Regulation Impact Statement for Proposed Options for
changes to the National Quality Framework:
Response by Lady Gowrie Tasmania
_________________________________________________________________________
Lady Gowrie Tasmania
PO Box 263
North Hobart 7002
W: www.gowrie-tas.com.au
E: info@gowrie-tas.com.au
P: 03 62 306801/0409162990
Page | 1
Preamble:
The Lady Gowrie Centres were established in each state of Australia in 1939 by the Australian
Government. The then Prime Minister wrote to the Premiers in each state. “It has been decided
that a Demonstration Centre should be established in each Capital City at which not only the
methods of care and instruction of young children be tested and demonstrated, but also problems
of physical growth, nutrition and development will be studied. These centres will be under the
direction of the Commonwealth Department of Health”.
Since the establishment of the original Tasmanian Lady Gowrie Centre in Battery Point in 1939, over
time Government policy has altered and no longer are the Centres funded as demonstration/best
practice centres, some Gowrie’s have retained this function. Despite the changes, the strong
commitment to provide quality programs for children, families and those who work with them every
day remains intact. This is evident by the organisations mission, vision and position statements
which are underpinned by strong ethical and moral values.
Today, Lady Gowrie Tasmania (LGT) remains a non government not for profit community owned
organisation providing a wide range of services for children, families and early childhood
professionals in Tasmania. These services include:
 Education and care (centre based long day care)
 Home based care (family day care)
 Outside school hours care ( before/after school and vacation care)
 Occasional care/preschool
 Gowrie Training (accredited qualifications in children’s services)
 Professional support and development
 Inclusion support
 Indigenous professional support
 Family support services
 Projects
Employing over 350 staff across these programs with almost $16m turnover, the organisation is a
significant contributor to the education and care sector and indeed to the Tasmanian economy.
The organisation is governed by a voluntary Board of Directors who brings the skill set required to
support the fiscal and custodial responsibilities to support a sustainable and viable organisation.
The organisation enjoys a positive reputation within the community and the brand is well recognised
for the quality of the programs provided.
Investing in Education and Care – An Affirmation:
There is world-wide agreement that positive experiences in the first years of a child’s life set a
trajectory for wellbeing and success in learning and in life. Conversely, there is overwhelming
evidence that negative experiences in early childhood can have lasting detrimental effects
throughout an individual’s life. This means that we (governments, service providers, educators) all
have a responsibility to individuals, to families and to society to ‘get early learning support right’.
Lady Gowrie Tasmania has been, and continues to be, a strong advocate for quality systems within
the education and care sector. The Lady Gowrie Tasmania response is underpinned by the
Page | 2
overarching principle from the National Quality Framework that: The rights and best interests of
the child are paramount.
The objectives of the National Quality Framework are sound and endorse the vision of the Early
Childhood Development Strategy that; ‘by 2020 all children have the best start in life to create a
better future for themselves, and for the nation’. However, as with any new system, there is a need
to evaluate and refine systems and processes to support the achievement of this vision.
Background:
The RIS document provides the opportunity for feedback on the possible changes which could be
made to the Education and Care Services national Law Act 2010, and the Education and Care
Services National Regulations 2011 which are all part of the National Quality Framework. The RIS
assesses the impact of potential changes in regulation. Organisations and individuals were invited to
review the options and provide feedback through a number of mechanisms including:



