Epiq logo Fair Work Commission logo






Fair Work Act 2009                                                    




C2013/6333 AM2018/9


s.302 - Application for an equal remuneration order


Application by the Independent Education Union of Australia

(C2013/6333) (AM2018/9)






9.33 AM, WEDNESDAY, 3 JULY 2019


Continued from 2/07/2019





MR FAGIR:  Yes, I call Mr Nida Khoury.


THE ASSOCIATE:  Could you please just state your full name and address for the record?


MR KHOURY:  Nida Khoury, (address supplied).

<NIDA KHOURY, AFFIRMED                                                           [9.34 AM]

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR FAGIR                                    [9.34 AM]


MR FAGIR:  Sir, once more for the record your name is Nida Khoury?‑‑‑That's correct.


And your address is (address supplied)?‑‑‑That's correct.


You made a statement for the purpose of these proceedings?‑‑‑I did.


Do you have a copy with you there?‑‑‑I do, yes.


Is it a statement of two pages signed on 23 May 2018?‑‑‑Yes.


Attaching an expert report?‑‑‑That's correct.


Are the contents of the statement and report true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief?‑‑‑It is.


I tender the statement of Mr Khoury signed on 23 May 2018.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  The statement of Nida Khoury plus the attached report dated 23 May 2018 will be marked exhibit 105.


***        NIDA KHOURY                                                                                                                               XN MR FAGIR


MR FAGIR:  That's the evidence-in-chief of Mr Khoury, if the Commission pleases.




MR TAYLOR:  Can I just clarify something?  When we were served it was also attaching a large bundle of materials that were marked as NK2.  Can I just clarify whether they're part of the tender or not?


MR FAGIR:  Yes, they are.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TAYLOR                                     [9.35 AM]


MR TAYLOR:  Mr Khoury, can I take to your report and ask you to open it at page 25, and I'll do my best to identify when I'm going to pages or text where I'm talking about by page number and then indicating how far up the page.  In this particular case I want to take you to the top of page 25 and the first sentence in which you say that:


Teaching is a low paid professional and should not come as a surprise to anybody.


Why shouldn't it come as a surprise?‑‑‑Because in the scheme of things it is a low paid profession.


I'm sorry, Mr Khoury, you'll have to speak up.  I've got a cold and it's affecting my hearing, so you just have to - that microphone is recording but it's not amplifying.  Just say that again?‑‑‑I said in the scheme of things it is usually perceived as a low paid profession, teaching rules in general.


That is low paid compared to other professions?‑‑‑Mostly, yes.


And ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Obviously it can be also highly paid compared to other professions.


Can you name another profession in which it is highly paid compared to?‑‑‑Maybe, like, customer service rules, call centre rules.

***        NIDA KHOURY                                                                                                                          XXN MR TAYLOR


I see.  So when you use the word profession in this context you're - I've read it perhaps incorrectly as a reference to a form of occupation which requires a professional degree qualification.  Is that how you're using the expression?‑‑‑No, that's not how I'm using it.


So you're just saying compared to occupational groups it is well known to be a low paid occupational group?‑‑‑I think so, yes.


Indeed what you go on to say over the next couple of pages is that it is low paid, do you not, it's low paid even against female only job samples of similar job size?‑‑‑It is.


And low paid against the male dominated engineering workforce, that part of the workforce which again you've identified as being of the same job size?‑‑‑That's correct.


You have assessed in your report primary and secondary school teachers as being what you've referred to as a level 15; is that right?‑‑‑I said I have likely assessed them, but I have not assessed them.


I see.  It's a likely assessment?‑‑‑It's a likely assessment.


I used the expression level 15, and you knew exactly what I meant, but just so that we are clear about this, on this page 25 about three-quarters of the way down there's a reference to - there's a paragraph that starts, "To show", do you see that, "To show a comprehensive range of variance"?‑‑‑Yes.


It goes on to say:


Compared to various Korn Ferry Hay group reference levels.


So when I was referring to level 15 that is a reference level within a system that is used by Korn Ferry Hay to group jobs by way of their job size; is that right?‑‑‑That's correct.


Yes?‑‑‑A range of job sizes.

***        NIDA KHOURY                                                                                                                          XXN MR TAYLOR


A range of - and you have approached the analysis on these two pages on the basis that the early learning teacher is not a level 15 but a level 14?‑‑‑That's correct.  Likely a level 14.


Again is it a likely assessment?‑‑‑It is.


You haven't actually done an assessment?‑‑‑No.


And by "no" you're agreeing with me?‑‑‑Yes, I have not done an assessment.


If you turn to the next page here you do a comparison of amounts paid to ELC teachers against certain job families by reference to market median 25 per centile and the 10 per centile; is that right?‑‑‑That's correct.


In each case the dollar figure that you've used for the ELC teacher is the dollar figure that is derived from the award at the time you prepared the statement at a level 8, a level 8 teacher?‑‑‑I think so.  It is from the award at the time but I can't remember if it is a level 8 or otherwise.  I don't have the award on me.


Let me just find - I think ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Actually, yes, it is a level 8.  I checked it on ‑ ‑ ‑


I think it is, because I think you say so earlier in the statement; do you not?‑‑‑Yes, yes, it is level 8.


And a level 8 is the level, and you may not know this, but can I suggest to you it is the level of the award which a teacher will reach after five years of work if they commence with a four-year degree?‑‑‑Yes.


When you've been comparing it to these other salaries have you been comparing like with like, that is when you're looking at the all jobs are you also comparing that to people who have some years of experience?‑‑‑I'm comparing it to jobs of relatively similar value.  Whether they have experience or not and how much experience or qualifications I can't tell.


I see.  So to take that first line on the P50 summary results table, I understand it, using the information available to you within the Korn Ferry Hay Group you were able to say that the market median rate for someone who is classified within your system as level 14 was 80,450 for all jobs?‑‑‑Yes.

***        NIDA KHOURY                                                                                                                          XXN MR TAYLOR


For an ELC teacher with five years' experience they would be paid, under the award, 76 per cent of that amount?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.


They would need to achieve something in the order of a 30 per cent increase in remuneration in order to get to the market median for the job level 14?‑‑‑About 24 per cent - 25 per cent, yes.


I don't think that's quite the way the maths works, is it?  They need to get another 20,000 to get to 80.  That's about a third, isn't it?‑‑‑Yes, give or take.  I'm sorry, I don't have the calculator on me.


No, okay?‑‑‑Yes, they are 25 per cent below that level.




But to go up to that level they need ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Probably, yes.


‑ ‑ ‑almost a third increase, don't they?‑‑‑Probably, yes.


To get to the level of even the 25 per centile, assuming that they are indeed level 14, they would need an increase of about $10,000 or a 15 per cent increase; do you accept that?‑‑‑That's correct.  Yes.


Of course, if in fact early childhood teachers, if assessed, are actually at level 15, the likely assessment you've made for primary and secondary school teachers, then presumably the compa-ratios at level 15 would be even lower than the ones you've set out here for level 14?‑‑‑That's correct.


I cut you off, I'm sorry?‑‑‑That's correct.


Thank you.  One of the compa-ratios you've used, the one with the highest discrepancy, or another way of putting it, the lowest compa-ratio, is engineering.  At level 14 I presume, but tell me if I'm wrong, what - well, maybe I'll just ask you, what type of roles are contemplated by engineering at level 14?‑‑‑Engineering is a job family of engineers.


Yes?‑‑‑And it contains pretty much any engineering role really at that level.

***        NIDA KHOURY                                                                                                                          XXN MR TAYLOR


Yes.  Are you familiar with the fact that within what might be said to be engineering there are those who have a professional degree qualification who are often referred to as professional engineers?‑‑‑I am.


Yes.  At level 14 are we contemplating people who are degree qualified engineers?‑‑‑They would be degree qualified engineers, yes.


They would be in level 14?‑‑‑Yes.


And would they be people who are newly entering the profession as graduates?‑‑‑Some of them might be, yes.  I cannot tell exactly what's in there, but, yes, these people can be in it, yes.


Yes.  Can I suggest to you at level 14 they would be - I'll withdraw that.  Let me move on.  I think you've dealt with that as best you can.  So you identify that even at the lowest of the percentiles, PT10, ELT teachers with five years' experience are still at the award rate paid less than all the figures that you have for a level 14?‑‑‑Except against customer service and call centres.


The same as customer service and they're paid, according to this, slightly more than a call centre operator?‑‑‑That's correct.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  Sorry, just at level 14 what sort of jobs are we talking about there at call centres and customer service?‑‑‑They're not your basic level of customer service and call centres.  They might be senior or those who deal with complex situations.  They would be outbound, more - people who you escalate to difficult requests or very irate customers, something like that.


Would that ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Some of them might be supervisors even or ‑ ‑ ‑


I was just going to ask you about that.  Would they be at management level?‑‑‑ ‑ ‑ ‑team leaders for lack - for a better descriptor.  Yes.


Yes?‑‑‑They can be any range of these things.


Yes, thank you?‑‑‑Sorry, if I may say something?

***        NIDA KHOURY                                                                                                                          XXN MR TAYLOR


Yes?‑‑‑These jobs are not universal, yes.  Like, one company might have it at this level, another company might have it at this level, because it's all in the context of the rule, yes.


Yes?‑‑‑And those levels they might include graduate, they might be include people who have an equivalent years of experience at that level without having the degree, so it's knowledge however acquired really regardless whether you have a degree or you don't have a degree.


Yes, thank you?‑‑‑Yes.


MR TAYLOR:  On the next page, page 27, you identify some things that you say to the reader need to be noted when reviewing this market data; do you not?  There's four dot points?‑‑‑Yes.


I want to ask you about the first three.  Firstly, you identify that the not for profit sector generally pays somewhere between a 10th and 25th per centile relative to the commercial market.  Are you familiar with the level of pay for early childhood teachers in the not for profit as against the for profit market?‑‑‑No, I'm not.


So you don't know whether in fact in respect of early childhood teachers one finds indeed the contrary, that there is in fact a higher level of pay in the not for profit than the for profit?‑‑‑I wouldn't know.


So that note is one that has a general interest, but you don't know whether it's got any relevance to the early childhood teacher scenario?‑‑‑No, I don't know.


You also identify in the second dot point that:


A premium for engineering roles is not as pronounced when work location and remuneration aggregate used are normalised.


Just dealing with one of those two factors, the word location, is it the case that with respect to the engineering roles against which the comparison is being made they might attract or - yes, they would commonly attract higher pay if they are at a more remote work location?‑‑‑Usually, yes.


Again, do you have any knowledge as to whether that's something that is in any way a feature of early childhood teacher remuneration?‑‑‑I wouldn't have a clue.

***        NIDA KHOURY                                                                                                                          XXN MR TAYLOR


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  But this proposition is saying that at level 14 they're less likely to be at a remote work location; is that what you're saying?‑‑‑No, I'm not.  The level 14 has nothing to do with work location.  It can be anywhere.


So when you say the premium for work location is not as pronounced at that job level, what do you mean?‑‑‑I'm saying that this is a national work sample.  It is not specific to a remote location work sample.  Had it been specific to a work location sample you would have seen the engineers would be, at level 14, paid higher than the national sample.


Thank you?‑‑‑Yes.


MR TAYLOR:  The next dot point commences with the words:


The historical pay differential between male and female employees remains although it's narrowed over the years.


And you go on to refer to what any reader of the Australian Financial Review would be able to tell you about the gender pay gap.  Is this something that you are drawing broad attention to when looking at the figures on the previous page as a partial explanation as to why early childhood teachers have a lower compa-ratio than a number of the other positions for which there's a comparison being drawn?‑‑‑I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.


One of the dot points on this page, it's the third one.  Do you see that?‑‑‑I know the document but I'm not sure I understand how you're linking it to the previous page.


The dot point comes under these words:


When reviewing the above market data please note the following.


What I took it is that you're asking the reader when looking at the previous compa-ratios to take into account one of the factors that the effect to you is the historic gender pay gap?‑‑‑To a certain degree, yes.

***        NIDA KHOURY                                                                                                                          XXN MR TAYLOR


One of the - the fact that early childhood teachers are overwhelmingly female is something which is impacting upon the comparative remuneration that they have as against some of the male dominated professions that you are looking at?‑‑‑I'm not sure if it is specific to the early childhood teachers but I'm talking generally females have been paid lower historically, and the gap has narrowed.  Now which profession - I mean I've shown you here that even some professions that are predominantly female are paid better than others or equal to others.  It varies, like I can't make something broad based.


Your report is a response to a report prepared by Ms Issko of Mercer Consulting?‑‑‑That's correct.


If you go to - well I'm not sure you need to but if you wish you could go to page 5, but on page 5 you identify that what Ms Issko did was use the Mercer or CED methodology to determine points to evaluate the size of the early childhood teacher jobs and the engineering jobs?‑‑‑Yes.


You are familiar with the pay system of doing the same thing, that is using points as a way of determining size of jobs?‑‑‑That's correct.


You say that the Mercer or CED methodology is substantially similar to the Hay methodology?‑‑‑That's correct.


They use the same three major factors?‑‑‑That's correct.


They use pretty much the same eight sub-factors?‑‑‑That's correct.


With very similar definitions?‑‑‑That's correct.


The algorithms or the numbers perhaps that are used to then generate a score are not exactly the same so you will end up, even if the job sizing has been done as accurately as possible for the same job, using the two systems, you'll end up with different points because the systems themselves generate different point outcomes?‑‑‑That's correct.


Even though they use the same factors and sub-factors?‑‑‑That's correct.


You note in your report that Ms Issko when she wrote her report was in part basing her analysis of the job size of early childhood teachers on information she obtained from discussions with five early childhood teachers?‑‑‑That's correct.

***        NIDA KHOURY                                                                                                                          XXN MR TAYLOR


You identify that you didn't have access to that information?‑‑‑I had two of them.


You had two statements but Ms Issko in addition to two statements you identify, has said that she also had discussions with those same two people and three others?‑‑‑That's correct.


Ms Issko says on the basis of that she took that information and used it to do a job sizing exercise.  Is that right?‑‑‑Yes.


You point out that you didn't have access to that same information?‑‑‑That's correct.


So on the information you did have you say that you couldn't possibly provide a specific job value for the roles in question?‑‑‑That's correct.


What you do instead is provide as you said earlier, likely job ranges?‑‑‑That's correct.


Based on what information you had available?‑‑‑That's correct.


As a result we have ranges of points rather than as Ms Issko did a point value?‑‑‑That's correct.


Now I want to come to the job ranges in a moment that you constructed and compare them to Ms Issko's conclusions but before I do that can I just deal with three matters.  Firstly, is this the position that you take the view that on the information - and you've identified the limited nature of it - on the information that you had an early childhood teacher with five years' experience may have a job that is bigger in job size terms than a graduate but if so, you don't think it would be by a lot?‑‑‑That's correct.


Is the reason for that that you've proceeded on the basis that an early childhood teacher to an overwhelming degree is effectively doing the full job on day one?‑‑‑I wouldn't say the full job but pretty close.  Actually I relied on the summaries that Ms Issko provided in her report but she had two columns comparing the graduate to the early childhood teacher, and the differences were not huge really.


Is this the differences in salaries or differences in work?‑‑‑No, no, in work.

