system, Mobiles will aim towards ‘meeting’ and ‘exceeding’ rating levels in the NQF.
However, it is one thing to be compliant with the legislation, as noted in the previous section,
and another to be able to meet the indicators of high quality referenced in the Guideline to
the NQS.
The task at hand is about enhancing the capacity of Mobiles to ensure they can adapt
standard EC practices to their many and varied premises and, as much as possible, achieve
the indicators of quality referenced in the Guideline to the NQS.
CMR 9
Response to RIS for proposed options for changes to the NQF
With adequate funding and a good lead-in time to transition, Mobiles will be able to comply
with all aspects of the NQF, even the ‘premise’ related requirements of the National
Regulation.
All out-of-scopes will have to develop expertise in the assessment and rating system of
Chapter 3 of the National Regulation.
All stakeholders will need to develop a system for assessing and rating multiple-venue
services.
The compliance and assessment staff of regulators will need to develop expertise in working
with Mobiles and themselves adjust to the clear differences in day to day routine and
implementation of the standard EC practices in non-purpose built community premises over
which services have little control.
For attaining the highest possible rating, CMR agrees with Clause 93 of the National Law if it
means that a ‘service waiver’ for any selected element of the Regulation or NQS means the
services ‘meets’ the requirement and doesn’t compromise the possibility of an overall rating
of ‘meeting’ or ‘exceeding’ requirements.
For attaining the highest possible rating, CMR agrees with Clause 100 of the National Law if
it means a ‘temporary waiver’ for any selected element of the Regulation or NQS means the
service ‘meets’ the requirement and doesn’t compromise the possibility of an overall rating of
‘meeting’ or ‘exceeding’ requirements.
Some Mobiles will achieve ‘exceeding’ in some standards and elements but be hard pressed
in others where the physical environment plays a major role.
It would be unfair if premises related matters, beyond safety, lead to ‘significant
improvement’ or ‘working towards’ ratings.
For the rating of Mobiles, CMR believes being unable to at least ‘meet’ an element of the
NQS on matters which are really about premises, facilities and equipment, should not
compromise an overall rating of ‘meets’ or ‘exceeds’ for any element, quality standard or
quality area or the overall rating [Noting matters seeking change to the system in 3.1.7 of the
RIS for Proposed changes … ].
On this matter, Clause 62 [3][b] is useful in that an ‘exceeding’ rating can be achieved
without having to ‘exceed’ in the premise related Quality Areas, just ‘meet’, and there is a
waiver for some of the matters in Quality Areas 3 and 4.
Whilst many Mobile venues may not be ‘beautiful’ and perfect for child care, they are often
‘emergent curriculum’ served on a platter for educational programs.
As well, Mobiles are renowned for their collaborative partnerships with families and
communities.
A great difficulty for services working in non-purpose built premises is creating the high
quality ‘physical learning environment’ described in Quality Area 3. Indeed, Quality Area 3 is
more about the ‘physical learning environment’ than the safety and ‘fit for purpose’ nature of
premises.
Other EC practices related to safety and well-being suck up the oxygen or there is just not
enough time or physical energy to continually re-arrange the ‘physical learning environment’.
CMR 10
Response to RIS for proposed options for changes to the NQF
For example:









Mobiles have little control over premises
The layout may provide difficulties in implementing standard EC practices
The facilities may be inappropriate or difficult to manage, meaning that time and energy
is sucked up by close attention to other higher risk practices such as supervision,
toileting, nappy changing and food handling
There may be limited available premise equipment or it may be dangerous or
inappropriate itself [Uncertified soft fall or arsenic-ridden play equipment]
Equipment may have to be transported from base. And set up. And packed up [This is
where ‘pack-away’ strategies are valuable]
Constantly re-working the equipment to make an exciting learning environment takes
time, effort and detracts from supervision and interactions
The layout of the access/egress points between indoor and outdoor areas is often
difficult and requires a significant commitment to supervision and group-only practices
The daily, general moving of equipment and set-up and maintenance of ‘areas’ is a
manual handling risk in itself [And a factor in fatigue], let alone constantly moving
equipment around for the learning program.
Sustainable practices are a hard ask for premises where Mobiles have little control
CMR notes that services funded by the BBFP are already required to carry out a QIP-like
process through the annual workplan and reporting process.