Face to face consultations
Online comment
Submissions
Lady Gowrie Tasmania Consultation Process:
Lady Gowrie Tasmania sought the opinions of staff on key issues and options within the RIS that
affect the early /middle childhood sector. Those opinions formed the basis of this response and
represent the combined views of staff who work on a daily basis with children, families and sector
and allied health professionals. The wisdom and experience of the staff represent Long Day Care,
Outside School Hours Care, Family Day Care and Inclusion and Professional Support Services.
Page | 3
3.1 Refining the NQF and Assessment and Rating Process
1.1 Reducing complexity of NQS – The NQS document is complex and streamlining it provides an
opportunity to improve the process and support understanding by families as well as educators. It
may result in providers and educators to be more focused and eliminate duplication. This view is
conditional upon the integrity of the system not being reduced or lost nor the intent altered to
create misinterpretation by educators and families.
It is important to retain the 7 quality areas as they accurately describe the key quality areas. The
reduction of standards (from 18 to 15) and elements (from 58 to 40) is supported as long as the
streamlining does not result in any reduction of quality or compliance.
Quality Area 1 is still a concern. It is imperative that assessors have a high understanding of the
different contexts of services so as the assessment process reflects individual contextual differences.
Is there an opportunity for particular AO’s to specialise in this area or to have specialised training
and experience in this area?
Any changes to the number of standards and elements will result in additional costs to services as
many have aligned their policies, procedures and processes to the current NQS – redevelopment and
reprinting of resources and materials.
1.2 Streamlining of quality assessments - The QIP could be better used as a self assessment tool to
support assessment and rating process. In reality the QIP should document what the service does
well and what areas are for improvement. It is a key document to continuous improvement and this
should be the focus of the assessment and rating process.
Unfortunately, there remains a strong focus on compliance issues – these remain important and the
focus is because they are often tangible matters, as opposed to curriculum which is much more
difficult to assess and validate.
Assessment should focus on the relationships, interactions and curriculum aspects of the program those determinants of quality.
Streamlining to support the reduction of duplication is supported as long as the rigour of the process
is not reduced and the process remains transparent. Increased training of AO’s could contribute to
this as there continues to be inconsistent approaches to the assessment and rating process despite
uniform training program in place. However, training alone is not sufficient – current relevant
experience and qualifications support the integrity and credibility of the system.
Streamlining may support the acceleration of feedback and reporting from the regulatory authority
following the assessment process.
Consistency by assessors is a key aspect of streamlining – the expectations of services need to be
clear and concise and consistent. There are ongoing inconsistencies between services even when
same organisation – policies, procedures, processes, timeframes for assessment.
1.3 Reduction in documentation of child assessments or evaluations for delivery of educational
program in OSHC services – This sector is a vital part of the education and care fabric. However, it is
Page | 4
not an extension of school- it is a recreational program that provides opportunities for children to
engage in activities outside of school hours that meet their needs and interests.
It is imperative that the system is not ‘watered down’ as it is important to recognise the skills and
resources within the OSHC workforce and sector. Individual children’s needs should be reflected in
the overall program, though not necessarily progress recorded against each child. For this age
cohort, the voice of the child is a key element to program development. Documentation should
demonstrate the overall program.
Currently the system is more geared to long day care where children attend more regularly and for
longer periods than outside school hour’s care which is more of a part time nature and often has
irregular attendance patterns.
AO’s need to understand this sector both in terms of program specificity and documentation
required.
An ideal system would have AO’s who specialise in the OSHC sector to support
understanding and application of the differences and complexities of these services.
Given the very part time nature of these services, the transient workforce, the fluid attendance