***        NIDA KHOURY                                                                                                                          XXN MR TAYLOR


In work, I see?‑‑‑Like she summarised basically what she based it on, at least this is what I thought she based her assessment on.  Another thing is I refer to, I think, I forgot the name of the lady that provided a statement.  She was describing alternatively between graduate and non graduate. At one stage she said also that they're essentially one and the same.  I don't think they're exactly one and the same, I mean there is a subtle difference but not a huge difference.


The reason why you come to that view, I just come back to this proposition, is because as you've assessed it, the early childhood teacher is as you've read it, pretty much got the same duties in their first week as responsibilities, their day to day responsibilities as they do at five years level.  That's how you've read it?‑‑‑No, no.


Have you identified some differences?‑‑‑There are differences but not huge differences and certainly not in the first week.


Can you recall the differences that you identify?‑‑‑I can refer to the report if you like.


I might not have - I noticed that you dealt with this on page 5 but I didn't notice you'd identified the differences?‑‑‑I did not list the differences, no.


So are you able to now say what they were?‑‑‑If you give me a minute, yes.  The differences are that the role is generally supervised and mentored - - -


I'm sorry just - I didn't quite catch that?‑‑‑The level of supervision and mentoring - - -


Supervision and mentoring, yes?‑‑‑Yes, the level of dealing with parents, whether alone or with assistance of others.  The preparation of lesson plans and the ability to identify potential development and behavioural issues.  These are all things that you wouldn't expect a graduate from day one to be able to do but they pretty much pick them up usually in the first year or so.


Now you contrast that - can I suggest to you, you contrast that approach to the way in which you have produced a likely assessment of an early childhood teacher to the approach you've taken with respect to engineers, where you identify on page 6 the initial level of responsibility of a graduate or trainee professional engineer is quite different to that of an experienced engineer?‑‑‑Sorry, can you repeat that?

***        NIDA KHOURY                                                                                                                          XXN MR TAYLOR


Yes.  In respect of professional engineers - - -?‑‑‑Yes.


- - - you've approached your assessment task on the basis that, as you understand it, you take the view that there's a significant difference between the level of responsibility of a graduate or trainee professional engineer to that of an experienced engineer of some years' standing?‑‑‑In most cases, yes.


Looking at your curriculum vitae you have had experience in evaluating the job size and appropriate remuneration for engineering roles?‑‑‑That's correct.


You haven't had any experience in the task of evaluating and determining the remuneration of teachers?‑‑‑No, I haven't.


Your experience is predominantly that of the finance industry and assessing remuneration and job size for that industry?‑‑‑Several industries.


It's the finance industry?‑‑‑Finance is one of them.


Finance is one of them.  The education sector is not one of them?‑‑‑Not that I can remember, but I did evaluations in the public sector; police for example.


I'm sorry?‑‑‑Police.


The likely job ranges you have set out at pages 9 and 10, and Ms Issko has prepared or did prepare a reply statement in which she has a table which summarises, or it simply records the job range that you set out on these two pages, and I'm just going to show you that because it's convenient that they're consolidated into a single table.  So I'm now showing the witness the exhibit 6 in the proceedings.  We have one more copy if any Member of the Bench doesn't have a spare copy, but could the witness be shown exhibit 6, and it's opened to page 6.  So, Mr Khoury, can you just drop down to table 2 on that page, Hay Group method point ranges?‑‑‑Yes.


And you will see that what Ms Issko has done has simply replicated the figures that you have set out over the pages 9 and 10 of your report?‑‑‑Yes.


Can I just deal with them.  Firstly, the first one, graduate, the position of graduate, Hay point minimum of 238 and a Hay point maximum of 245.  By graduate is this a Hay point range for a generic worker who has graduated with a university degree?‑‑‑That's correct.

***        NIDA KHOURY                                                                                                                          XXN MR TAYLOR


The early childhood teacher has a likely range that is higher than that of the generic graduate?‑‑‑That's correct.


The junior civil design engineer, is that a position which would be filled by someone who would be a fresh graduate or perhaps a fresh graduate with some level of experience?‑‑‑I would say so, yes.


Which of those two?  I tried to give you two propositions?  Would it be both, would it be fresh graduate with some experience?‑‑‑It would be a graduate with some experience, yes.


That position you assessed a likely job range which falls within the larger likely job range of an early childhood teacher?‑‑‑That's correct.


The primary/secondary school teacher you have a likely job range that is higher than that of an early childhood teacher?‑‑‑That's correct.


About the same as an experienced civil design engineer?‑‑‑That's correct.


When you refer to an experienced civil design engineer is that someone who would have, can I suggest to you, something in the order of five years' professional experience following graduation?‑‑‑Not necessarily.


What sort of level of experience is conveyed by the expression, "experienced civil design engineer"?‑‑‑It's hard to tell in numbers of years.  A lot is being said about the number of years of experience.  Quite frankly, like, there is a difference between somebody who has 10 years' experience doing the same thing, so one year multiplied by 10 or two years multiplied by five than somebody who has cumulative years of experience.  This engineer is based on cumulative years of experience.  If you give me a fresh graduate engineer that did exactly the same thing for five years it's not going to move from where it is now, maybe slightly.


Yes.  Is there some ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑But there is no magic number of five years or four years or three years.


Yes.  But it would presumably be more than six months?‑‑‑Certainly.


What would be a minimum level before you get to experienced civil design engineer do you think?  Even if you ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑For a civil design ‑ ‑ ‑

***        NIDA KHOURY                                                                                                                          XXN MR TAYLOR


‑ ‑ ‑progress quickly?‑‑‑ ‑ ‑ ‑engineer I would expect roughly at least two years' experience.


Yes?‑‑‑At least two.  Now, whether it's two or three or five - yes.  Sorry, if I may say something else?  Look, these are usual job sizes.  They will vary depending on the organisation and what the person is doing.


Yes?‑‑‑That's why, you know, they're typical, they're usual, but they're not precise because we don't know what the job is.  But usually they can be that.


Yes?‑‑‑Now, give me a proper position description of somebody, it might be higher, it might be lower.


Can I just deal with the fact that you have assessed the early childhood teacher with a likely job range that is lower than that of primary and secondary school teachers, and to do that I really need to go now, take you back into your report.  And you deal with this on page 10, so if you go to page 10, and just above the middle of the page there's a dot point, it has these words, for primary teaching years 2 to 6 and secondary teaching year 7 to 12 roles you say this:


I don't find it necessary to differentiate in job size between a graduate teacher and experienced teacher for the following reasons -


And then you identify three reasons.  Do you see that?‑‑‑Yes.


And the fact that they both will front the class on their own from day one is one of those three reasons?‑‑‑That's correct.


So you really approach the task in respect of primary and secondary school teaching as if the job doesn't grow in any way in size whether they're in their first month or they've been there five years.  That's the way you've approached it?‑‑‑Look, in job size terms they're pretty much the same, yes.  They will not change much because they're doing the same thing.


I see.  Now, when you say they're doing the same thing, the next paragraph says:


Based on a high level understanding of the roles.

***        NIDA KHOURY                                                                                                                          XXN MR TAYLOR


I couldn't read anything in your report which identified any information you'd been given in respect of the work of primary and secondary school teachers?‑‑‑I was given nothing about that, no.


Nothing.  Right?‑‑‑It was my understanding of primary and secondary school teachers, because I interact with them almost daily because I have kids in classes and I see what they do.


I see.  So based on the anecdotal information you have from being a parent you've based that - when you say based on a high level understanding of the roles ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑That's correct.


‑ ‑ ‑it's based on your personal interactions with teachers?‑‑‑My personal knowledge of teachers and their teaching environment in different schools.


You haven't, I take it, familiarised yourselves with the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers?‑‑‑No, not necessarily.


You're not familiar with the fact that within those standards there's a number of different levels, starting with graduate and moving to proficient, and then going to highly accomplished and then lead.  You're not familiar with that?‑‑‑I've seen something of that, yes, but that seemed to me more about years of experience than anything else.


Can I suggest to you that if that's the takeout you got from it then you haven't actually had a look at how the standards are determined?‑‑‑No, I have not.


You haven't, no.  You I think were provided with the expert code and asked to comply with it were you not?‑‑‑I have.


That code required you to identify the basis upon which you had formed opinions?‑‑‑I think so, yes, but I can't remember exactly if it has or has not.


Anyway you certainly did not in your report identify the basis upon which you took a view that primary and secondary school teachers job sizes are no different in their first year than later years.  Do you accept that?‑‑‑Can you repeat the question again?


You did not express in your report any basis for where you obtained information upon which you draw the opinion - - -?‑‑‑No, I have not.

***        NIDA KHOURY                                                                                                                          XXN MR TAYLOR


- - - that you set out in the middle of that page?‑‑‑No, I have not.


Based on that high level understanding of the role you have then identified that primary and secondary school teachers in your view have a higher level of job size than an early childhood teacher?‑‑‑Yes.


That is a conclusion you draw because of a view that there is - sorry I'll withdraw that.  This is fair, isn't it, that you set out the points for primary and secondary school teaching in the middle of page 10, that you provide no information as to how you came to review that they would be higher points than an early childhood teacher?‑‑‑Based on my understanding of the primary school teachers, from what I have seen, and based on the information I got from the pieces of information for childhood teachers, yes.


You set out in your report no explanation as to why the points are higher do you?‑‑‑No, I did not specify.


Do you accept this proposition, that if you in fact were provided with information detailing the work of primary school teachers in the same way you were early childhood teachers, it may well be the case that they have the same job size?‑‑‑I wouldn't know.


If indeed they had the same job size as a primary school teacher then they would have the same job size range, I should add.  They would be likely to have the same job size range as an experienced civil engineer?‑‑‑On a likely basis, yes.


Thank you.  They're the questions.



RE-EXAMINATION BY MR FAGIR                                               [10.16 AM]


MR FAGIR:  Mr Khoury, you mentioned a number of times that you've produced a likely range of job sizes as opposed to a job size.  Can you just remind us why that is?


MR TAYLOR:  Objection.  I asked that precise question and he gave that answer.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  What was the question again?

***        NIDA KHOURY                                                                                                                             RXN MR FAGIR


MR TAYLOR:  The question was could we be reminded of the evidence that he gave when I asked him the question about what likely job size means.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  Mr Fagir, can you tell me the exact wording of the question you propose to ask?


MR FAGIR:  Why have you produced a range of likely job sizes as opposed to a job size.  If the matter's - - -


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  Yes, I'll allow that question.


MR FAGIR:  Commission please.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  Perhaps you should ask it again, Mr Fagir.


THE WITNESS:  Sorry, the question again is?


MR FAGIR:  The question is, Mr Khoury, why did you produce a range of likely job sizes as opposed to a job size?‑‑‑Because I don't have a defined job in front of me to size it.  If I had a defined job I would give you an exact job size, but I don't.  This is why I struggled with the early childhood teacher descriptors and the engineering evaluation in the Mercer report.  There is no job, defined job to define what the job is to size it.  When I was asked precise job I said look, I can give you an approximation of what there might be but I cannot tell you what the job size is unless you give me a definition of the job.


I see.  Now in answer to a question you pointed out that the position might be different if you're talking about years of repetitive experience as opposed to years of cumulative experience?‑‑‑That's correct.


Can you explain what is the difference?‑‑‑Look, I think I said something like if you're doing the same thing for 10 years, that's not 10 years experience, this is the same thing repeated 10 times and you become faster at it, more efficient at it, quicker, but you're not doing a different job, you're just being more efficient in your current job.  So the job size remains pretty much the same.  Cumulative experience you are gaining additional knowledge about different parts of jobs which lead usually to higher responsibilities within the same job family.  Usually it is a higher job size.

***        NIDA KHOURY                                                                                                                             RXN MR FAGIR


Thank you, Mr Khoury.  They're the questions, Commission please.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  Right, thank you for your evidence, Mr Khoury.  You're excused and you can go?‑‑‑Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW                                                          [10.19 AM]


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  So the next witness is due at 11 am our time.  Can I just raise one matter.  Have the parties made any progress about the organisation of an inspection, and for that purpose I wanted to indicate that for the Bench the best number one priority day or the best day for us is from about mid-morning, that is from about 11.30 am on 31 July and the second preference is any time on 1 August.


MR FAGIR:  The answer to your Honour's first question is no and in terms of day time I can indicate I have a hearing elsewhere on 31 July but it may be that I don't need to attend.  I'm sure we can now have some discussions on that basis.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  Right, well obviously we'd be keen for the parties to reach an agreement on whether it's one or more than one centre, what can be reasonably be regarded as typical.  It might be - involve us seeing a for profit and a not for profit centre, to the extent there might be any distinctions between them.


MR FAGIR:  Certainly.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  The second thing is again, we can emphasise that we need a consolidated confidentiality order from the parties hopefully by the end of the week so that we can work out what can go on the website and in what form.




VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  If there's nothing else we should adjourn until 11 am.


MR FAGIR:  It's possible Ms Prendergast may appear before 11.  Would the Bench like to be notified if she's here sooner?



***        NIDA KHOURY                                                                                                                             RXN MR FAGIR


MR FAGIR:  I'm told Ms Prendergast will be here in 15 minutes so perhaps 10.45.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  We'll adjourn until not before 10.45.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT                                                                  [10.21 AM]

RESUMED                                                                                             [10.57 AM]




MR FAGIR:  Thank you, your Honour.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  I'm sorry, we've got Ms Prendergast available, have we?


MR FAGIR:  We do, yes.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  Are you seated, Ms Prendergast?




VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  Can I ask you to stand, please, and we'll administer the oath or affirmation.


THE ASSOCIATE:  Could you please state your full name and address for the record?


MS PRENDERGAST:  Shelley Anna Prendergast, (address supplied).

<SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST, AFFIRMED                      [10.57 AM]

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR FAGIR                                  [10.57 AM]



***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                                 XN MR FAGIR


MR FAGIR:  Madam, once more for the record, your name is Shelley Ann Prendergast?‑‑‑Shelley Anna.


Anna Prendergast?‑‑‑Prendergast, yes.


And your address for work purposes is 332 Hale Road, Wattle Grove in WA?‑‑‑Correct.


Have you made two statements for the purposes of these proceedings?‑‑‑I have.


Could I ask you to look to the first of the two statements.  Would you mind turning to page 11 of the statement, please?‑‑‑Yes.


Is this statement signed by you on 25 May 2018?‑‑‑Yes.


Are the contents of this statement true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief?‑‑‑Yes.


I tender the statement of Shelley Anna Prendergast signed on 25 May 2018.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  The statement of Shelley Prendergast dated 25 May 2018 will be marked exhibit 106.



MR FAGIR:  Ms Prendergast, do you have your second statement with you there?‑‑‑I do.


It's a statement of four pages long with a number of annexures?‑‑‑Yes.


Are the contents of that second statement true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief?‑‑‑Yes.


I tender the second statement of Ms Prendergast.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  The supplementary statement of Shelley Prendergast dated 1 July 2019 will be marked exhibit 107.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                                 XN MR FAGIR



MR FAGIR:  Thank you, your Honours.  That's the evidence-in-chief.



CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TAYLOR                                   [10.59 AM]


MR TAYLOR:  Ms Prendergast, you identify in paragraph 3 that you began work as an early childhood educator in 1994.  At that stage did you have the qualification that you describe in paragraph 35, a Bachelor of Social Science?‑‑‑I hadn't achieved that qualification in 1994.  I was awarded that in 1995.