As well, BBFP services have been supported to carry out a voluntary QIP process.
Given the above, there is no mystery to the requirement for adequate funding to allow for the
premises to be ‘fitter for purpose’, equipment to be ‘packed away’ and staffing at levels to
ensure EC practices are both safe and of good quality.
See the following sections for the timing of the transition with is directly related to the need
for adequate lead-in time and implementation of a Quality Measures program and support by
an Australia-wide representation and resourcing project.
4.
Mobile Children’s Services and the timing of transition to the NQF
The following assumes that any changes to the NQF for in-scope services, through the
current NQF review, will start from 1.1.2016 and that decisions will be made an
communicated by mid-2015.
The consultation RIS for proposed changes to the NQF does not seek major change to the
NQF, consistent with Woolcott’s Summary of findings from the 2014 National Quality
Framework Review Consultation Process [October 2014].
It remains to be seen whether the Productivity Commission’s Final Report of their Inquiry into
Childcare and Early Childhood Learning pushes for significant change to the NQF and
whether the Australian Government accepts this proposition and is able to convince the State
Governments of the need for significant change.
As outlined in the previous sections on the application of the National Law, the National
Regulation and the NQS and assessment and rating system to the circumstances of Mobiles,
there won’t need to be significant changes to any components of the current NQF to
bring Mobiles on board: Some services will have a steeper learning and
implementation curve than others and require a longer time to transition.
CMR 11
Response to RIS for proposed options for changes to the NQF
Some jurisdictions are in a better position to transition their Mobiles than others, especially
those that have aligned their state based legislation for the out-of-scopes with the current
National Law and National Regulation.
As such, each jurisdiction should be able to transition their Mobiles when
they deem them ready.
It is important that services have a solid date for needing to comply with the different
components of the NQF: There is nothing like a deadline to focus one’s attention.
Best case scenario: For those jurisdictions in a good position to transition their out-of-scopes,
having previously aligned their regulation of out-of-scope services with the National Law and
National Regulation, the aim should be to make the Mobiles compliant with the National
Law and National Regulation from 1.7.2016 or 1.1. 2017.
This date would allow a reasonable period to bring services up to scratch on a range of
matters through a transition support strategy along the lines of the Australian Government’s
BBFP Quality Measures program or other Inclusion and Professional Support Program
initiatives.
Also, see the next sections for resourcing and funding discussions. Whilst Mobiles are cost
efficient, they are not cheap.
Quality and safety do have a cost: Transitioning to the NQF, and addressing the indicators of
quality in the NQS in particular, will have a cost.
As Mobiles will aim for a rating of ‘Meeting NQS’ or ‘Exceeding NQF’, the services will need
some further time to address the indicators of quality in the Guideline to the NQS to ensure
that the premises, and staff expertise and numbers, allow for the provision of a good quality
‘physical learning environment’.
For many Mobiles, this will require a ‘premise quality’ strategy similar to that of the
infrastructure aspect of the Quality Measure program, for long term venues.
As well, ACECQA and the State regulatory authorities will have to develop the assessment
and rating system for services with multiple venues/premises under one service approval.
As such, the best case scenario is that Mobiles in well prepared jurisdictions become
subject to the ratings and assessment system from 1.7.2017 or 1.1.2018 [One year after
becoming compliant with National legislation].
The following sections detail the types of resourcing and funding support required to bring
Mobiles into the NQF so that they thrive as a critical component of the educationally focused,
early childhood development service system.
CMR 12
Response to RIS for proposed options for changes to the NQF
5.
Supporting the NQF & Mobile Children’s Services to transition to the NQF
For current, in-scope services, the development and introduction of the NQF happened over
many years through several phases: Current in-scope ECEC services had many years to
come to terms with the proposed changes and prepare and implement the phased-in
components of the NQF: The Early Years Learning Framework, the National Law, the
National Regulation and the assessment and ratings system.
For most current services, the transition involved getting staff up to speed on their
qualifications and expertise, adjusting to the phasing in of improved educator:child ratios,
implementing the EYLF in the learning program and as the framework to consider all other
EC practices, adjusting policies and procedures to meet the National Law, National
Regulation and the indicators of quality in the Guidelines to the NQS and gearing up for the
assessment and rating system.
The above will apply to Mobiles as they transition.