patterns, the broad age range of attendees; it is essential that these factors are considered to
support appropriate and realistic expectations.
1.4 Significant Improvement Required Rating – There is a view that only three ratings required:
 Working towards
 Meeting
 Exceeding
The issue raised from this is that services that previously rated at significant improvement would be
rated at working towards and would this be sufficient to identify major non compliance issues and
for direction to engage in immediate professional support to improve or indeed further sanctions if
serious threat to children’s health, safety and educational wellbeing.
For services rated at working towards, there must be a directive to ensure these services must
engage with the Australian Government Inclusion and Professional Support Program, specifically the
Professional Support Co-ordinators, either under the Long Day Care Professional Learning Program
funding or on a subsidised fee for service. This would support continuous improvement and
immediate attention to address areas of non compliance.
1.5 Exceeding NQS rating - All standards should be rated at Exceeding for a service to receive
‘Exceeding’ rating.
1.6 Excellent rating - Given only approximately 50% of services have been assessed and rated, the
provision of an excellence rating creates an unfair playing field. Acknowledging that when any
changes to the NQF are made most services will have been through the process. Regardless the
eligibility of an excellent rating should never have been made available until such time as all services
assessed.
Given the critical workforce issues – recruitment and retention, low wages and poor conditions, the
concerns of the quality of some vocational and tertiary education institutions resulting in educators
Page | 5
“not work ready”, the capacity of educators and capability of services to achieve this rating in a new
system is problematic and raises questions of the rigor and robustness of the selection criteria.
Should this rating be maintained in the system the criteria must be strengthened. Services must
have been rated at Exceeding in all quality areas to be eligible. It must be more than a ‘desktop
audit’ process or reliant on the submission writing ability of the applicant.
Furthermore, if retained, application for this rating should not be able to be lodged until at least 12
months after the initial assessment and rating process with a form of assessment to identify and
demonstrate that the service has maintained a consistent level of excellence over time ....not just a
one off event! This along with a stronger leadership focus may support improvement should the
excellent rating be retained.
The process and cost for applying for excellent makes this rating elitist. It advantages ‘financially
sound’ services and those with proficient submission writing skills or resources to ‘purchase’ such
skills.
In respect of the removal of this rating and the potential for service leadership to diminish – this
rationale has not been an outcome in reality under the current process. The sharing of ‘excellent’
practice has not been clearly evident and available to the sector broadly.
The excellent rating is inconsistent with the continuous improvement rationale. Appreciating the
aspirational process, the establishment of a process to identify exemplary practice in certain areas
which services could demonstrate would be more consistent with continuous improvement,
removes the ‘elitist’ tag and makes it more accessible to more services.
1.7 Ensuring ratings accurately reflect service quality - The rating of all quality areas provides a
better picture/history of the services performance to families. The removal of the overall rating and
naming up the rating for individual quality areas services and individuals become more aware of
specific areas for improvement and so contribute to continuous improvement. This is also a more
transparent communication for families and all stakeholders.
1.8 Length of time until services are reassessed - 5 years is too long between assessments. At least
every 3 years to provide some surety regarding quality and indeed the right of all children to
consistent standard of quality education and care.
Services should be able to be re assessed more frequently than the maximum timeframes, especially
given significant changes in staffing and conditions can occur within this time (which in turn can
significantly impact on outcomes for children). Unannounced checks are also supported – not as a
punitive exercise but one of support for continuous improvement.
A great deal of change can occur between assessment and rating visits. Having a list of minor
adjustments is positive. The regulatory authority is not always able to meet maximum times at the
moment, but it is important to look for an ideal to work towards.
Page | 6
Recommendations:








Streamline and reduce complexity of the NQS without reducing quality
Rating and assessment must focus on the key determinates of quality as opposed to
compliance issues
OSHC documentation requirements must reflect the uniqueness of this sector and the
recreational focus of the program
All quality areas must be rated as Exceeding to receive this rating
Remove the overall rating and use the individual quality area ratings to indicate the service
quality.
Reduce ratings level to three (3)
Remove the excellent rating and replace with an exemplary demonstration of practice
model
Reduce the length of time between assessments
3.2 Removing Supervisor Requirements
3.2.1 Removing supervisor certificates - The changes to the National Regulations in June 2014 have
reduced the administrative and compliance burden for regulatory authorities and service providers
respectively. This equates to a cost saving for both parties as well as educators who are not required
to pay the application fee.
Notwithstanding the cost and reduction in administration and compliance burden, the intent of
having the supervisor certificate was not met. The burdensome process did not necessarily
guarantee the level of consistent skills and knowledge required to manage the day to day
operations. It was a ‘desktop’ scoping of knowledge and skills with little consideration of the
suitability of the individual. Services are much better placed to make professional decisions about ‘in
charge’ personnel.
Recommendation:

Amend the National Law to have Service issued with Certified Supervisor Certificate rather
than individuals.
3.3 Expanding the Scope of Services covered by NQF
3.3.1 Additional services to be included in the NQF
While Lady Gowrie Tasmania is of the view that all services providing education and care services
must be covered by the NQF, the capacity and capability of some services not currently in scope to
meet the requirements is problematic, particularly in terms of:
 Physical facilities and environment
 Ability to recruit and retain qualified educators
This is not just relevant to rural, remote and mobile services but also to other service types. Already
there are critical workforce issues within the in scope services.
This raises the concern about setting services up for failure which could be a very negative approach
and undermine the intent.
Page | 7
Additional services to be included in the NQF – In Tasmania KINDERGARTENS!
Bearing in mind the inclusion of other service types into the NQF will result in the need for increased
resources to support professional development and indeed increase the workload for regulatory
authorities. Already the regulatory authority is stretched with the current services in scope, adding
more services to the scope would add to this burden and impact on all stakeholders.
Perhaps one way to manage a transitional phase is that where the prime responsibility for a child’s
education and care is offered by the service there should be an opt in option. This takes into
consideration that across the nation there are varying capacities for services that fall into the same
category. Long term plans to incorporate BBF and similar community services (people caring for
children while families attending gym classes, conferences etc) increased scope for these services to
access subsidised professional learning.
The other issue is that already AO’s struggle to understanding the complexity of mainstream services
– how will they manage the ‘differences’ of out of scope services that will include in NQF?
The inclusion of other services requires extensive financial investment:

to support services in the understanding and implementation of the NQF – professional
development
 to support capital upgrades of facilities
3.3.2 Application of assessment and rating processes to additional services - While it is preferred
that all education and care services are rated and assessed in the same way under a consistent
national system, in reality it makes sense to phase in for additional services. Out of scope services
could be subject to compliance assessment process initially with the review undertaken in 2019.
This provides time for services to plan for full implementation and allow for the identification of
resources required to support inclusion.
Recommendation:


Kindergartens in Tasmania must participate fully in the NQF
Develop an implementation plan to include other service types in the NQF – phase
in/transition process
3.4 Extending some Liability to Educators
3.4.1 Extending some liability to Educators - Concern that employee may be placed in a situation by
the employer that they may not have the skills, knowledge and capacity to take full responsibility
for. That the law should sit with the person who has the ability to enact change. For example if an
educator acts against the policy or procedure then it should sit with them. If an educator is following
policy, procedure and/or instruction of hierarchy the responsibility is diminished.
Another thought is where the employer is supporting the educator and the educator is not taking
any notice. Although there is performance management strategies, this takes time and therefore not
appropriate for the supervisor to be held responsible.
Page | 8
Adding a level of liability to educators in regards of some aspects of their role e.g.: adequately
supervising children would encourage educators to ensure they are performing their duties to the
highest standard.
On the other hand, transferring liability to educators may be a deterrent to remaining in the sector
or indeed entering the sector.
Do early years of education (schools) educators take on extra liability as proposed in the RIS? Should
not a consistent approach be applied?
Recommendation:

Extend some liability to educators for the critical aspects of their role in respect to the
safety, security and well being of children
3.5 Changes to Prescribed Fees
3.5.1 Fee for extension of Temporary Waiver – Parameters for consideration i.e. sliding scale of
EFT’s, rural and remote, service viability etc to attempt to address those services that genuinely
struggle either financially or to retain staff etc.
There is an argument for equity – no fee to be charged would support this.
3.5.2 Provider Approval Fee –An increase in fees by 50% is a huge increase for services to be
exposed to and therefore this may result in fee for families to be raised to cover the cost
3.5.3 Service approval fee – As above
3.5.4 Increase annual fee for approved services – As above
Increases to fees for any service are not supported. The current practices of regulatory authorities
require significant improvement - services are not delivered in a timely acceptable manner.
If there was a guarantee the any increased revenue would be targeted directly to support services
then an increase may be justified. But there must be accountability that this occurs and not
retained internally by regulatory authorities.
While supporting a regulated and mandated education and care sector, the system in place is high
cost. The financial statements in the 2013/2014 Annual Report of ACECQA validate this view. Why
is this authority established in the highest cost city in Australia? Why is it located in the high rental
CBD area? Wages would be at the high end in this competitive employment environment!
States and Territory Governments as well as the Commonwealth Government are the main source of
income for the Authority – this is taxpayer’s money and it must be used efficiently and effectively.
Furthermore, given the current low wages rates of early and middle childhood educators it appears
inequitable and not defensible expenditure.
This is even more important when it is imperative that education and care service are financially
viable and sustainable into the future to support workforce participation and continue to contribute
to the economy in Australia.
Page | 9
Any increased to prescribed fees will be ultimately passed onto families through fee increases. This
is at a time when the Government are debating the affordability and accessibility of education and
care services. Increasing the cost of education and care is a deterrent to workforce participation –
particularly for women.
The statement that increased fees will encourage positive behaviour by providers and discourage
negative behaviour is not substantiated in any way.
Recommendation:

Maintain current prescribed fee levels
3.6 National Educator to Child Ratio for OSHC Services
3.6.1 National educator ratios for OSHC services - There are distinct differences across the nation in
respect to adult/child ratios in OSHC. Given the promotion of national consistent approach, a
uniform minimum standard is preferred. A 1:15 ratio (or part thereof) is the minimum requirement
recommended. However, if 4 year olds in OSHC the 1:11 ratio would apply.
It is acknowledged that some services currently operate with better than minimum standards due to
space available, approved numbers, availability of suitably experienced educators, excursions, and
age cohort of children.
Recommendation:


1:15 (or part thereof) adult:child ratio for OSHC be minimum national standard
1:11 (or part thereof) adult:child ratio for OSHC when 4 year olds in attendance
3.7 Improved oversight of an support within FDC Services
7.1 Approval of FDC services across jurisdictions – Service should be required to hold a service
approval in each jurisdiction in which they are operating including paying all fees to each jurisdiction
and actually having support personnel located in that jurisdiction to provide support to educators.
7.2 Limiting the number of FDC Educators per service – This is a quantity versus quality issue. If a
service has the support systems in place, why would there be a limit on the number of educators?
This might raise an equity issue – will the number of educators in LDC/OSHC be limited?
Data within the RIS document (page 63) shows that the majority of services have up to 100
educators. Less than a quarter of services (20.4%) have over 100 educators.
Therefore, if the ratio of field workers, together with stipulating qualifications, was determined at a
level to enhance professional development and support then capping the number would not be an
issue.
7.3 Ratio of Field workers to FDC Educators – 1:15 as the minimum. This is Equivalent Full Time field
worker to Equivalent Full Time FDC Educator. Because FDC educators predominantly work in
Page | 10
isolation, it is imperative that they have high level consistent and regular support from qualified and
experienced field workers.
7.4 Minimum Certificate 111 for FDC Educators – Agreed the minimum application of Certificate
111. Particularly important given educators in this sector are working in isolation and unsupervised
when compared to centre based long day care where they are part of a team and support readily
available. Whilst acknowledging Certificate 111 is base foundation knowledge it does provide a level
of surety about the quality of the program being provided and credibility to the FDC sector as a key
element of the education and care sector. This of course assumes that the RTO providing the
training program is credible and diligent in the delivery and assessment process.
7.5 FDC Educator assistants activities - Imperative that the definition of ‘regular appointments’ is
clear and specific so as the requirements are clear and not open to interpretation.
7.6 Principal office notifications - Option 7.6b endorsed as must notify the regulatory authority
within fourteen (14) days.
7.7 Powers of entry to FDC residences – Option 7.7b endorsed.
Recommendation:





Approval required in all jurisdictions where services provided
1:15 EFT ratio of field workers to FDC educators
Minimum requirement of Certificate 111
Definition of term ‘regular appointments’
Notification and power of entry approvals
3.8 Other Changes
8.3.8 Child Protection – Agreed should have undertaken Child Protection Training
8.4.1 Leave Provision – Agreed to provide for flexibility after resignation of ECT
8.4.2 Educator Breaks – Need to make clear about breaks. The ability to cover short tea breaks in
the current climate of workforce shortages is problematic both in terms of logistics and recruitment.
Also the additional staff costs will be passed onto families
Page | 11