Do We Need A National Childcare Regulator?

Under the current national regulatory framework, the national body (Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority – ACECQA) has responsibility to oversee the National Quality Framework (Section 225, National Law). Regulatory Authorities in each State and Territory have responsibility for regulating childcare (Section 260, National Law).

The Productivity Commission in its A path to universal early childhood education and care Inquiry Report in Recommendation 10.2 stated (Volume 1, p.96):

The Australian and state and territory governments should establish an independent ECEC Commission.

The ECEC Commission’s functions should include:

• monitoring and publicly reporting on the progress of governments – as system stewards – towards their commitments under the national agreement (recommendation 10.1) and on outcomes produced by the ECEC system more broadly

• providing independent advice to the system stewards on how they can coordinate and design their policies to achieve effective outcomes for the system, by leveraging an ability to take a system-wide view

• acting as a custodian over research and data, and facilitating the better use and dissemination of ECEC data and research learnings.

To ensure its independence, the ECEC Commission should be underpinned by legislation and overseen by a board with fixed-term appointments. At least one of these appointments should be an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person who is able to promote the experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families and providers in the ECEC system.

As can be seen from the terms of recommendation, the Productivity Commission did not recommend a centralisation of regulatory functions. In fact, it specifically stated: “….the commission should not be a regulator or a price setting body, as these functions conflict with its responsibilities around accountability and transparency." (p.52). However, some media commentators and the Australian Greens Party have incorrectly suggested that the Productivity Commission have made such a recommendation. Such assertions distract from effectively addressing the problems in childcare.

However, wouldn’t centralisation be a way to ensure a consistent approach to compliance as I advocated for in my previous post on the issue? Centralising regulatory functions is not necessary to implement a national compliance approach. ACECQA already has the following functions under Section 225:

• to guide the implementation and administration of the National Quality Framework and to monitor and promote consistency in its implementation and administration.

• to establish consistent, effective and efficient procedures for the operation of the National Quality Framework.

• to publish practice notes and guidelines for the application of this [National] Law.

• to provide support and training for staff of Regulatory Authorities.

In fact, it exercises such a coordination role in relation to the assessment and rating process but not for compliance activities. There are also other reasons why a central regulatory body is not an effective way to resolve the current issues in childcare:

• Any centralised model would still require regional offices (as is the case with other Commonwealth regulatory bodies) therefore undermining any perceived benefits from centralisation that could not be achieved under the current framework.

• There would be a greater disconnection between regulator and what is occurring on the ground in services. My previous experience with dealing with the Commonwealth Department of Education showed that the regional office had a better idea of the issues occurring than the central office and therefore the central office was slow in addressing issues.

• The Commonwealth does not have a good track record in regulating services, e.g. CCB, aged care, financial services, and NDIS (perhaps I am a bit biased here).