So when you started in 1994 what qualification did you have?  Did you have any?‑‑‑Under the regulations at the time I was able to obtain an exemption, and so I worked as a qualified leader or team leader, they were just called qualified Diplomas back then, and I had the equivalence, because I'd done more than two years in my qualification, I had the equivalent qualification as a Diploma and was able to achieve an exemption to work.


In paragraph 35 you describe the nature of the degree, the Bachelor of Social Science, as a degree in which you studied in particular child development.  Do I understand that correctly?‑‑‑Yes.  Yes.


Is this the case, that that degree did not include study as to how to be a teacher to put it simplistically?‑‑‑That's correct.  It was not a teaching degree.  I wasn't taught how to be a teacher.


Is this a general proposition that you would accept, I may be para-phrasing or not correctly the view that you expressed generally in your statement, but as a general proposition you do not believe that childcare centres should be required to employ a qualified early childhood teacher?‑‑‑I believe that the early childhood teacher that's employed should have the relevant qualifications for the zero to three age group, so I do believe that we should have early childhood teachers so long as their qualification is relevant to the younger age group and not the older age group.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


I'll come to the younger age group and older age group issue in a moment, but when you say that you believe that childcare centres should be required to employ a university qualified early childhood teacher what's the reason why you're of the view that that is an appropriate requirement for childcare centres such as the ones that you operate?‑‑‑I have a fundamental belief that early childhood is the most important time of a child's life, and that the opportunities for learning are not available to those children later on if the foundations aren't there in - aren't built in those first few years.  A qualification that is a university level qualification asks students to think more deeply about children, children's development and children's learning so that's why I think that we need to have an early childhood professional, someone with a higher qualification than the Diploma.


When you say that an early childhood teacher is trained to have students think more deeply, you might've made this clear at the end of your answer, but just to get clear more deeply than educators; is that the understanding?‑‑‑More deeply than a VET qualification or a vocational education training qualification, which is very practical and doesn't delve into theoretical perspectives of early childhood development.


You describe the position of the centres that you operated at the time you prepared the statement in May 2018 in your statement.  Can I just see if I understand it correctly, the first of the centres you discuss is at Huntingdale or you refer to it as Huntingdale; is that right?‑‑‑Correct.


And that was a centre that you commenced operating during the financial year that ended June 2016?‑‑‑Correct, yes.


About when did you commence operating that centre with children present?‑‑‑We - that centre settled - we purchased that centre on 21 March 2016.


I read, and it may have been a typo, that there was, at the time you took it over, a five per cent occupancy; is that right?‑‑‑Correct.


So at what point did the occupancy of Huntingdale get to a level above 70 per cent?‑‑‑Above, sorry, what per cent?


Seventy?‑‑‑Seventy per cent?  I would say that that took us about two years, so mid-last year.  What was last year, 2018, yes.


So that was a centre that was 27 years old when you purchased it?‑‑‑Yes.


And is authorised to have 38 children?‑‑‑Yes.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


What are the age range of the children that are in that centre?‑‑‑We are - our service approval allows us to take children from the ages of zero to 12 because we can take children before and after school care, but predominantly the children in that centre are under three.  There are a couple of four year-olds but mostly under three.


Moving to the next centre, and my pronunciation of names has already been criticised once, no doubt I'll get this wrong, is it Karrinyup?‑‑‑Karrinyup, but it's close.


This one was newly established and purpose built; is that - by you and the investors that are associated with your business?‑‑‑The building is owned by an external landlord and we have a lease.


Yes.  But the fact that it was purpose built was that ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.


‑ ‑ ‑purpose built by you and your investors?‑‑‑No, purpose built by the landlord and we just - we got the lease after they started building, so we really didn't have any input in any of it.  There's no financial - yes, we're just tenants.


I see.  So someone else decided to build ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.


‑ ‑ ‑a childcare centre and part-way through the building they decided that they needed someone to operate it; is that ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.


And then you were the person who then - and just so I can get clear who you are when I'm using the word "you", I'm trying to use it in the plural sense, is it yourself as the owner of the business or are there other investors as well?‑‑‑My husband is the approved provider.


Yes, I'm talking about the ownership of the ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑And ‑ ‑ ‑


‑ ‑ ‑business rather than the position titles, but ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Okay.  And we do have other investors.


Yes.  How many investors do you have?‑‑‑There's one.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


Do I understand that you and your husband are also investors, so there's three in total?‑‑‑If you want to separate Mark and I, then, yes, but I don't tend to do that.  I see as us as one partner and I see the investor as the other partner.


Does that other partner bring anything more than capital to the business?‑‑‑Just capital.  Just capital.


That centre opened during the financial year 2017/18; that's right?‑‑‑That's correct.


And when approximately in that financial year did it start earning income?‑‑‑At the end of 2018 financial year I think we were making a small profit.  I think it broke even within that year.


Yes.  That's not what I asked, but I'm not being critical ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Okay.


‑ ‑ ‑but just listen to the question.  When did it start earning income?‑‑‑I can't tell you.  I haven't checked those figures.  I can't remember.


It might be the word income that's confusing you.  I'm not asking for profit?‑‑‑Yes.


I'm asking for when you first received a dollar ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Okay.  Yes.


‑ ‑ ‑in respect of that centre?‑‑‑Yes, the day we opened.


Yes.  Okay, when was that?‑‑‑2 August.


Of what year?‑‑‑2017.


And then the third centre - and did that take a little while before occupancy levels grew to the point they are now?‑‑‑Yes.


So in that first financial year ending June 2018 had you achieved by the end of that year the occupancy level that you've since achieved or was it continuing to grow like the other centre?‑‑‑It was continuing to grow.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


That has - that's authorised for 72 children.  What's the ages that one finds in that centre?‑‑‑So that's the same as Huntingdale.  We predominantly have under threes.


The third centre is Wattle Grove.  When did that open?‑‑‑I think that's 21 October.




Again, you describe that as newly established and purpose built?‑‑‑Yes.


Is that something that you and your investor established and built or is it something that some other person established and built and then you took over?‑‑‑Similar to Karrinyup, someone else built it and while it was being built, and while it was erected, we entered into a lease agreement with them.


Is that the same person in respect of Karrinyup?‑‑‑No.  No, different.


Different?‑‑‑Different landlord.


And then since the time you prepared your statement there's now a fourth centre that you're operating at Coolbellup?‑‑‑Yes, that's right.


Tell us about that, when did that open?‑‑‑That opened November last year 2018.


Its number of children that it's authorised for?‑‑‑72.


Also newly established and purpose built?‑‑‑It's an existing childcare centre that had been let go, so it hadn't had an operator in it for about three years and was not purpose built, was a refurbishment about 15 years ago and we did another refurbishment before we opened last year.


I omitted to ask you something about Wattle Grove.  So can I just go back to that.  What's the ages of the children at Wattle grove?‑‑‑Predominantly under three.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


To the extent to which - sorry, Coolbellup, what's the ages at Coolbellup?‑‑‑They're a bit more spread.  We have mostly under three but there are a couple of four years and we do pick up before and afterschool care.  Wattle Grove, I'm sorry, we do pick up children from the local school so there are some six and seven year olds as well. So yes, Coolbellup - sorry.


No, no, I was interrupting you.  There's a trouble with the time lag perhaps.  Sorry, you wanted to finish your answer?‑‑‑So Coolbellup has not - is still growing, has not yet - we haven't broken even yet.  So the numbers are much lower than the other three centres, and so the number of children are much wider spread.


The fact that you have before and afterschool care, is that something that's unique to Coolbellup or does one also find primary school age children attending the other centres?‑‑‑There are none at Huntingdale and none at Karrinyup.  At Wattle Grove there is a before and afterschool care service that we provide to siblings of children who in the childcare centre long day as a - like an added service to the families.  At Coolbellup there was always a demand for before and afterschool care so we were always going to offer that to the community.


Is there an age - I presume there's some age limit for before and afterschool care, is there?‑‑‑Under the legislation we can take them until Year 7 - Year 6, before they go into high school.  It would depend on our case by case basis.  We would make a decision based on what's best for the children that are attending at that point in time.


As you've moved from one centre at Huntingdale to the second at Karrinyup, a third at Wattle Grove and then a fourth at Coolbellup, in each case I presume that your investor has provided further capital to fund this expansion?‑‑‑Correct.


Do I take it that the investor sees potential for successful and profitable business growing over time?‑‑‑Yes.  Yes.


I want to now ask you some questions about what happens in Western Australia which seems a little different to what happens elsewhere in the country, it's probably not the only area of difference but one area of difference it appears, as I understand it, that most children in Western Australia in their last year before compulsory primary school attend kindergarten classes which are located at schools?‑‑‑Correct, yes.


The first year of compulsory primary school in Western Australia is called pre-primary?‑‑‑Correct.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


The year before that which is attended by, as I said, children between four and five years old is called kindergarten?‑‑‑Three and a half - they start at three and a half kindergarten, so they're three and a half, so it's a four year old - effectively a four year old kindergarten program but they're three and a half when they start.  Or can be three and a half when they start, because our starting year month is July. So they need to be four between July and June the following year to be in kindergarten, and then five between July and June the following year to be in pre-primary and so on and so on.


Now the kindergarten year, that is the year before pre-primary, that's not a compulsory education.  Is that right?‑‑‑That's right, it's not compulsory.


But it is offered at primary schools throughout Western Australia?‑‑‑Correct.


It is effectively offered free to parents?‑‑‑In the state system, yes.  Independent and Catholic schools will still charge a fee but they charge a fee for every year.  So in the state system it's free.


Tell me if you know this, I'm not entirely clear myself.  Do you know whether the kindergarten program universal funding program that the federal government has entered into the various states with provides funding to the Western Australian government, which helps fund this year of free government kindergarten.  Is that right?‑‑‑That's right, so in WA the State Education Department gets the universal access funding and it's distributed throughout the education system.


Now the kindergarten year, firstly most children do - while not compulsory most children do attend that year do they  not?‑‑‑Yes.


That's delivered - the teaching of those children is delivered by qualified registered teachers?‑‑‑Correct.


They apply when they are teaching the Early Years Learning Framework?‑‑‑They apply the Early Years Learning Framework in a format that has been adapted by the Education Department, do they don't apply the framework the way that we would apply the framework in our long daycare settings.


Is there a publication of the Western Australian government that publishes the Early Years Learning Framework in a modified form?‑‑‑Yes, it's called the Western Australian Kindergarten Curriculum.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


Just give me a moment.  Do you have - we asked for certain documents to be provided to you.  Can I ask whether you could locate a document - I'm just trying to find it myself - that is a Western Australia government publication dealing with the kindergarten year.  It's called Hello - I think the first page has the words, "Hello, kindergarten!"?‑‑‑I've got it.  Yes.


Could I - I'm sorry, I've realised the Bench doesn't have this document, it's not in our bundle so can I ask for these copies to be provided to the Commission.  Is this a document that you've either seen before it was sent to you overnight or you've had an opportunity to look at it since then?‑‑‑I hadn't seen it before.


Can I just take you to some parts of it?‑‑‑Okay.


If you go to page 4, there's a heading, "Your child's school journey".  The last paragraph of that page before one gets to the blue box that starts with the words, "In kindergarten", just follow along with me:


In kindergarten, your child continues to build on the important skills they've developed with you at home.  These skills may include your child being able to talk about things that interest them, draw pictures, pretend write, recognise colours, numbers, sizes and shapes and share with others.


Those learning outcomes are learning outcomes which reflect learning outcomes that are contained within the Early Years Learning Framework?‑‑‑The Early Years Learning Framework isn't that prescriptive.  There is no outcome that says your child will draw a picture, your child will pretend to write, your child will recognise colours.  So there is a learning outcome that talks about children being competent and talks about children being confident learners and these are the skills that we teach children because that's what they need to learn, but there is nothing in the Early Years Learning Framework that suggests that a child should draw a picture at any one point of their development.


The Early Years Learning Framework includes as an outcome:


To begin to understand key literacy and numeracy concepts and processes.


?‑‑‑Absolutely, yes.




Such as the sounds of language, letter sound relationships, concepts of prints and the ways that text is structured.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


?‑‑‑That's right.


Let me come back to the document that I've misplaced again.  Just at page 7 there's a heading, "What happens during the day", and it describes in the first couple of paragraphs that:


Kindergartens run for 15 hours a week. Some schools run a combination of four and a half days, others run only half days.  Some schools encourage children to wear the uniform.


That reflects does it not the nature of the kindergarten year in WA schools?‑‑‑Yes.


On the next page, "What will my child learn?"  It says:


In a carefully planned learning environment your child experiences many different learning activities.


Would you mind just reading, as you haven't seen this before, the balance of that page to yourself?‑‑‑Yes, I've read that now.


The matters contained in the third, fourth and fifth paragraph are matters which the Early Years Learning Framework identifies as learning outcomes for children.  Is that right?‑‑‑Yes.


I tender the WA Department of Education document titled "Hello Kindergarten".


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  The Hello Kindergarten document published by the Western Australian Department of Education will be marked exhibit 108.



MR FAGIR:  Can I just say that there's no difficulty with the tender and I don't want to interrupt the cross-examination but I do want to say something about this process of tendering documents if the witness says they haven't seen before.  I don't think it'll be an issue but I'll just say something about it.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


MR TAYLOR:  Do you want to say it now?


MR FAGIR:  These tenders of these documents that the witness say they haven't seen are not tenders through the witnesses.  They're the equivalent of coming along and tendering a bundle of documents as the applicant did on the final day of its case.  There's no difficulty with it as long as it's understood to be the approach that's taken.  I just don't want to be in a situation where I try to do the same thing and there's an objection that this wasn't filed nor tendered through a witness.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  That's noted, Mr Taylor.


MR TAYLOR:  Having asked you some questions, Ms Prendergast, about the nature of education in Western Australia in respect of the year before compulsory primary school, is it - is that in a sense the reason why - and if you open your statement at paragraph 53 you indicate that in your experience the demand for early childhood teachers and formal education from parents starts in kindergarten?‑‑‑Can you - sorry, I'm not following.  Can you ask that question again?


Yes.  In paragraph 53 you say:


In my experience the demand for ECT and formal education from parents starts in kindergarten which is the year before compulsory school in Western Australia.




Is this the position, that parents in Western Australia in your experience view what occurs in long daycare centres up to kindergarten as - broadly as childcare, such that their demand and formal education you say really commences only in that last year when they move to school?‑‑‑Yes, I agree with that.


Not a view that you share from what you said at the beginning.  Is that right?‑‑‑No, that's correct.


Traditionally in Western Australia the view of families, sorry I withdraw that, I'll remove the word traditionally.  The view of families in Western Australia is captured in paragraph 54 that they see the main benefit of sending their children to your centres, is the children receiving some socialisation and to allow for them to be care while they are working?‑‑‑Yes.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


That position hasn't changed since - it didn't change in 2012 with the advent of the national law?‑‑‑No.


Do you accept this as a broad proposition that this attitude of families or maybe more broadly the community, has led the long daycare centre industry in Western Australia to not have the same focus on educational outcomes as one finds in long daycare centres in the rest of the country?‑‑‑No, I don't agree with that.


In the rest of the country we find these centres often referred to as early learning centres, do you agree with that?‑‑‑Yes.


In Western Australia we find these centres referred to as childcare centres?‑‑‑I can't speak for everybody else.  I know that there are schools of early learning, there is - I think naming a childcare centre something and it doing something are completely different things.  So I don't believe that in WA we don't focus on teaching children in a long daycare setting.