Mobiles in some jurisdictions and under some funding sources are well on the path to cope
with transition to the NQF:







NSW’s Supplementary Provisions legislation for out of scope services closely
mirrors/aligns with major aspects of the National Law and Regulation. This will make
many aspects of the transition unproblematic.
Victorian Mobiles have had to comply with the National Law and National Regulation
BBFP funded Mobiles have been required to undertake a QIP/continuous improvement
type exercise as part of their Annual Workplan for a number of years and this has been
deepened through the review of the BBFP [Reporting mid-2014] and subsequent focus
and resourcing on transitioning to the NQF
BBFP funded Mobiles have been offered the opportunity to do a voluntary QIP through
the Inclusion and Professional Support Program.
The Australian Government has opened up access to subsidised training and RPL
assessment to some types of Mobiles through the Early Years Workforce Strategy and
provided other resourcing through the Inclusion and Professional Support Program.
The Australian Government also instituted a Quality Measure program for some BBFP
services which included infrastructure, workforce and governance elements.
Mobiles in NSW were given a ‘pathway to transition strategy by their peak, MCSA,
starting with implementing the EYLF and indicators of quality in the NQS [Good ideas
to implement along with not compromising compliance with the Supplementary
Provisions legislation] but falling short of addressing the requirements of the National
legislation as there were still enough differences with the Supplementary Provisions
legislation to hold off. See MCSA’s Statement on the NQF
However, some jurisdictions did not deal at depth with the prospect of their Mobiles
transitioning, with legislation for out-of-scope services not being put in place or only lately
being put in place and no direct resourcing strategy.
Australian and State Governments need to develop a comprehensive transition strategy for
all out-of-scopes.
CMR 13
Response to RIS for proposed options for changes to the NQF
For Mobile Service transition, there is a need for:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A date for each Mobile to work towards when they must comply with the National Law
and National Regulation as well as a date when they will become subject to the
assessment and ratings system and the quality indicators in the Guideline to the NQS.
An Australian Government, Australia-wide strategy to engage with Mobiles and the
regulatory authority in each jurisdiction to facilitate the development and
implementation of each component of the NQF including the EYLF and harmonised
legislation as well as rolling out the assessment and ratings process [Some
jurisdictions will be better prepared than others]
Over the medium term, a Quality Measure type strategy by Australian and State
Governments to address, at least, infrastructure and workforce matters
Immediately and for long term purposes, an assessment by Australian and State
Governments funders of the real cost of Mobile service delivery to address the matters
in the next section about funding levels
An Australian-wide representation and resourcing project to facilitate Australian and
State Government development of public policy in collaboration with their Mobiles as
well as directly resource Mobiles on their transition – See NAMS Policy Position in
Appendix 1 as well as NAMS submission for this type of project to the Department of
Education
As some jurisdictions are better prepared than others, CMR recommends that each
jurisdiction bring their Mobiles into the NQF when they see fit – See above section regarding
timing of transition.
6.
Transitioning to the NQF and the funding levels of Mobiles
Most Mobiles have reported to their peak bodies that they are currently under funding
duress: So much to do and so little time to meet requirements and aspirations.
Whilst Mobiles are a useful service delivery strategy, much time and effort is taken up in
being ‘mobile’, that is, travelling from a base and setting up an EC service in a community
facility.
There are aspects of the NQF that will lead to further duress both in
transitioning to the NQF and then continuing to be compliant as well as
aspiring to meet the NQS indicators of quality process on completion of
transition.
Recurrent/renewable funding levels should address:



Adequate staffing levels for good quality interactions and implementation of the
learning program. Riding shotgun on risks and hazards takes time as well as physical
and emotional energy away from other child focused activities and contributes to the
big risks associated with fatigue. See the following for the constraints to good quality
interactions provided by the day to day service delivery routine and non-purpose built
nature/non-control of premises
Adequate staffing levels [Numbers and hours] for safety in carrying out the day to day
routine: Prep at base; Travel to venue; Unpack and set-up; Program delivery; packup/clean-up, travel to base; Unload and further prep
Adequate staffing levels to address risks associated with manual handling, hygiene
practices, travel and fatigue
CMR 14
Response to RIS for proposed options for changes to the NQF





Adequate staff levels to carry out routine EC practices in non-purpose built premises,
particularly those involving supervision, food handling, supporting additional needs
children and hygiene practices such as toileting and nappy change
Adequate staffing levels to continually ‘rework’ the physical environment as a ‘learning
environment’ as the program unfolds each day, keeping in mind that premises are nonpurpose built and layout and equipment are out of the service’s control
Adequate & dedicated hours should be allocated to non-direct service delivery from
base including professional development, administration, equipment cleaning &
maintenance, collaboration with families & other professionals, program development
etc.
