CANTERBURY CITY COUNCIL CHILDREN’S SERVICES
SUBMISSION TO 2014 NQF REVIEW – CONSULTATION REGULATION IMPACT STATEMENT
Preferred options for some selected proposals where we hold strong views:
Refining the NQS and assessment & rating process
3.1.3 Proposal 1.3 Reduction in documentation of child assessments or evaluations in OSHC services
Option 1.3B Amend Regulation 74 so that services that educate and care for children over
preschool age must keep documentation about development of the program, rather than about
individual children’s development
OSHC services are largely recreational and not educational, and a requirement to assess
children’s learning is neither suitable nor realistic.
3.1.4 Proposal 1.4 Significant improvement required rating
Option1.4B Retain the Significant Improvement Required rating but amend its definition so
that it refers to a rating that may be applied if there is significant non-compliance, rather than where
there is unacceptable risk to children
Significant improvement required rating is still necessary for those services that are not fully
compliant. A service posing risk to children’s health, safety or well-being should not be rated at that
time and immediate action should be taken against them.
3.1.6 Proposal 1.6 Excellent rating
Option 1.6B Remove the excellent rating
Exceeding National quality standard is already an outstanding achievement and services are
motivated to attain and maintain this standard. Applying for an additional rating of excellence is
time consuming and costly. As it is up to the service to apply for recognition, and there are many who
do not, there are inequities and a distorted picture of which services actually are providing excellence
in early childhood education and care.
3.1.8 Proposal 1.8 Length of time between assessments
Option 1.8C Remove the three year rating cycle policy and commit to re-rate all services at
least once every five years, with more frequent re-rating of lower quality rated services
A specified time frame is important to ensure consistency and continuity of ratings, and a
maximum of five years is more reasonable than three years for all stakeholders, with services
attaining the highest rating having the longest period between re-rating, and those with the lowest
rating having the shortest time between re-rating. Perhaps an identified scaled system would be
helpful so that services know…..eg. Working towards NQS done in 2 years, Meeting NQS done in 3
years…..Exceeding NQS done in 5 years.
Removing supervisor certificate requirements
3.2.1 Proposal 2.1 Removing supervisor certificates
Option 2.1B Amend the National Law to remove the requirement for supervisor certificates
Agree that the nominated supervisor, deemed responsible by the provider, is all that is
required, as long as strong evidence of the person’s suitability is provided. All the other supervisor
certificates are superfluous – all staff work under a duty of care and must abide by regulations and
providers need to ensure that suitable people are employed. Agree with all related proposals 8.3.1 to
8.3.8, except for 8.3.5 (b) remove the existing notification requirements to regulatory authorities re
fitness and propriety – Provider and the Department should still need to have evidence of a
nominated supervisor’s suitability.
Expanding the scope of the NQF
3.3.1 Proposal 3.1 Additional services to be included in the NQF
Option 3.1D Include all BBF centre-based services, occasional care services (excluding those
provided for parents attending conferences, sport and leisure activities or shopping), playschools
and mobile services in the NQF.
All services providing early childhood education and care should be under the same
framework in recognition of the work they do and for consistency and assurance for families using
these services. Families using our occasional care service are eligible for child care benefit and staff
choose to work with the National Early Years Learning Framework They also work under our
children’s services policies which are prescribed by the national Law & Regulations.
NB: all occasional care services provide care when families attend appointments, gym or
shopping (according to the adopted definition of occasional care), so we assume that the above
proposed exclusions relates to dedicated services in those particular environments and not to
occasional care services in general.
NB: We strongly believe that nannies should not be brought under the NQF and should not
attract child care benefit, as they are not hired to educate children. This system is about education
and care NOT care alone.
Extending some liability to educators
3.4.1 Proposal 4.1 Extending some liability to educators
Option 4.1B Liability under Sections 165 and 167 of the National Law to be extended to all
educators, for not adequately supervising children under their care or not taking every reasonable
precaution to protect the children from harm or hazard that is likely to cause injury, in addition to
approved providers, nominated supervisors and FDC educators
Individual educators all need to fully understand their requirements around child supervision
and to work accordingly. Providers can only do so much in terms of ensuring they know their
responsibility but cannot fully control an individual’s actions. The educator must take responsibility
for own actions and consequence of not meeting this requirement.
National educator to child ratio for OSHC services
3.6.1 Proposal6.1 National educator to child ratio for OSHC services
Option 6.1B Introduce a national educator to child ratio for OSHC
A regulated standard will ensure there is no uncertainty around what is adequate supervision
and children of all ages deserve to have a standard of adequate supervision. The current
recommended practice in NSW of 1:15 is generally upheld and deemed adequate.
Improved oversight of and support within FDC services
3.7.1 Proposal 7.1 Approval of FDC services across jurisdictions
Option 7.1B Approved FDC providers be required to hold a service approval in each
jurisdiction in which they operate (including paying all relevant fees in each jurisdiction in which they
operate an FDC service)
There has been an unprecedented growth in numbers of service providers recently due
particularly to private operators taking up the operational funding and there are numerous reports of
illegal activities, non -compliance and low quality, all of which has impacted on FDC as a whole. Any
changes to the law and regulations that will better control these should be implemented
immediately, not with a long drawn out transition period. Locally based providers are able to support
and monitor educators – this cannot happen from another State.
3.7.2 Proposal 7.2 Limiting the number of FDC educators in a service
Option 7.2B Amend the National Law so that a regulatory authority may impose a maximum
number of educators approved to be engaged or registered by a FDC service and include this on the
service approval
Response as above, and also in particular, a provider should have a number of educators that
matches their capacity to support and monitor them, such as according to number of coordinators
and distance they need to travel.
3.7.3 Proposal 7.3 Mandating a ratio of FDC coordinators to educators
Option 7.3E Introduce a 1:20 ratio of FDC co-ordinators to educators
AND
Amend the National Law on conditions on service approval to include a duty for the approved
provider to ensure that FDC educators are adequately supported, monitored and trained
Response as above
3.7.4 Proposal 7.4 Mandating a minimum Certificate III for FDC educators
Option 7.4B Require all FDC educators to have an approved Certificate III (or equivalent)
before being permitted to educate and care for children, rather than working towards the
qualification, which is currently the requirement
Response as above, and also agree that since educators work alone most of the time, all
educators must have a minimum Certificate III prior to working with children. Many educators in
quality schemes already have a Cert III or a Diploma, and many government or community providers
insist on this already.
3.7.5 Proposal 7.5 FDC educator assistants’ activities
Option 7.5B Create an offence (with attached penalty) that an approved provider must
ensure the assistant’s activities are limited to the circumstances set out in Regulation 144(2) (as
amended), with the penalty set at $2,000
An educator assistant is a new concept and needs to be regulated and monitored carefully,
particularly where they have no training or experience in early childhood education and care. We
would have an expectation that they undertake a Certificate III if they are to be identified as an
assistant educator who will then be left alone with children at times. While a provider can do
everything possible to ensure the regulation is followed, an individual educator can still choose to
ignore this and they should then be fined themselves.
3.7.7 Proposal 7.7 Powers of entry to FDC residences
Option 7.7B Amend the National Law to allow authorised officers to enter FDC residences
where the authorised officer reasonably believes that a service is operating at the residence at the
time of entry
With all the issues in FDC because of the massive growth in low quality private providers this
change may help reduce the number of services that are non- compliant.