You have under the National Quality Standards an obligation to deliver an educational program to all children, including those that you focus on, which is those who are zero to three?‑‑‑Yes.


Now given what we've discussed about the nature of the early childhood industry in Western Australia, does it follow that the majority of early childhood teachers in Western Australia are teaching in schools that kindergarten year?‑‑‑Yes, it is difficult to recruit a qualified - appropriately qualified early childhood teacher in the long daycare setting.


I want to come to difficulty to recruit in a minute, but can I just clarify this proposition?‑‑‑Okay.


If you take all early childhood teachers currently employed in Western Australia the majority of them are employed by schools; are they not?‑‑‑Yes.  That's my understanding.


It would actually be - I don't know whether you've got the capacity to give a rough estimation but it would be substantially less than half who are employed in long daycare centres?‑‑‑I would think so.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


You mentioned difficulty to recruit, and I was going to turn to your specific teachers in a minute, but just what's the difficulty to recruit that you're identify arising out of the fact that most of them are employed by schools?‑‑‑Well, I have a number of - well, each of my centres except for the Coolbellup Centres have early childhood teaching students at the moment and the experience that I have with these students is that they have to do this practicum in a long daycare setting but they are and will be looking for work in the school setting.  I'm imagining that they do an early childhood teaching qualification to teach in the school setting.


So in Western Australia, like the rest of the country, you can meet the ratio requirement to have an early childhood teacher by having someone who has completed more than 50 per cent of their degree?‑‑‑Correct.


Did I understand from what you just said that that's in fact how you are meeting your ratio requirements at the moment, that is individuals who do not yet have a degree but are working towards one?‑‑‑Yes, okay.  So I actually have students that are university students doing their practicums in our services who I was referring to, and in conversations with them, so they must do a 10 day practicum in a childcare setting and in conversations with them, while they like the little children they'd much prefer to be working in a school setting.


I think I need to come back to the nature of those that you engage in a moment?‑‑‑Okay.


But is this the case, that teachers who are engaged by schools are paid, if they are teaching that kindergarten year, the same as the other primary school teachers in that school, to your knowledge?‑‑‑I don't know.  I don't know what they get paid.  I've never asked an early childhood teacher working in a school what they get paid.


I see.  You haven't, do you say, in the course of employing teachers come to understand what, in effect, the market is, the market rate, is for early childhood teachers that you're effectively competing with that is the school market?‑‑‑Yes.  No, I don't, because I can't compete with 12 weeks a year leave, and I can't compete with hours between 9 and 3, and I can't compete with a whole day of DOT time.  I can't compete with that.  So if I am trying to recruit an early childhood teacher I will refer back to the award and I will pay accordingly based on their experience and their - according to that.  I'm not going to go in a bidding war against the schools.  I just won't win.


Yes.  So you mentioned certain condition matters?‑‑‑Yes.


And you say you can't compete because of the conditions?‑‑‑Yes.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


As a general proposition, when one is competing for something one can compete by offering increased remuneration.  When you said you can't compete can I just understand what you mean by that?  You could offer more money; could you not?‑‑‑I could offer more money if I felt that the value of the employee warranted more money, but I have a whole workforce of people who work just as hard as early childhood teachers and in most cases deliver the same outcomes as the early childhood teachers.  In my services they would be wanting then to be remunerated in the same way.  So I keep a very even playing field and I pay according to whatever award is relevant.


When you say you pay according to the award, I think I understand that, but let's be absolutely clear, you mean you pay the exact award rate, whatever it will be at a given time?‑‑‑Absolutely.


When you - sorry, I'll just - under the National Quality Standards long daycare centres such as the four that you operate are required to have an education program?‑‑‑Correct.


That is a matter, if you did not have an education program, that you would actually commit an offence.  There would be a penalty that could be imposed upon you; is that right?‑‑‑Correct.


Those regulations require that the educational program is delivered to all children being educated and cared for by the service.  It requires that it's based on an approved learning framework?‑‑‑Yes.


And the approved learning framework which you are obliged by law to deliver an educational program is the Early Years Learning Framework?‑‑‑That's right.


And you are similarly required by regulation to have an educational program which is designed to take into account the individual differences of each child?‑‑‑That's correct.


I'm going to come a bit later to the second statement, but is this the case, that until the national law commenced there was no question that you could be fined or a centre could be fined if they didn't have, firstly, an educational program?‑‑‑I can't recollect the regulations prior to the national regulations.  I do think that there was something in there but I can't remember the wording that provided that we had to have an outline or a program of activities for children, but I can't remember whether that was - it was legislated that that had to be an - the wording "educational program" wasn't in it and I can't remember whether or not it was linked to children's development or be specific for individual children's needs.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


So I take it from the last part of your answer you're not able to say one way or the other ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑No.


‑ ‑ ‑whether I'm right when I say that what commenced in 2012 is a legal obligation to have an educational program designed to take into account the individual differences of each child?‑‑‑Okay.  So, yes, in 2012 the national regulations made it a legal requirement for that.  Prior to that to be a recipient of the childcare benefit funding we needed to be registered with the national quality - with the Quality Improvement Accreditation System, and that enforced a requirement that we provide children with - the wording wasn't "education program" but certainly a program where children's individual developmental needs are being met.


I'll come back to that, but I think we're clear so far.  There was no legal obligation to do so.  If there was an obligation, and we'll come to the nature of it, it was one that derived from an accreditation program which was linked to subsidies to parents?‑‑‑Correct.  That's right.


The educational program is one that under the regulation must be provided by all educators?‑‑‑Yes.  I can't remember the wording exactly, if it's all educators.


You I think have been supplied with a document that has links to other documents.  Could I ask whether you could open up a document number 80?‑‑‑Sorry my hotspot dropped out.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  This is the national law?


MR TAYLOR:  Yes?‑‑‑So I'm sorry, my hotspot has dropped out.


Just give me a moment.  It may be that I can read this to you.  It may be that I come back to it after a break when you've had the opportunity to get that working again.  I might have to come back to this.  The relevant section I was going to take the witness to is section 168, but I will come back to that?‑‑‑Okay.  Thank you.


Just give me a moment.  I'm sorry, I'm not as fast as I was hoping to be.  I won't be long.  At the time you prepared your statement at Huntingdale you said that you had one early childhood teacher.  At that time that person was not yet qualified but was part-way through a degree; is that right?‑‑‑Yes.  That's right.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


And they were sufficiently through their degree to meet the national law ratio requirement?‑‑‑That's correct.


Given that all educators have an obligation to provide an educational program presumably this ECT was one of those educators responsible for teaching an educational program?‑‑‑She was - she wasn't responsible for delivering the educational program.  She was a member of the team that contributed to the program.


Isn't it the case under the national law that all educators have a responsibility to deliver the educational program, not just some?‑‑‑So if everybody was - so everybody is responsible for delivering it.  She did not prepare it.  She did not - she wasn't responsible for the overall delivery.  Obviously she was responsible for participating in delivering it, but she wasn't responsible and didn't take responsibility to guide or lead the delivery of that.


So when in paragraph 13 you say that she's not responsible for teaching the educational program ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Mm-hm.


‑ ‑ ‑what you meant in that is that she is responsible for teaching the educational program but isn't the lead teacher or the lead educator in respect of the program?‑‑‑Correct.


At Karrinyup on the day of the statement you had an early childhood teacher who had a degree, a university degree, but in primary education and was working towards a Diploma in early education.  Was that person's degree one which qualified them to be an early childhood teacher?‑‑‑There is a transitional regulation that allows Bachelor of Education primary school teachers, if they're undergoing the Diploma of Education and working towards it, to be classified as our early childhood teacher.


That was her position, was it, at that time?‑‑‑Yes, she was employed as the early childhood teacher.


And in paragraph 23 you say that she was delivering a program in the kindergarten?‑‑‑Mm-hm.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


What does that mean?  Is that different to the one we've discussed previously?  In this case she is delivering a program?‑‑‑No, she was just delivering the program to the kindergarten room which is a specific age group.  She wasn't delivering it to the nursery.  She was delivering it to the children that were in the kindergarten room.


These are children who are predominantly, are they, three years old?‑‑‑Yes, two-and-a-half and up to about three-and-a-half.


She is teaching the Early Years Learning Framework like the teachers in primary schools when they are teaching children; do you agree?‑‑‑She would be delivering the Early Years Learning Framework and that would be the version that the education and care sector use.  So I've never seen how a teacher in a school delivers the Early Years Learning Framework.  I have read the document, the curriculum guidelines.  I can only assume there are some differences, but I don't know.  So I can tell you that she was delivering the Early Years Learning Framework the way that I would like to see the Early Years Learning Framework delivered in my childcare centres.


Turning to Wattle Grove, at the time that you prepared the statement you employed an early childhood teacher, one teacher at Wattle Grove, who was also the centre manager?‑‑‑That's correct.


She wasn't delivering an educational program you say?‑‑‑No, she wasn't.


You say that in paragraph 21.  By that do I understand that she wasn't herself, as a rule, in the rooms delivering the program?‑‑‑That's correct.  She was centre manager above ratio managing the site, managing the childcare centre.


And was there another ECT employed to work at that centre at that time?‑‑‑No.


You understand, do you, that the regulations require a certain minimum ratio of early childhood teachers to be in attendance?‑‑‑Correct, they have to be in attendance and she was in attendance.


Have you had an opportunity to understand what the expression "in attendance" means for the purposes of the national law?‑‑‑So in WA the early childhood teacher does not need to be in ratio.  So it is possible and happens quite a lot where the early childhood teacher is the out of ratio non-contact centre manager.  I'm not sure how it works in the rest of the country, but that was assessed by the ECRU.  ECRU came in and I was compliant because my early childhood teacher was present at the service 37-and-a-half hours a week.


Under the national regulations an early childhood teacher is in attendance at a centre based service if they are both physically present?‑‑‑Correct.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


And carrying out educational care activities including working directly with children, planning programs, mentoring, coaching or supporting educators, facilitating education and care research and performing the role of an educational leader?‑‑‑These are the Western Australian regulations that you're referring to or the national regs?


The national regs, yes?‑‑‑Okay, so we have our own regulations over here that passes through our own parliament.  I don't even look at the national regulations insofar as they don't apply here, they're not - it's not - we're not part of that jurisdiction, we have our own regulations and I don't have the wording in front of me but I know that I can have an early childhood teacher outside of ratio they just need to be present in the service.  They don't need to be teaching, they don't need to be contact, they don't need to be face to face.  If that was the case then I would have by now have breached in some circumstance because I've employed early childhood teachers as centre managers before and have never once received a breach.


One of the requirements, tell me if I'm wrong, one of the requirements is that the early childhood teachers must be registered, is that right or have I got that wrong?‑‑‑The Teachers Registration Board expect that - well they demand that if you have a teacher who is teaching that she be registered, yes.


Not just if they're teaching but also if they're administering an educational program?‑‑‑Yes.


Your centre manager would I take it be administering the educational program?‑‑‑No.  She wasn't on the floor administering the program.  She wasn't teaching children, she wasn't face to face contact with the children and we started the process of registration with the Teachers Registration Board with her and she was Irish and we were having difficulty with her international police clearance.  I contacted the Teachers Registration Board to clarify whether or not we needed to continue based on the fact that she wasn't face to face teaching, and they said if she was not delivering the program and that she was not teaching the children and in fact had no contact with the children, insofar as you know she was with them every day or even for some time of the week, then we didn't to get her registered.


I see.  Maybe we're at cross purposes.  Can I just take you to paragraph 47 where I think you describe what the centre director does?‑‑‑Yes.


I was working off that, which I thought meant that they were indeed administering an educational program.  So you see in paragraph 47 you say what the centre director does?‑‑‑Yes.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


They develop and implement the National Quality Framework or the Australian curriculum?‑‑‑Yes.


They in (f) "Manage the development of children"?‑‑‑Mm-hm.


And in (g) just the words "Early Years Learning Framework" appear.  How is that a task?‑‑‑Well my intention of that was to point out that it is always their responsibility to ensure that there is a program being created, developed and delivered to the children that meets all of those - all of those points.  But it's not their responsibility to actually do that, because they can't be everyone.


Again it might be that we're at cross purposes, your centre director does these things but is not responsible to ensure that they actually are carried out?‑‑‑She's responsible for ensuring they're actually carried out but she's not responsible for actually doing them.  So she's not going to sit down and write a program for children and then go out on the floor and deliver that program making sure all the activities are set up properly and that the staff know what the intention for each of the experiences are.  She's not going to make sure that the outdoor environment is set up so that the certain climbing frame is in a certain way, that's what the educators do.  That's what the diploma level staff do but it is my centre manager's responsibility to make sure that each of those people are carrying out those duties.


The first annexure to your statement is marked SP1 and you've annexed this so as to explain to the Commission who must be registered in Western Australia?‑‑‑Yes.


That is registered to teach I should have added?‑‑‑Yes.


The second paragraph defines what teaching is, does it not?‑‑‑Is that the paragraph that says:


This includes those who are teaching in centre based education care services?


No, I'm looking at a document SP1?‑‑‑Sorry, yes.  I turned over the wrong page, I've got it.


That's fine.  The delivery of an educational program, yes.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


Yes, so teach has two meanings; the delivery of an educational program but also the administration of any such program.  There's two different concepts there?‑‑‑Yes.


Again, we might be at cross purposes but isn't it the case that your centre directors indeed have got the responsibility to administer the programs that are being delivered by the educators?‑‑‑So my understanding is that the administration of any such educational program would - look, I - when I asked the Teachers Registration Board, because you know nobody wants to get any fines of any description for any reason, so when I followed up with the Teachers Registration Board and we discussed whether or not this particular centre manager needed to be registered, we determined together that she was not delivering the educational program and that she really didn't administer the educational program but she oversaw that they were being administered effectively.


You said earlier that Western Australia has its own regulations?‑‑‑Yes.


Is this the case that the regulations are made nationally by a form of uniform legislation where each state legislates what is referred to as the National Regulations?‑‑‑From what I understand, the legislation is - comes from Victoria and the rest of the country adopts that legislation but we have corresponding law here and when decisions are made about the changes in legislation in the national law, then eventually they are carried through to ours but there are some differences.


Can I suggest to you one of the differences - there is no difference as to what in attendance means for an early childhood teacher.  It is exactly the same in Western Australia as it is in the rest of the country?‑‑‑Okay, so I don't know the wording and if you have it in front of you that's great, but I can tell you that I have not had a non compliance for not having my early childhood teacher as the centre manager, and not in direct contact with the children.  So whether or not that's an interpretation difference over here, I mean I can't tell you but if there was a breach then I would say yes, you're right but I've had an early childhood teacher. She's not been a contact educator, she's not delivered a program, she's not written an observation on a child, she's not assessed a program or an observation.  She's not done any critical reflection on what's going on in the program and I have not been non compliant with that regulation.


Can I move to a different topic.  In paragraph 31 you discuss programming being different to a school curriculum. Firstly, just tell me when you've got that paragraph so that you can refresh your memory of it?‑‑‑I have it, I have it.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


Firstly, when you're referring to school curriculum here are you referring to the curriculum at a certain point in schooling, noting that we've established that schooling in Western Australia starts in what's referred to as the kindergarten year?‑‑‑It is my understanding and my experience that the school based curriculum is something that's being delivered from as early as kindergarten.