Adequate capital funding for minor renovations to facilities and layout as well as
purchase of equipment for the premises [eg: Air-conditioners], keeping in mind that
purpose-built ECEC centres ‘build out’ a range of risks and hazards for high ‘level of
risk’ practices and facilitate other practices such as delivering a program in a high
quality ‘physical learning environment’.
Adequate capital funding to allow Mobiles to ‘pack-away’ major items of equipment at
each long term venue, saving on time and risks associated with manual handling
The implication for staffing is that staff levels should be above the current educator:child
ratios in most circumstances.
The implications for ‘mobility’ is that it should be acknowledged and adequate funds made
available for the time spent in travel and set-up/pack-up as well as the cost of specialised
vehicles and extra costs of maintaining a base and paying rent on premises.
The implication for premises and equipment is that there should be adequate funds to deliver
a good quality learning program and make minor modifications to long term premises,
keeping in mind that EC ‘equipment’ in a Mobile are best considered as ‘consumables’.
In the medium term, as noted in the previous section, funds need to be available along the
lines of a Quality Measure program to address infrastructure and workforce issues: So much
of the safety and quality of Mobile service delivery depends on the layout, facilities and
equipment provided by long term venues. Whilst ‘waivers’ may assist compliance and just
getting through, Mobiles aspire to ‘exceeding NQS’ and this requires the premises to be in
good enough condition for a good quality ‘physical learning environment’.
In the medium term, as noted in the previous section, as Government regulators and funders
transition their Mobiles, there will need to be some deep resourcing to support a collaborative
approach to the development of public policy. That is, developing the legislation and
adaptation of the other components of the NQF to ‘mobility’– See NAMS submission for an
Australia-wide representation and resourcing project.
In the medium term, as noted in the previous section, there will need to be some deep
resourcing for the relatively small number of Mobiles, Australia-wide – See NAMS
submission for an Australia-wide representation and resourcing project.
Please refer to NAMS Policy Positions and the arguments in their full submission regarding
recurrent and NQF transition funding, listed in Appendix 1. Whilst applying to BBFP
funded services, these positions also apply in their way to State Government funded Mobiles.
CMR 15
Response to RIS for proposed options for changes to the NQF
7.
Unmet demand for ECEC services
‘Mobility’, as exemplified by Mobile Children’s Services, is an under-utilised service delivery
strategy.
Mobile Children’s Services are a successful and critical component of the educationally
focused, early childhood development service system, adaptable and suitable for use from
the inner city to the outback and in a range of community circumstances.
There are still many children and their families and communities in rural, regional and remote
Australia who do not have reasonable access to high quality early childhood education and
care: State and Australian Governments need to identify where the gaps in service delivery
are for all types of ‘isolation’ and develop strategies to address unmet demand and low
coverage.
It is important that the regulatory and quality assurance system ensures Mobiles meet good
standards of early childhood, governance and management practice.
Mobiles will be able to at least cope with being fully in-scope under the NQF, and many will
thrive, provided that the regulatory and quality assurance system recognises their difference
to the centre-based system and funding levels are adequate.
An effective regulatory and quality assurance system for Mobiles, requiring only minor
tweaks of the current NQF, sets the base for an expanded service system where Mobiles are
able to address unmet demand in current communities as well as expand to new
communities.
8.
Conclusion
This submission addresses how the relevant types of Mobile Children’s Services will cope
with the various aspects of the National Quality Framework.
Mobiles will be able to at least cope with being fully in-scope under the NQF, and many will
thrive, provided that:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The regulatory and quality assurance system recognises their differences to the centrebased system, particularly the day to day service delivery routine, the non-purpose built
nature of their premises and lack of control over their premises
There is a good lead time to step-up to the requirements of the National Law, National
Regulation, NQS and the assessment and ratings system
There is comprehensive resourcing of Mobiles at public policy and individual service
level
Funding levels are adequate.
