top of page
Search
Mick Ogrizek

Review of Decision to Refuse Approval Under Family Assistance Law

In Ella Early Education Pty Ltd and Secretary, Department of Education, the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal heard a review of a decision by the Department to refuse to approve the application of Ella Early Education (Applicant) to be an approved provider of a child centre-based day care service under section 194B(6), A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth). The main issue was whether the applicant was a fit and proper person to be involved in the administration of the child care subsidy (CCS) system. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Department and concluded (paras. 30-1):

Upon balancing all the evidence before the Tribunal and considering the submissions of the parties, the Tribunal is not satisfied that Ms Al Hassany [director, person in management or control], and hence the Applicant, has the requisite experience and expertise under s 46(2), nor the requisite understanding of the obligations and level of commitment under s 46(3) of the Minister’s Rules. The less-than-optimal results of Ms Al Hassany’s written assessment identified deficiencies in her knowledge of the CCS System, session reports, statement of entitlement and fees, and reporting sessions of care. Unsatisfactory responses were also given in respect of obligations for continued approval under the family assistance law, fraud risks, and proper mitigation strategies and practices to prevent fraud. Hence, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant has not satisfied ss 194E(1)(g) and 194E(1)(k).
Whilst the Tribunal acknowledges Ms Al Hassany was experiencing some personal difficulties at the time she completed the test, the results nonetheless cannot be ignored. When combined with the numerous attempts at lodging satisfactory policy documents, Ms Al Hassany’s unsatisfactory evidence given in this regard, and the unknown extent upon which Ms Al Hassany had to rely upon various consultants to prepare the latest version of policy documents which the Applicant relies upon, the Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence before it that the Applicant is, on balance, a fit and proper person to be involved in the administration of CCS and ACCS, as required under the Act. This combination is not outweighed by the latest Governance Documents relied upon by the Applicant.
13 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Top 10 Non-Compliances in WA

The Education and Care Regulatory Unit have published the top 10 non-compliances in Western Australia, under the National Law and...

Comments


bottom of page