Yes, I've asked you about the nature of that curriculum already.  To the extent to which you are here referring to school based curriculum and making some statements about it, can I just understand the basis of your knowledge?  Have you yourself ever been a teacher in a primary school?‑‑‑No, I haven't but I have had teachers - so the teacher at Karrinyup, her programming was very outcomes based.  It was all about a certain skill that a child needed to achieve by a certain date rather than programming for each child's individual stage of development and then moving through those milestones.


So she is someone at Karrinyup who did have educational programming responsibilities?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.


Was she the room leader?‑‑‑She was.


You describe in this paragraph what appears to be you suggest a contrast in curriculum.  The Early Years Learning Framework contains, does it not, what is referred to as learning outcomes?‑‑‑It does.


Educators assess children against those learning outcomes?‑‑‑They do.


An educator might, can I suggest to you, observe whether a child can cut paper with scissors and if they can't then seek to develop some learning experience that would give them additional fine motor skills?‑‑‑If an educator were to determine that a child couldn't cut the experiences that they would provide for them would be - firstly they would need to determine why they can't cut.  So any experiences that they provide for them would have - may possibly have nothing to do with cutting and have everything to do with building the fine motor skill of that particular or fine motor strength of that particular child.  So when you say giving them more experiences to help them to learn to cut, it would - a good program would determine where that child was at and scaffold on their current strengths.


So that might be to move the child to working with Playdough, to increase their fine motor skills?‑‑‑Yes.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


And then scaffold from there to a point in the future where they are able to cut with scissors?‑‑‑That's right.


These are, are they not, measurable outcomes at a pre-primary level?‑‑‑They are but the Early Years Learning Framework isn't prescriptive like that.  It doesn't say there is nothing in the Early Years Learning Framework that says that by the time the child is four they'll be holding a pencil in a pincer grip or that they will be cutting.  The Early Years Learning Framework gives a broad guide to an outline for educators, so that they can help - they can help children or plan programs for children where children's emotional and social wellbeing is being addressed while they're learning all of these skills, which they need to learn based on their developmental progression.


Do you have in your centres checklists against which educators can assess children to where they're up to in various specs?‑‑‑No, we haven't had checklists since the Early Years Learning Framework was introduced but we have a document that ACEQUA have released called the - we'll call them the milestones, children's development milestones I think they're called.  And it is a list of milestones that we expect children to meet in certain age groups but it isn't a checklist as such.  It's a guide.  So you're not sitting there at a certain date checking off if a child can jump three times or - that was what we used to do prior to the Early Years Learning Framework.  Some services might still have those checklists, I don't know, I don't use them.


The milestones guideline, does that in effect have the  role of a developmental - you don't like the word checklist but a list of stages which educators will from time to time observe whether a child has reached that milestone?‑‑‑Yes.


At paragraph 50 you identify the difference between Western Australia and the other states arising from government funding and you - I'm not sure it's fair to call it a complaint but you certainly make the point that in other states long daycare centres receive a subsidy that helps cover the costs of employing an early childhood teacher?‑‑‑So we're talking about the universal access funding.  Yes.


So that last sentence at paragraph 50, the point you were making is it not that Western Australia you say it's harder for long daycare centres to cover the costs of an early childhood teacher because those in the other states receive government money which goes towards paying their wages?‑‑‑Is it harder for us to pay?  We just pay more.  If it's - you know, whether it's harder or not, I don't know, because I don't know what other people's financial situations are.  We pay what we pay to have an early childhood teacher.  If we had the funding that would be helpful.


At paragraph 56 you say something that you've learnt from your early childhood teachers about the nature of the degree that they have when they are studying zero to eight years?‑‑‑Yes.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


In particular, that only a small proportion of the course, e.g. one semester, focuses on zero to four years?‑‑‑This is correct, yes.


Can I just understand this.  You're not suggesting that the other, I presume seven semesters, that the other semesters are all focused on five to eight years are you?‑‑‑I'm - they are focused on teaching practices that aren't necessarily effective in the early years, so behaviour management strategies and curriculum planning in advance for a term.  We can't do that.  We can't plan a curriculum for a term in advance because our programs are specific to individual children, as individual attend.  So the whole university degree is a middle - like a preschool qualification with an early childhood component tacked onto it to help us comply with that regulation.  Some universities do it better than others.  I know that one of the universities here in WA now are offering quite an extensive and intensive portion of the qualification to the zero to three age group.  I have those students in my centres, they do a 10 week prac over the year with us in their second year, so it is changing.


Tell me if this is something that you've also learnt from discussions with your ECTs or you just don't know one way or the other but can I suggest to you that the majority of the time that teachers are studying at university in respect of this zero to eight age degree, they are learning brought principles of teaching pedagogy that would be applicable at any of the ages?‑‑‑If that was the case then they wouldn't have needed to add additional zero to two components to it.  I don't believe that the traditional qualification, which has been adapted, it's not a brand new qualification.  It's a qualification that's been adopted to include the zero to three-year-old group, is something that is appropriate for teaching children who are infants, babies and toddlers.  I believe that predominantly the early childhood teaching qualification is aimed at an older age group.


From what we discussed earlier that somewhat accords with the fact that predominantly those who achieved that degree will indeed teach an older age group, that is an age group from four-and-a-half and up?‑‑‑Yes.


Or, sorry, three-and-a-half and up.  I apologise, three-and-a-half and up?‑‑‑Three-and-a-half, yes.  Three-and-a-half, yes.


In paragraph 83 of your statement you describe the impact of the regulatory change on your centres in 2012 was a wage increase and you have - there's two aspects to that:  the first was for the first time ECTs were required to be engaged and paid in accordance with the Teacher's Award?‑‑‑Yes.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


So does it follow, are we clear about this, prior to 2012 you didn't employ any early childhood teachers?‑‑‑Not many, and if we did employ them as - if we did employ someone who had a qualification that was an early childhood teacher qualification then there was nothing in the award - well, we weren't required to employ an early childhood teacher, therefore we employed them as qualified Diplomas similar level because under the regulations we were required to have so many Diploma equivalent or higher qualified staff.  So sometimes we would employ an early childhood qualified teacher but we wouldn't employ them as an early childhood teacher.  We would employ them as a Diploma qualified, so that falls under the Children's Award, Children's Modern Award.


At this point you're using the expression "we", and you're referring to something that occurred prior to 2012?‑‑‑Yes.


Your statement describes at various times your centres, but I think we've established that none of them started before 2016, so at this point when you say, "what we were doing", what are you now talking about?‑‑‑Sorry, I'm talking predominantly in the industry.  I would suggest that a number of - that most of the operators in the state didn't even know that there was a Teachers Award.


So your understanding is that the industry as a whole in Western Australia did not employ university educated teachers as teachers prior to the requirement to do so in 2012?‑‑‑I'm going to say yes predominantly.


And by industry I'm of course referring to the long daycare centre industry.  You understood that, didn't you?‑‑‑Yes.  Yes, yes.


Because prior to 2012 university qualified teachers were employed in Western Australia but were found in the kindergarten programs in schools; is that right?‑‑‑Yes.  Early childhood teachers were in the kindergarten programs in schools predominantly.


Coming back to paragraph 83, you indicate that in order to attract and retain - I'm now looking at 83(b):


In order to attract and retain those ECTs wages were often increased to above award wages.



***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


Again, who are you talking about at this stage?  Is this something of the particular centres that you were operating or is this again a broad industry observation?‑‑‑A broad industry observation just by speaking to people in the sector.


When it says that they had to pay - sorry, were you yourself - at the point of 2012 were you yourself in a position where you were in a role that involved making decisions about employing early childhood teachers?‑‑‑Yes, I was.


What was that role at that time?‑‑‑I was a general manager for the Great Beginnings childcare group.


How many childcare centres did it operate in 2012?‑‑‑I'm going to say 20.


And so drawing on that information as well as, I think you said discussions with others in the industry, you say that wages were often increased to above award wages, and you used these words, "because they had to".  When you say they had to, they had to offer more money in order to attract people to take the position?‑‑‑To be compliant they needed to attract people to the position and to do that it seemed that people were prepared to pay more.


At that point the only employers that they were competing with were the schools; is that right?‑‑‑Correct.  Yes.


So they had to pay more to match - to attract teachers to leave schools and join early childhood centres?‑‑‑Yes.


You have avoided paying ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.


‑ ‑ ‑your teachers at the same rate as primary school teachers by employing individuals who are yet qualified to work at the school; is that right?‑‑‑No, not at all.  I advertise and I recruit.  I advertise and if people apply I will interview them and recruit them and be very clear about what award I'm going to pay, and if they are not happy with that then that's fine.  They can go to a school and work at a school, but I don't employ people who are working towards because I don't want to pay what I need to pay - what others would get if they were at a school.  I employ people who are working towards because those are the people that are applying for the positions predominantly.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


Yes.  When they apply for the positions, have they got some idea of the likely remuneration that they're going to be receiving?‑‑‑I'm not sure.  I let them know what level they'll be on before they make a decision.  If I offer a position, before they make a decision, but, you know, they're adults, I'm not sure that they know how to find the award on the internet.  I will let them know whether they're being - what award they're being paid on though.


Can I suggest to you that the reason that those that are applying for the position of early childhood teacher are working towards don't yet have a degree is because of the remuneration you're offering is such that they would, if they had a degree, be able to find employment at a higher remuneration?‑‑‑Can you rephrase that?


Is this the case, that what you find is that the people who apply for your vacant positions are uniformly those who have not yet got a degree but are working towards one?‑‑‑I don't get a lot of early childhood applicants, so when we say mostly, if I'm trying to recruit I might get three applicants, one will have a - be fully qualified and registered and, say, two will be working towards.  I think that the early childhood teachers are not applying for jobs in our sector because of the remuneration, and I think that working towards applicants apply because they know that we need - to comply we need that qualification even at 50 per cent through, and they know that it'll be a good, I suppose, part-time job for them or a good supplement in income while they're still at university, as well as they're working in an industry that is relevant to their qualification that they're working towards.


Is it your experience that at the point where they do complete their graduation they usually then leave your service to move into teaching at schools?‑‑‑So the one that was at Huntingdale she didn't stay much longer than a term with us.  She couldn't fit her university around the hours that we needed her to be there.  And I've got a working towards at my Wattle Grove centre right now and I'm not sure what she will decide to do.  The teacher at Karrinyup, she finished her diploma and she took a job at the Children's Hospital a couple of weeks ago.  So I don't have enough experience with having that many coming through my own services to be able to say to you, yes, they moved straight on, but when I speak to people in the sector, that's what they're telling me.  They will employ somebody, they will keep them for three years; that person will finish their qualification, and then they will move on to the school.


Can I just ask you to look at paragraph 68 of your statement?  You make a statement there about - a statement of facts, I just want to clarify it - you say:


At my centres I have found that my income has only risen a small amount, whereas wages/expenses have gone up significantly over the last two years.


So what is the two‑year period that you're describing at this point?‑‑‑Well when was this statement made?  2018, so it would have been - - -

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


May 2018, yes?‑‑‑Yes, so that would have been then and the March in which we purchased our Huntingdale centre.


Do I take it - tell me if I'm wrong - that from what you were saying about continuing growth that your income has risen since the time that you prepared this statement in May 2018?‑‑‑That's correct.


We asked for some profit and loss figures to be provided, but the ones that we asked for were for a period ending June 2017, is that right?‑‑‑That's right.


And so those figures really only capture income at a point where the first of your three centres were still gearing up, is that fair to say?‑‑‑That's right.


And so - and I'm not criticising you, but if one wanted to find out about your profitability as a business, you're not going to find it in that statement; you want something more recent to properly understand how successful your businesses are?‑‑‑Yes.


You have identified in paragraph 68 that your wages/expenses have gone up significantly over the last two years.  You have chosen not to provide any document, or indeed any figures, to explain what that is.  I took it from what you said earlier that you're only paying award rates, so if there's any wage increase presumably it has come about it, has it, because award rates have moved in that period in question?‑‑‑There is that, but as a childcare centre fills, you are recruiting more staff as the numbers increase.  But because income - the income coming in from the number of children that are attending, it staggers, so if - say, with Huntingdale we had four children and I needed one staff, when we enrol that fifth child, then I needed a second staff, which meant the income only went up by one child but my wages effectively doubled, and then while you're building a childcare centre up, that's par for the course; that's common.  So for every increment, I suppose, of group of children that it increases, a new staff member comes in and that staff member may not be paid for in income for three, four, five, maybe 10 more children enrolled.  Does that make sense?


It does.  So you're not suggesting that you have been significantly increasing the amount you pay your staff individually, but rather the number of staff have increased as you have grown, which has led to an increase in your total wages bill?‑‑‑Correct.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


And that is presumably - there's a business plan, which over a period of time is looking to nevertheless make a profit as the numbers grow, corresponding with the increase in staff?‑‑‑Of course.


Can I just ask you some questions now about if the subject that you deal with at the end of statement, "The effect of increasing costs at my centres", so having in paragraph 83 identified a change in 2012 - sorry, I don't want to rush this so just bear with me.  Firstly, can we go to paragraph 83?  In paragraph 83, you identify an impact of a regulatory change in 2012, and I've asked you about this paragraph, but it's clear that the change in 2012 referred to as a wages expense is the subject matter of paragraph 83, is that right?‑‑‑Can you ask that again, please?


Yes. In paragraph 83, you are identifying the reasons why there was an increase in wages in 2012?‑‑‑Yes.


And then in paragraph 84, it says this:


The increase in wages resulted in a lot of centres, including the ones I operated, increasing daily rates to parents.




What centres are we talking about at this point?  Not the four that you operate now, I presume?‑‑‑No.  No, that would have been the Great Beginnings centres.


And then you say this:


For example, the daily rates at Huntingdale increased as follows:




I'm just a bit confused.  You weren't operating Huntingdale in 2012?‑‑‑No, that's right, but I was able to source the fee in 2012.


Yes?‑‑‑And then in 2016 make the comparison.


I see.  You're not making a comparison of what occurred in 2012 itself, are you?‑‑‑No.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


You're taking an amount that was paid in 2012 and then an amount in 2016, but you're not suggesting, are you, that the increase of $31 for the 02 years was an increase in wages as a result of the regulatory changes in 2012?‑‑‑I'm suggesting that that's a significant jump in four years.  That's unheard of.  And I'm suggesting that the impact of the early childhood teacher across the board has pushed people's fees up, so that in 2016 when I set my fees at $95, that was competitive with the other services in the area, and I believe that the fees are so high now, or in 2016 they were so much higher than 2012, is a result of the fact that most services had to employ an early childhood teacher, the additional expense.


The early childhood teacher is a teacher that meets the ratio requirements for child to educator requirements, do they not?‑‑‑They can, yes.


So when you say they had to employ an ECT, they didn't have to employ an extra headcount; they just had to employ someone with a different qualification, is that right?‑‑‑I don't know.  If they were fully staffed, then who were they - were they going to sack somebody to employ the early childhood teacher?  I would suggest - fair enough with me, I had a brand new centre; I would employ them as I needed them - but predominantly in the sector, all of a sudden in 2012 we needed an early childhood teacher.  People were already employed, and I would imagine that we weren't dismissing a lead educator because we had to employ an early childhood teacher.


You're familiar with the difference in rates between a lead educator in the Children's Award and an ECT under the Teachers Award?‑‑‑I am familiar with them.