Community Management Resourcing
January 2015
CMR 16
Response to RIS for proposed options for changes to the NQF
Appendix 1:
National Association of Mobile Services [NAMS] Policy Positions in
their Response to the Productivity Commission’s Draft Report on
Childcare and Early Childhood Learning [September 2013]
NAMS Policy Position 1:
That DE conduct an Australia-wide asset and gap analysis, at sub-regional level, for the purpose of
describing the local, care and education focused, early childhood development service system to
identify geographical areas where the market does or could fail to meet childcare and early learning
needs.
NAMS Policy Position 2:
That a redeveloped Child Care Services Support Program [CCSSP] include a child care market
analysis and funding mechanism to allow for growth of the LDC-like Mobile Child Care/Flexible
Innovative Services [In areas where the market doesn’t adequately support the viable operation of
mainstream services] to address unmet demand.
NAMS Policy Position 3:
That a redeveloped Child Care Services Support Program include an early childhood learning gap
analysis and a funding mechanism to allow for the growth of the multi-strategy BBFP funded Mobile
Children’s Services, such as Mobile Playsession Services, in communities where there is no
reasonable access to a high quality, educationally focused, early childhood development experience.
NAMS Policy Position 4:
That the Australian Government examine the utility of the Remote and Isolated Children’s Exercise
and Remote Area Family Services projects in very remote communities with the intention of extending
the models intra- and interstate.
NAMS Policy Position 5:
That the Productivity Commission Inquiry address the extent of current and unmet demand for
childcare and early childhood learning in rural, regional and remote areas and recommend and cost a
growth strategy that would see demand met where parents have no reasonable access to an ECEC
service.
NAMS Policy Position 6
That NAMS supports the relaxation of operational requirements specifying minimum or maximum
operating parameters in the child-based subsidy system for the purpose of extending access of LDCish services in rural, regional and remote communities.
NAMS Policy Position 7
That the Budget Based Funding Program be renamed and retooled to reflect a status and intent as the
location of responsive, flexible and innovative, educationally focused, early childhood development
services [FLECS]
NAMS Policy Position 8
That the Australian Government work with BBFP funded Mobile Services to ascertain the real costs of
delivering the different types of Mobile Service in their various circumstances.
NAMS Policy Position 9
That Mobile Children’s Services funded by the BBFP remain block funded
NAMS Policy Position 10
That funding levels in the Budget Based Funding Program recognise the real cost of service delivery.
CMR 17
Response to RIS for proposed options for changes to the NQF
NAMS Policy Position 11
That the Budget Based Funding Program ensure that annual grant indexation is at a level that enables
services service to maintain the level and quality of service delivery
NAMS Policy Position 12
That funding for Budget Based Funding Program services be reinstated to the real value of funding in
2007
NAMS Policy Position 13
That the Australian Government, through the COAG process, continue, rationalise and make effective
the provision of funds under the National Partnership Agreement on Universal Access to Early
Childhood Education to the effect that the States have a clear idea of the amount and timing of a
guaranteed level of funds available to them, at least three years in advance.
NAMS Policy Position 14
That funding programs supporting children with additional needs provide funding for dedicated staff
hours to support children and their families through all the different phases and aspects of the work.
NAMS Policy Positon 15
That the guidelines for additional needs support programs be reviewed to account for the
circumstances of children in isolated circumstances and the operational circumstances of ECEC
services that support them
NAMS Policy Position 16
That all regulated, care-providing, Mobile Children Services become in-scope under the NQF and that
each jurisdiction has the capacity to transition their non-NQF services when they deem them ready.
NAMS Policy Position 17
That non-regulated BBFP funded Mobile Services be subject to a Code of Practice adapted from the
EYLF and National Quality Standard.
NAMS Policy Position 18
That a dedicated, Australia-wide, Mobile Children’s Service representation and resourcing project be
funded by the Australian Government to facilitate improved access to ECEC services and the
transition of Mobile Children’s Services into the NQF as well as support non-regulated services to
develop and implement a Code of Practice.
NAMS Policy Position 19
That extra renewable funds be provided to BBFP funded Mobile Services to cover any extra costs in
service delivery, including capital costs, due to services transitioning to the NQF or implementing a
Code of Practice.
----------------------------------------------------------
CMR 18