And you would accept, would you not, that there is simply no reason to think that replacing a lead educator under the Children's Award with an ECT under the Teachers Award would lead to a need to increase fees by $31 per child?  That's quite a ridiculous proposition, is it not?‑‑‑Well all I can tell you is when I set my fees in 2016, I was very conscious of the fees around me, of the centres around me in Huntingdale, and set my fees accordingly.  So we weren't the most expensive.  We were actually quite well below another couple of the centres around us.  I can't see any other increases, anything else that changed in the sector between 2012 and 2016 that would suggest an increase like that.  The award wages didn't increase significantly.  Rents didn't increase significantly.  So the only thing that I can see was the early childhood teacher.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


So when you were running centres in 2012, and the requirement to employ ECTs commenced, are you suggesting that there was a significant, that is, more than $20‑a‑day, increase per child that then occurred in respect of your centres?‑‑‑I wouldn't suggest $20.  I don't know what the fee increase would have been, but a fee increase from year‑to‑year is always dependent upon the Fair Work minimum wage increase, always.  So anything outside of that is going to be because of outside forces - other forces, other things, other influences.  So a centre might have a rent review and all of a sudden their rent has gone up; that will influence the fees.  All I can see between 2012 and 2016 was there was a significant increase in the type of qualification that our sector needed, and that qualification required to be paid at a higher level.  So the early childhood teacher at a level 3 and the diploma level 4.3 are fairly similar in rates.  I know that.  But if I were to employ an early childhood teacher who was a level 12, say, there's a significant difference.


Can I suggest to you that the likelihood of you employing a level 12 teacher in Western Australia is pretty low unless you were paying the same rates that they would get at a primary school?‑‑‑You would be surprised.  Some people don't like working with schools.  But you're right, they're very difficult to find, and - but it's there.  It's there.  I have a relief staff, a lady that works for me, and she has worked in the schools for many, many years and she has been an early childhood teacher for many, many years, and I pay her the level that I'm required to pay her at, because that's - - -


That's - I'm sorry, I was cutting you off; I apologise?‑‑‑Well if people are applying for a position and they are successful, they will be paid what they're eligible to be paid.  So if it happens to be a level 12, well that's great for me, because I've got an early childhood teacher with a whole lot of experience that I can rely upon to deliver a program and I don't have to teach her or train her on how to do that.  I can just trust that she's going to do what needs to be done, because she is being remunerated appropriately.


And the person you're describing, was that a casual relief teacher that you - - -?‑‑‑Yes.


- - - need from time‑to‑time to meet ratio requirements?‑‑‑Yes, we do call upon her, because that's the engagement that she wants.  She only wants casual work from time‑to‑time.  She's doing a Master's degree or something.


Can I - some documents have been sent to you.  I want you now to see if you can find a document that is headed, "Prendergast updated daily fees?"---Yes.


And I'm going to hand some copies to the Bench, and while I'm at it I'm also going to hand the Bench another document which - so the associate doesn't have to come twice - which I'll ask you about in a moment, called "Prendergast calculations?"---I don't know that one.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


Firstly, just tell me if you have in front of you now a document headed, "Prendergast updated daily fees?"---I do.


And I think that was sent to you overnight.  Does that, as best you can ascertain, accurately reflect the fees that were, firstly, in place at the time you gave your statement under the heading, in each case, "2018", and the current fees, which in each case appear under a heading, "Current?"---Yes.


I tender that document.




MR TAYLOR:  Prendergast updated daily fees.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  So what is this document?


MR TAYLOR:  It is a document which sets out how much each of the childcare centres were charging in 2018.




MR TAYLOR:  And how much they are currently charging.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  So "Prendergast updated daily fees" will be marked exhibit 109.



MR TAYLOR:  And is this the position that at some point between May 2018 and now, all of the fees went up by $5 per child per day?‑‑‑Yes.


And that increase, has it led to a reduction in your occupancy level since that time?‑‑‑No.


Can I now ask you to look at the next document which is headed, "Prendergast calculation", and can I just explain this document to you, but tell me if you have it?‑‑‑I don't have that.  I don't remember seeing that.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


Just give us a moment, Ms Prendergast?‑‑‑Okay.


We're just checking.  Apparently that has not yet been sent to you.  So what I'll do is I'll move on and I'll be reminded to come back to that document.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  Mr Taylor, is it appropriate that we mark it for identification?


MR TAYLOR:  Yes, if you could.  Thank you.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  Yes.  The Prendergast calculations document will be marked as MFI7.



MR TAYLOR:  Ms Prendergast, I now want to ask you some questions which lead to the material in your second statement.  You say in - I just want to go back to one thing, just to get an understanding of your knowledge.  You say in 2001 that you were managing groups of childcare centres?‑‑‑Yes.


To what extent were you involved in managing childcare centres between 1994 and 2001?‑‑‑Between 1994 to 1999, I was a lead educator on the floor - sorry, 1997, and then in 1997 my husband and I purchased a childcare centre and we owned that for 18 months, and then in 1999 we sold that and I moved on to work for Mulberry Tree as a centre manager.  I worked for them as their centre manager for a year‑and‑a‑half, and then in 2001 I became their general manager.


And that's a role that you had until when?‑‑‑2004.


And in 2005, were you involved in the childcare industry?‑‑‑Yes.  I think I was at - I think in 2005 I was working for a not for profit training organisation called Maralinga and I ran their professional development, and then by the end of 2005 I was working for an eastern states based company called Guardian.  I was the area manager for Perth.  I think.


In respect of your second statement you annex behind the first annexure what appears from the first photo to have been printed in the form of a book?‑‑‑Yes.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


Is that a book that yourself - is that your book or is that a book that someone's given you?‑‑‑That was - that's not my book, I don't have a copy of Putting Children First, that was sourced.


Is this a book that you though at some point between 1993 and 2000 had reason to become familiar with?‑‑‑Absolutely, yes.


You say in your statement that this book contains the quality improvement and accreditation system.  It is indeed the handbook for that system and that it was revised in 2000.  Are you able to tell us in what ways it was revised in 2000?‑‑‑In the 1994 version was a set of principles, 52 principles.  In 2000 they revised those sets of principles into quality areas, so they grouped them into more specific quality areas so that there was more order. But they also, I suppose, refined the indicators and there was a higher expectation that we were required to deliver with regards to quality outcomes for children.


So it wasn't just the same text re-ordered.  It in fact was a change in 2000 that led to higher level requirements on long daycare centres?‑‑‑That's right, that's right.


Do I take it you don't have access to what the form of the document was when that change occurred?‑‑‑No, I have an article that lists them but I don't have the document - the 2000 document.


Then you tell us that it was further revised in 2005.  What were the nature of the changes in 2005?‑‑‑So the review entailed an increase in quality areas but a decrease in the number of principles that we were required to demonstrate quality standards in.  Again, they were reviewed and revised so that educators were required or services were required to improve their quality - the quality outcomes that they were providing under the 2000 version.


So again one aspect of the change in 2005 was to in effect lift the bar further as to the nature of the quality outcomes that must be met in order to maintain accreditation?‑‑‑Yes.


In Western Australia - sorry - in the rest of Australia, outside of Western Australia, are you familiar with the fact that there were in 2000 - sorry, back in 1993 and throughout the period to 2012, as well as long daycare centres children could receive an early childhood education by attending sessional preschools?‑‑‑Outside of WA?

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


Yes?‑‑‑That's what you're asking me?  I'm not familiar with what happened outside of WA.  I really didn't take much notice.  I was raising my own children, worried about what was going on here.


The national - the quality improvement and accreditation system only applied to long daycare centres and did not apply to community preschools?‑‑‑Okay.


Do you accept that?‑‑‑Yes, if that - my understanding is that the quality improvement and accreditation system apply to anybody who was eligible for childcare benefit funding. So if that's only long daycare centres in the past then yes, it's only long daycare centres.


You have in your statement made some - in your second statement made some comments about how the National Quality Standards marry up with the previous system.  You haven't qualified that to be an understanding that is limited to Western Australia, but do I take it from your previous answer that that's how one should - we should understand your evidence, that you don't profess to understand any link between the two outside of Western Australia?‑‑‑Yes, I don't know what happens - what happened outside of WA or what happens outside of WA now.


Let me see if you can find an article that we identified and sent to you overnight, an article by - the surname is Elliott.  Let me see if I can find a better description of it.  Sorry, not we, not us, sorry, it was sent to you. When I say we I'm grasping the whole of the Bar table not my side of the Bar table?‑‑‑Overnight all I receive were a copy of my fees.


I think there might be a misunderstanding on our side of the Bar table as to what was - at least I might have a misunderstanding of what was sent to you overnight.  I certainly was hoping that in the short time we've had your statement that we would be able to show you some documents that we've identified overnight.  It appears that we haven't sent them to you yet.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAUNDERS:  Mr Taylor, can you just tell us title if you like.


MR TAYLOR:  Yes, of course.  Give me a moment.  It's an article or a journal article by Alison Elliott in the Australian Education Review titled Early Childhood Education Pathways to Quality and Equity for all Children.  Published for the first time in 2006.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  Mr Taylor assuming the documents arrive with the witness, how much longer do you think you'll be in cross-examination?


MR TAYLOR:  I'm anticipating probably the balance today.  I need to go through the documents in the second statement, including the A3 document but also the two types of quality practice guides.  Mr Fagir was good enough to identify which specific parts of them he thought were the key parts and I need to ask the witness some questions about those and then turn to the balance of the material.  We've done the best we can in the time we've had and we have identified some extrinsic materials that might assist in understanding some of the other background which is not contained in the statement and I was going to show the witness some of those documents as I proceed to identify some propositions that arise out of the suggestion that the National Quality Improvement Assessment Scheme is very similar to the National Quality Standards.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  Is it appropriate that we took an early - slightly early luncheon adjournment, use the period to get these other documents to the witness and resume at 1.30?  Is that a suitable time?


MR TAYLOR:  That'd be great, thank you.  I appreciate that.


MR FAGIR:  I'm sorry, before that happens, can we just understand how long Ms Hands is likely to be and whether we should tell her that she's not going to be reached today?


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  How long will cross-examination of Ms Hands take?


MS SAUNDERS:  An hour and a half, your Honour.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  We might try and sit late to accommodation that, Mr Fagir.


MR FAGIR:  Thank you.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  We'll now adjourn.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW                                                          [12.52 PM]

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT                                                         [12.52 PM]

RESUMED                                                                                               [1.32 PM]

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


MR FAGIR:  Before Mr Taylor continues can I just raise an issue.  We've just been sent an email which has been forwarded to Ms Prendergast attaching two journal articles and something that seems to be some a media release or a communication from the Minister to departmental staff.  We understand these are documents provided to us for the purpose of cross-examination.  On the face of it, and I could be wrong about this, and if so I'll stand corrected, the documents seem to have nothing whatsoever to do with Ms Prendergast.  She's not said to have created them or she doesn't seem to have anything to do with them.


If they're provided to us and Ms Prendergast is to be asked about them as a means of introducing them into evidence then we can just cut to the chase, there's no point, in my respectful submission, the witness being shown a document that they know nothing about being asked questions about it for the purposes of saying at the end, "I tender the document".  If the document is sought to be tendered then we can deal with that and we'll say whatever we can say about it.  If there are propositions contained within them to be put to the witness that can be done, but it's not appropriate and it's a waste of time, in my respectful submission, to go through an exercise of getting Ms Prendergast to look at the documents, go to particular pages and all the rest of it as a means of creating some basis to introduce the document.


We're in the Commission, the process is informal.  If they're to be tendered then we can deal with that.  If there's some prejudice we'll identify it and if there's not then I doubt they'll go in but, both in the interest of efficiency and because it's not a formally correct exercise, we'd urge the Full Bench to ask if what I've just said seems to be the case is the case, and if so, not permit it.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  I think we'll see what happens.  Mr Taylor?

<SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST, RECALLED                        [1.34 PM]



MR TAYLOR:  Yes.  No, Mr Fagir I think identified one of the purposes upon which this might be done, and that is to put some propositions to the witness to see whether she agrees with them.  That's indeed what I want to do.  I was asking you, Ms Prendergast, before the break about the nature of, in effect, the coverage of the Quality Improvement and Accreditation System that was regulated by the NCAC.  Can I ask whether you have available to you now a document published by the Parliamentary Library called Some Recent Developments in Childcare 1 January 1994 to 30 September 1995?‑‑‑Yes.


I provide copies to the Bench.  Do you have that document, Ms Prendergast?‑‑‑I do.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


Can you go to page 9.  On page 9 there's a heading, Accreditation, and you've said some things about this in your statement.  I want to see whether the description here is what you understand to be the position.  In particular the third paragraph Accreditation:


The National Quality Improvement and Accreditation System (NQIAS) came into effect on 1 July 1994.  The objective of the system is to set standards for quality in what was previously a largely unregulated industry.  These standards relate only to long daycare centres -


That's consistent with your understanding of the nature of the accreditation system?‑‑‑Correct.


At the time there were throughout Australia, but not in Western Australia, preschools, that is a different form of early childhood education.  It's not a long daycare centre.  And the standards did not apply to them?‑‑‑I'm assuming they would not apply to them.


Similarly in Western Australia the standards did not apply to early childhood teachers teaching a kindergarten or preschool program in schools?‑‑‑No.


And by no you're agreeing with me?‑‑‑Yes, that's right.  I agree with you.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  Ms Prendergast, when did the system of schools offering kindergartens come into place in Western Australia?‑‑‑I can't give you an exact date, but my eldest son, who was born in 1994, he went to kindergarten the year he was turning four, and that was - so, 1998, and kindergarten had just been something that had always happened in WA, like, there was no, "Where shall I put my children when he's four".  He was going to kindy.


Thank you.


MR TAYLOR:  The National Quality Improvement Accreditation System commenced in July 1994.  At the time it commenced in respect of Western Australia it did not apply to any employers of early childhood teachers?‑‑‑No, that's right.  No school settings.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


Long daycare centres did not employ teachers through the entire period of the National Quality Improvement Accreditation System in Western Australia?‑‑‑Long daycares were not required to employ teachers, but if a teacher applied for a position and was successful they were employed by long daycare centres.  So it's not - it wasn't unheard of to have a teacher in a long daycare setting.


But prior to the requirement in 2012 if they ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑There was no requirement.


‑ ‑ ‑were employed they would be, in your experience, employed as a Diploma educator, notwithstanding their formal qualification?‑‑‑So in the regulations we had classifications, and our classifications were A star, A, B, B star and a C.  And A star was a Diploma - an A star was a qualified - university qualified person who had a number of hours in the infant - a number of hours in their qualification in the infancy age group, and A was a qualification that didn't have any hours in the infants age group.  If you were qualified with an A rating you would have been employed to teach the older age group, two and above, because you weren't allowed, it was illegal for us to put that particular staff member with the babies.  So an A star was a university trained qualified employee, and it could've been an early childhood teacher, it could've been the Bachelor of Social Sciences like I've got.  There were a number of different qualifications that sat under that.  Similarly, the B star, B star was a Diploma level with the infancy experience.  They had done their practicums and their study in the zero to two age group, and then a B would've been a qualification that was predominantly three up and then a C qualification was somebody who had a certificate - triple - we used to call it a CCC, so childcare certificate.


Tell me, I've asked you about the position in respect of the employers of early childhood teachers and the extent to which they would've been affected by this system in WA.  You're not being put forward, as I understand it, as an expert on this subject matter, although it's coming in through you, but outside of Western Australia, are you familiar with the fact that like Western Australia long daycare centres prior to 2012 weren't required to employ early childhood teachers other than in New South Wales?‑‑‑Yes, I'm aware of that.


And it follows I think then, you accept, that other than in respect of long daycare centres in New South Wales the National Quality Improvement Accreditation System did not apply to employers of early childhood teachers other than the exception that you identified of the A+ person if they happen to have such a qualification?‑‑‑Yes.  If the employer wasn't a long daycare centre.  Is that what you're asking me or have I misunderstood the question?

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


I was taking a broader proposition and suggesting firstly - I'll take it in steps but I'll do it in one go and if you disagree with any of the steps please say so.  The National Quality Improvement and Accreditation System applied only to long daycare centres.  The only long daycare centres in Australia prior to 2012 that were required to employ tertiary qualified teachers were those in New South Wales and third, that as a consequence of those first two the National Quality Improvement and Accreditation System did not apply to employers of early childhood teachers other than those who were employed in New South Wales, in long daycare centres?‑‑‑Yes, that's right.


A significant part of your statement I'll come to in some detail but a significant part of your statement is behind annexure 4 which is the A3 document in which you respond to Ms Connell.  You're familiar with that of course?‑‑‑Yes.


You're familiar are you with the fact that Ms Connell both under the heading "Now" and also under the heading "Prior to 2012", was describing the work as she understood it in the location where she worked?‑‑‑Yes, but I didn't know where that location was.  I just - I was just responding to an outline of a typical day now and a typical day prior to 2012.


If I ask you to assume that Ms Connell was in respect of  prior to 2012 employed in a preschool then it would follow, would it not, that the National Quality Improvement and Accreditation System did not apply to her and her employer?‑‑‑Yes, but I was unaware that she was working in a preschool until - to be quite - to be honest, it wasn't until I was about three quarters of the way through that I worked out that she was probably talking about a community kindy somewhere and I assumed that it would have been Sydney, understanding now that Sydney or it's New South Wales sorry, were the only state that needed teachers.  So I was not aware when I was completing this that we were talking about different jurisdictions.


Can I just ask you this broad question, when the National - the NQIS for short, was replaced by the NQS for short, there were a number of significant changes.  Do you agree?‑‑‑Yes, there were.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


Are you able briefly just sort of in a dot point form to identify what you say were the significant changes that occurred at that time?‑‑‑So I suppose the biggest thing was that it became part of the regulations that all services and the scope of the services that were involved became larger but also it was no longer linked to funding but linked to compliance and legislation that we moved through the accreditation, the new accreditation system.  The NQS again lifted the bar on standards and we struggled with coming to terms with that lift because everything - it looked similar but everything had changed.  The way that the assessors were assessing us, the way that we wrote our - what used to be called a self-study which is now called a quality improvement plan, that changed.  There was no longer that five step process.  It took much longer for a visit - for us to be visited and then for us to go through the cycle of accreditation than it did under the QIAS.  I suppose in effect it was just the whole sector coming to terms with a very new system and the people that were delivering that new system were also becoming accustomed to that new system.  Prior to the NQS, the QIAS was managed by NCAC which was an organisation over in Canberra and that's all they did.  After the NQS the National Quality Standards came under the regulations and now each regulatory authority administers that system.  So it looks completely different to what it looked like back in 2011.


At one point in that answer you identified that while the standards - sorry, I'll withdraw that.  You identified that the new standards raise the bar and that I think you used the word "we", "we struggled to come to terms"?‑‑‑Yes.


At this point I presume you're talking about the role that you had at that time when you were managing a - you were a general manager of a number of services?‑‑‑Yes, that's true I was.  The change process in the sector takes - it takes a long time to move from one thing to another. There's a lot of training, people have to experience the process before they completely understand it.  So in my space at Great Beginnings where there were you know the 20 childcare centres and each centre manager at each childcare centre, so that's 20 managers and my five area managers and me, so you know a good couple hundred people, we really needed some time to become accustomed to the new standards because they were so much different.  They were organised similarly but they were so different to what we'd been so used to over the past two sets.  So the 2010 QIAS, that was modelled on the 2000 QIAS, so we were kind of familiar with the process, the process didn't change in, you know, a good amount of time so we - we, and I'm talking about my experience at Great Beginnings, but also my experiences talking to other people in the sector and knowing how other services - networking with other services, it was my experience that it took us - it lifted the bar significantly and we were - there were expectations that things would need to be demonstrated differently.  Now when I look back it's not so much of a problem because I'm familiar with the new system but in 2012 it was harder than I suppose what we expected.


You identified that part of the - if I understood you correctly - that when I asked you about struggling to come to terms to identify work that had to be done by you and various centre managers and other managers, was there also a need for training in respect of the educators that you had?‑‑‑The training hasn't really changed because the service delivery is similar, so we didn't change the way that we programmed for children or created learning programs for children.  We didn't change the way that we kept children safe and healthy.  We didn't change the way we fed children.  So the quality areas in all of those systems are fairly similar.  What changed and where the work was, was the way that we were being assessed at all the different levels from self-study or the quality improvement plan to how the validator or now what they call assessors would come in and assess us, and then how those reports - how that's all assessed and how an award or rating is given.  The work that there was, was actually I feel something that an approved provider or a manager would take on board and be responsible for.  What was happening at the coalface with the children that didn't change all that much.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


Part of the assessment under the NQS is the assessors come in and speak to the educators to see if they are, amongst other things, delivering an educational program in accordance with the Early Years Learning Framework?‑‑‑Yes.


That was a change that occurred after 2012; was it not?‑‑‑Are you asking did the validators come in and speak to staff prior to the National Quality Standard system?


No?‑‑‑Is that the question.


The changes that the staff post the introduction of the NQS needed to understand the requirements of the NQS including in particular the new requirement to teach the Early Years Learning Framework?‑‑‑Well, no, there was no Early Years Learning Framework prior to the National Quality Standard.  Well, there was, but it wasn't something that was expected through the QIAS.  Educators were expected to speak to validators, who are now called assessors, about their developmental learning programs for children, so they still needed to speak to validators about each child's learning journey, their progression, where they'd been, where they were going, and what their broad plans were for children.


But isn't this the case, that the staff members, the educators, needed, as well as the managers, to come to terms, to use your expression, to comes to terms with the National Quality Standards and to come to terms with the EYLF, something which presumably required them to learn some new things that they didn't know before?‑‑‑Yes, they did need to learn the Early Years Learning Framework, you're right.


I think you said earlier that the people who were delivering the education had to come to terms with the new system?‑‑‑Yes.


And by that you meant the educators; did you not?‑‑‑Educators needed to come to terms with the way that the new system was assessing them, yes.


I want to suggest some things to you which are changes to the way in which - sorry, are differences between the NQIS and the NQS.  I want to start by dealing with something that's been said by Professor Dockett so far in these proceedings and see whether you accept this proposition.  Until the advent of the NQS in 2012 there was no consistent national law to enforce national regulatory requirements relating to staffing; do you agree with that?‑‑‑Yes.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


There was no consistent national law to enforce regulatory requirements in respect of qualifications?‑‑‑Yes.


And I think we've already dealt with the third proposition, no obligation before 2012 to implement a curriculum framework?‑‑‑Yes.


We've sent you a document over the lunch break which is headed, The Honourable Kate Ellis MP.  Can I ask if you can find that document?  And I'll hand three copies to the Bench?‑‑‑Yes.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  Do you want to tender the previous document, Mr Taylor?


MR TAYLOR:  Yes, I will.  Thank you.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  The document headed ‑ ‑ ‑


MR FAGIR:  Can I just indicate, your Honour, that, as I said, the fact that the witness has been asked to look at it it's not a basis for it to be tendered.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  Do you object to the tender?


MR FAGIR:  I want to have a look at it and work out whether it creates difficulty, whether it means we will have to do something in response and so on.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  We'll defer dealing with it until later in the afternoon.


MR FAGIR:  If the Commission pleases.


MR TAYLOR:  So the document that I've asked you to look at now is titled Some Remarks at the National Childcare Accreditation Council Farewell.  When NQS came in the NCAC came to an end as part of the change; did it not?‑‑‑It did.


I want you to turn to the second page, there's a heading half-way down the second page, NCAC Assistance in Implementing the NQF.  There's a paragraph that starts, "Your work"?‑‑‑Yes.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


And then a paragraph that starts, "The willingness of the Board", and then whilst not a clear paragraph break I want to take you to the next sentence.  I'll read it to you but you can read along, "As you know", just tell me if you found that sentence that starts, "As you know this framework"?‑‑‑I have.




As you know, this new framework means big changes for the early childhood education and care sector.  It will, for the first time, set a National Quality Standard for early childhood education and care providers across the country.


That was true, is it not, because before then there wasn't a standard that applied to all early childhood education and care providers?‑‑‑It depends on who falls into the scope of early childhood education and care providers.  As far as I'm concerned under the old system anybody that provided childcare had to comply with the Quality Improvement Accreditation System.  Because the National Quality Standards extends the scope of that then for the first time the National Quality Standard can say the word "for early childhood education and care providers across the country".  But if you did - if you were a long daycare centre and you lived in Biloela in Queensland you did accreditation.  If you lived in Kununurra in WA you did accreditation.  It was the same standard across the country.


Yes?‑‑‑So this is an interesting speech but I don't know that it is the - what we would suggest is what actually happened at the time.


The ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑It's the definition of early childhood education and care providers.


Yes?‑‑‑I mean, we weren't even called that back then, so it just depends on what we want to - what I would term would be an early childhood education and car provider.


So if you accept the proposition that what the Minister was referring was the fact that there is now a standard that applied not just to long daycare centres seeking subsidy, but to all providers including community preschools then so far the statement is correct; is it not?‑‑‑Yes.  Correct, that's right.


The Minister says:

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


It will improve staff-to-child ratios so that each child receives the individual care and attention.


And that was a change in the National Quality Standard.  There were changes to ratios?‑‑‑Not here.


Not in Western Australia?  The ratios didn't change?‑‑‑No.


No, we already had a one to five for babies, one to five for toddlers, and our ratio is actually smaller for our three-year-olds.  It's one to 10 here, and in some of the other states in Australia it's one to 11.


I see?‑‑‑So we didn't - it's not nationally consistent.


It did improve staff to child ratios in some parts of Australia?‑‑‑Correct.


Then the Minister says:


It will also require staff to have formal qualifications so they are better equipped to lead the activities that help children learn and develop.


?‑‑‑Yes.  So ‑ ‑ ‑


And an aspect of the National Quality Standards when they came in was to start having requirements around the formal qualifications of staff, both educator level and early childhood teacher level?‑‑‑In WA we already had a requirement as to how many qualified staff we needed and that needed to be a Diploma or above.  What the National Quality Standards did was require us to have more, so we had to have one early childhood teacher and 50 per cent our staff needed to have a Diploma qualified, so that's the change that happened in WA, but we were already required to have so many qualified staff per group of children.


That requirement you've referred to is not an aspect of the National Quality Improvement and Assessment Scheme though, was it?‑‑‑No, no, that was our regulation.


Yes.  I don't know whether my friend's in the same position and he wants for me to wait to tender this or I'll just tender it now.  I mean I will tender it now and then see what he says.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR




MR FAGIR:  This can be received.  I've read it and I understand what's in it, there's no difficulty.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  The document Kate Ellis MP remarks to NCAC 24 October 2011 will be marked exhibit 110.



MR TAYLOR:  Just to continue that subject, the National Quality Improvement and Assessment Scheme did not involve long daycare centres having to have any particular staff/child ratios?‑‑‑No.


It didn't mandate any particular staff qualifications that were required?‑‑‑I don't recollect it doing so, no.


It did not mandate a curriculum or a learning framework that was to be used in order to achieve the standards?‑‑‑No.


It didn't identify what learning outcomes would be achieved by children attending long daycare centres?‑‑‑No.


By no again, so we're not at cross purposes, you're agreeing with me are you not?‑‑‑Yes, I am.  No, it didn't specify that children needed to meet certain outcomes.


It didn't specific any particular values or learning experiences that should be expected and promoted?‑‑‑I think it did.  I think it would talk about developmental domains and children having opportunity to learn in or have opportunity and exposed to experiences that would progress them through those developmental domains.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


One of the fundamental differences between the National Quality Improvement and Assessment Scheme and the NQS is that the former is drafted in a way that provides processes for structures for children rather than focusing on the outcomes to be achieved from those processes or structures?‑‑‑So the National Quality Standard refers to the Early Years Learning Framework or a framework and yes, that asks us to deliver a learning program that revolves around outcomes but the National Quality Standards itself is around process.  If you look at our quality area 1, quality area 1 is about the processes that we use to deliver these programs.


The NQIS didn't specify the values that should be expected and promoted as arising out of the program?‑‑‑It talked about children - the values - can you repeat that question again?


I think what I might do is deal with it in - when we actually open the document?‑‑‑Okay.


Can I now turn to the assessment regime.  The NQIS foundation - commencement of the assessment for the NQIS was a self-assessment report where a centre would assess itself against the principles?‑‑‑So that's 1994 version or all of the versions?


Well if that changed let me know.  Certainly at the outset that was the basis upon the assessment was done, that it started with a self-assessment.  I'm about to take you to the next steps but that was the starting point?‑‑‑Registration.  NQIAS was registration first.  And so a service had to be registered and then there was self-study - step 2 was self-study and continuing improvement.  So in that self-study step and a self-assessment was completed so that you could write a self-study so that you could talk about what you did do and what you were planning to do.  After that was validation.  That was when you had your visit.  The next step was moderation and that was when all of the pieces of documentation was assessed, I suppose, and then an accreditation decision was made on that.


The self-assessment, I'll come to the validation in a moment but the self-assessment was done on the basis of what some might refer to as a codified checklist.  That is that the principles and the matters that you have to demonstrate to meet the principles were treated by the industry as a checklist and you self-assessed by checking that you in fact did each of the things that the principles said that you do?‑‑‑I don't recall that.  The self-assess - I don't ever remember filling one it.  That doesn't mean I didn't do it.  Looking through all my - I've kept quite a lot of old documents and looking through what I do have, I can find copies of the self-study report and each self-study report is the seven quality principles, say, and each of them has a narrative about that quality principle and how we demonstrate that we meet a certain rating or a certain quality level in that quality area.  But if there was a checklist it was a very long time ago, I don't have a copy of that checklist.  I really don't remember doing one.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


The - - -?‑‑‑Can I just interrupt there, sorry.  There were some questionnaires that people had to fill in, so the centre manager filled one in, the staff filled one in and the parents filled on in and they were collated and given to the validator when the validator came to visit.  Unless that's the checklist you're talking about, because that does look like a checklist.  It was a the service does this; yes, no. The service does that; yes, no.  Educators do - they weren't called educators back then, they were called caregivers.  Caregivers are warm and friendly with children and then people were able to indicate yes or no.


It's been referred to I think in your statement that this system was mandatory.  The position is this, isn't it, that there was no penalties for not - no one would be penalised by way of a fine if they didn't comply?‑‑‑No, they wouldn't be fined by way of a fine but they'd lose their childcare benefit funding so in effect they wouldn't be able to operate.


Can I just suggest to you that as a matter of practicality that's not in fact what occurred.  If someone didn't meet the standards they would then be given an opportunity to again self-assess within six months?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.


If they didn't meet the standard again they'd be given another opportunity to self-assess within another three months?‑‑‑There was a process, yes.


If the NCAC concluded that the centre still hadn't made satisfactory progress over the two review periods, then the penalty was to notify the relevant minister that a centre was of concern?‑‑‑Mm-hm.


And that might lead the minister to name the centre in parliament.  Is that right?‑‑‑You've got the - I don't remember that. That could be right but I don't remember that.


It could lead to withdrawing of CCR access but there was nothing automatic about it, even after that having in effect failed three times?‑‑‑Okay.  I can tell you that we all knew - well the sector knew it was common knowledge and I can't tell you the centre that did lose their childcare benefit but we knew that we had to be registered to receive childcare benefit and we had to be successfully or demonstrating that we were trying to be successfully progressing through the quality improvement accreditation system.  We couldn't just pretend that it didn't exist.


No, and I think we'll open the document in a moment but the key to improving quality from the NCAC point of view was to see whether centres were moving from what was originally called the basic level up to the higher levels, because that's what they were trying to do as a regulator. Drive improvement in the industry to take people from basic level to higher levels?‑‑‑Yes.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


If they could see that improvement people wouldn't have their subsidies removed, in your experience?‑‑‑No, that's right, no.


Can we now open the 1993 document behind tab 1.  It's been suggested to us that the ones we should focus on are 16, 17 and 18.  So I'm going to follow that lead.  Firstly, just by way of background and you can open it at 16 before I ask you questions about that specific page.  At the time these - Ms Prendergast, at the time this was being introduced there was at least anecdotal suggestions that that there were some services and I'm certainly not suggesting yours, that were just providing very poor standards of care.  That was known within the industry was it not?‑‑‑In 1994?


Yes?‑‑‑Okay, so - because that's the beginning of my career and I'm new the whole - to everything.  My mother had been a family daycare giver for 10 years prior to that which is what interested me in the sector, but for me to tell you that the level of care was poor, I can't tell you that.  I didn't use childcare.  My family didn't put us into childcare.  My only experience was a family daycare lady, so I don't know if it was poor or not but I - - -


Sorry, we're at cross purposes.  I wasn't suggesting it was generally poor but the driver behind this introduction of the system was a concern by government that there were some at least, long daycare centres, that were well below the standard that any reasonable person would expect for childcare?‑‑‑I don't know the political reasons behind the introduction of the system.  I remember being at university and there being quite an uproar.  I remember reading articles where women who owned childcare centres were talking about the red tape that it would introduce and how it would take them away from the children and the job that they love doing.  I remember thinking well that's just silly but I was, you know, I didn't really have anything to compare it against because I'd never worked in it, so for me starting in 1991, being a university in 91, 92, 93 and starting work in 94, it's all I've ever known so I don't know why the government introduced it.  I'm glad that they did, it does align quality standards, it continually pushes us to improve but the reason for it is - I can't remember.


Let's look at principle 16.  What the document identifies is unsatisfactories have no clear philosophy or goals and that program planning is undirected.  A basic level was to have a variety of resources but no program planning.  Do you see that?‑‑‑Yes.


It's page 39 of the document, the page numbering is not always easy to find?‑‑‑Yes, I have it.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


I was just identifying that when this commenced the basic level that was identified was having no program planning at all.  So to have resources but no program planning?‑‑‑Yes.


The good quality would be to have a program that reflects goals developed in consultation with parents which are based on an understanding of how children learn.  That was the standard that the regulator was looking to lift people to; from the basic to the good quality standard?‑‑‑Yes.


That was sufficient, the good quality was sufficient to obtain accreditation?‑‑‑Yes.


The next - under high quality it says;


Staff make regular observations all children's learning and development, keeping well detailed records of how they're progressing against stated goals.




Just pausing there.  That requirement there is a requirement of the NQS is it not?‑‑‑Yes, it is.


That though was not a requirement in 1993 to be accredited?‑‑‑No.


By no, you're agreeing with me?‑‑‑Yes, I'm sorry.  Yes, I agree.


No, that's fine.  If you turn to page - sorry, the next page, I was going to call it page 17 but it's principle 17.  Again, the basic level is to have records of children which are maintained but the information is superficial and it doesn't include significant detail.  What was required for accreditation was to move long daycare centres to the next level where development documents are maintained and used as a basis for planning learning experiences for all children as individuals.  Do you see that?‑‑‑Yes.


The aim of this was to bring about at least that level of change in the industry?‑‑‑Yes.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


It might be given your previous answer you don't know but the fact was there were long daycare centres that were only at the basic level at the time this was introduced and this improvement plan was intended to drive them to at least the next level up?‑‑‑Yes.


The next entry is "High quality":


Comprehensive development records are maintained for each child.  Records give evidence of progress in children's learning and development.


That's a requirement now of the NQS is it not?‑‑‑Yes.


But not a requirement then to be accredited?‑‑‑No.


Principle 18, if you go to page 43, against high quality the first entry is:


Staff are aware of the differences between repetitive and challenging play.


That would be seen to be an absolutely fundamental knowledge requirement under the NQS.  Would you agree?‑‑‑Yes.


That was not something that was needed to be achieved in 1993 in order to be accredited?‑‑‑No.


Can we turn now to the next document, again we've been assisted by identifying relevant parts which are said to be useful.  Can I start with quality area 3.  You've previously given evidence that there were some changes between 1993 and 2005, the standards were lifted and so what this document does, I take it, is explain or guide centres as to how to meet the 2005 version of the quality standards.  Is that right?‑‑‑Correct.


The first principle in quality area 3 at that time was 3.1:


The program reflects a clear statement of centre philosophy.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


In your statement - I know I'm jumping around and I apologise for this but in your statement you refer in paragraph 8 to the fact that in the 2005 version it required in 8(a) there be in place an education program which reflects a clear statement of centre philosophy.  Now the word educational is not found in any part of this document is it?  By "this document" I'm now talking about the 2005 guide document?‑‑‑No, I can't see the word, "educational program".


At this point the obligation to have a program was an obligation to have a statement of philosophy; is that right?‑‑‑The obligation to have a program was the obligation to have a philosophy, is that the question you asked me?


Yes?‑‑‑No, the obligation of the program was the obligation to have a centre philosophy that guided the program.


Yes?‑‑‑So the centre philosophy wasn't the program, it was the way the program and the way the program was delivered was guided.


I see.  I haven't had a huge amount of time to review this document ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.


‑ ‑ ‑and it seems like you're familiar with it.  Are you able to identify where in the 2005 guide there is an obligation to have an educational program?‑‑‑I don't know why that's in my statement.  I must be mistaken.  I don't remember seeing anything about educational program.


So you're understanding is that there had to be a statement of philosophy under 3.1 and that would - there were then different indicators of care.  Just so we can understand how this works ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.


‑ ‑ ‑the lowest of those standards, that is the one that starts with the letter (s) ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.


‑ ‑ ‑is all that was required for accreditation; is that right?‑‑‑Yes.


So ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑But if you ‑ ‑ ‑


‑ ‑ ‑to the extent to which in your statement you have identified that various things were being done prior to 2012 because they were required by the National Quality Standards at the time, the NQIS, it's the case, isn't it, that one has to be careful when one reads that to understand that the only thing that's required was those against the letter (s), and so those against (g) and (h) were not required although maybe and no doubt some centres did seek to achieve them; do you accept that?‑‑‑Yes.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


The next principle, principle 3.2, pages 32 and 33, deals with documentation and can I just take you - the text is not huge but to the second paragraph.  Firstly, it says:


It's important to keep individual documentation for every child.  It's inevitable that records kept for children attending full time are usually more detailed and more regularly updated than records kept for the children attending part time.


Is that something which you say has changed with the NQS?‑‑‑No, that's the same.


Then it says this:


However, the amount of documentation kept is a professional judgment to be made by staff.  What's important is the documentation gives a comprehensive picture of the child's time.


Is it the case under the NQS that there is a high degree of direction as to the nature of the documentation that must be kept?‑‑‑No, my experience is that even though that wording says it's a professional judgment to be made by staff, validators would come in and want to - and ask for - to see a certain number of observations per child dependent upon whether they were full time or part time.  Now - and on every child, so they would check every single child's learning portfolio and make sure that every single child had what they considered that would be different, depending on the validator, what they considered to be enough.  Now, under the National Quality Standards an assessor will come in and speak to staff, watch their practice and they will ask staff to show learning records a select number of children.  In some cases, again back to the assessor, they may randomly pick that, or they may say to the staff, "Can you select five children?  I would like to see their learning records and the progression through the learning journey for them".

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


I want to ask whether you can approach this in this manner, that you I think are describing what your centres did at the time that you were being assessed and validated, but what you describe is not what is set out in principle 3.2 at (s) as an indicator of satisfactory care.  None of those dot points require the level of documentation that your particular services were providing at that time?‑‑‑I'm telling you my experiences in the number of validation visits I have participated in across the board, across organisations and I'm telling you about the conversations I've had with other people about that subject.  So we call them childcare myths, and one of the childcare myths was that you must have so many observations on a child who comes full time.  If they come four days it's this many, if they come three days it's this many.  And even if they only come casually you've got to make sure that you've got records on that child.  It was well-known that there were targets to be met to the point when the National Quality Standards came in people are still looking for those targets but the quality standard is much more holistic in that it allows you to show a child's progression and it doesn't need to see - or the validators and assessors don't need to see 10 observations on that child.  They're happy if they see an observation and they can see that that observation is significant and that there is some progression of learning for that child based on that one observation.


What can I suggest to you has changed with the NQS is the requirement for the documentation to include assessments of the child's developmental needs, interests, experiences, and participation in the education program?‑‑‑That's the change do you think?  Is that what you're asking me?


Yes?‑‑‑That's what's new?


Yes?‑‑‑No, that was always expected.  Always.


Can I put this to you, that now it's a change the documentation must include assessments of the child's progress against the outcomes of the education program?‑‑‑Against the outcomes of the education program?


Yes?‑‑‑So we - back in the Quality Improvement Accreditation System we needed to have a set of broad centre goals and we needed to assess children against those broad centre goals, so it's the same thing, just different words.


When you say you needed to do that, are you suggesting that that was the policy of your organisation or that's something we can find in this material?‑‑‑No, I read it.  I did read it going through this - going through the standards.  I can't remember where I saw it though.


And the goals in question these were goals that were determined, were they, by any particular long daycare centre, what they thought were the appropriate goals?‑‑‑Yes, correct.


That's to be contrasted with the system under the NQS where the goals are those set out in the EYLF?‑‑‑Sorry, can you repeat that?

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


That's to be contrasted with the system under the NQS where the goals are those that are set out in the EYLF?‑‑‑Okay.  I'm assuming so.  I mean, in the - under the National Quality Standards we have a philosophy but no longer do we have to have broad goals and objectives that are linked to that philosophy and the philosophy, mine in particular, refers to the Early Years Learning Framework, and there are no goals in the framework.  There are outcomes and those are - that's a bit different.  The outcomes are worded differently to what the goals would've been worded under the Quality Improvement and Accreditation System.


Tell me if I'm wrong, but the actual goals or the goals that each centre was then self-determining against which it would be assessing a child's progress under the NQIS, they weren't themselves - there was no quality standard for those goals; am I right about that?‑‑‑No.  No, that's right; no quality standard.  They were a set of broad goals that we created ourselves based on the context of the community that we lived in and the children that attended the centres and what the family's input was.


Pages 34 and 35 deal again with the program, the program "Assist each child to be a successful learner."  Can I understand, was there at that time a written document that was something that was described by providers, such as the ones you were operating as, "The program?"---Yes.


And that was something which contained the philosophy, as we discussed earlier, is that right?‑‑‑Yes.


Did it also contain individual planned activities based on each child's developmental needs as assessed?‑‑‑It did - yes, it did.


And so it, by definition, was a living document that was updated on a constant basis, I presume?‑‑‑It was created for the fortnight or the week following, coming, and what the educators would do would - because they would need to be responsive to the children - they would make their changes as they would go along, but there would always be an outline or a framework, because the regulations required us to have an outline or a framework on display for parents to see.


Can you now turn to pages 38 and 39, principle 4.1?  Here the principle, "Staff encourage each child to make choices and participate in play", you accept that the way in which this standard was judged was by focusing on what staff did, is that fair?‑‑‑Yes.


It was an approach which focused on the process of providing early childhood education rather than the outcome of providing that education?‑‑‑Yes.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


Under the NQS, satisfactory care, to use the expression on page 39, is not demonstrated by whether staff have or haven't found opportunities to encourage children's independence and self‑help skills.  It is judged by whether steps have been taken by staff which have an outcome of children becoming more independent and self‑helping?‑‑‑Absolutely, but the National Quality Standard is no different.  The National Quality Standard will assess what educators are doing to support and encourage children to show an appreciation and value in play or show independence.  The National Quality Standard won't assess whether children are showing independence or not, just what staff are doing to promote that.


Can I suggest - - -?‑‑‑So what their plans are - - -


Can I suggest that that's not right for this reason?‑‑‑Okay.


That what the assessors are doing is looking at the observations and the other assessments to see whether - they're not looking to see whether staff have been providing the opportunity; they're looking to see whether the children are in fact being guided towards the particular outcomes and are achieving them?‑‑‑I disagree.  I disagree that there's a difference.  What validators were looking for with staff under the quality improvement and accreditation system was what staff were doing to help children reach whatever milestone that they were reaching.  In fact, they were far more stringent and looked at far more observations and learning records under the old system than they do under the National Quality Standard.  What they're looking for now is that we are working towards the early years learning framework outcomes, that there is a record of those outcomes in our programs, and that we link our programs to the early years learning framework, but they're not looking for outcomes - for children to have achieved outcomes in any learning records.  They're not looking to see if the child is a confident learner.  They are looking to see what we're doing to provide opportunity for children to become a confident learner.


Can I ask you to turn to pages 42 and 43 dealing with promoting language and literacy abilities, under the heading, "Indicators of satisfactory care?"  There are some dot points, dropping down to the fourth:


Children have access to many attractively illustrated books.


Next dot point:


Staff often read books to individuals and small groups of children, and where appropriate adapt the language to maintain children's' interest.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


Again, what I suggest to you is that in order to achieve accreditation, what a long day‑care centre had to do was demonstrate that staff were doing certain things, not demonstrate whether the children were in fact being assessed as having achieved appropriate learning outcomes?‑‑‑Correct.  They are not being assessed as to whether children are achieving certain learning outcomes, just like the National Quality Standards where staff are not being assessed as to whether children are achieving certain learning outcomes.  There's no difference.


Let me approach the same proposition slightly differently in respect to pages 44 and 45, the principle 4.4, "Staff promote each child's problem‑solving and mathematical abilities."  Under the NQS, there is a process that staff engage in where they are continually observing and assessing children against the EYLF learning outcomes, which - sorry, I pause there.  So much is true - I'm sorry?‑‑‑Sorry, were you speaking to me?


I was?‑‑‑I know you're speaking to me, but - I'm sorry.


I moved away from the microphone and it might be that you didn't hear me?‑‑‑Okay.


Under the National Quality Standards, educators are required to assess children against the learning outcomes in the EYLF?‑‑‑Yes.


And they are in turn linked to planning individual child development?‑‑‑Yes.


And the - let me pause for a moment - I know that you have a familiarity with it, but it might be useful I think for you to just pause for a moment and open up the National Quality Framework document number 140 in the links document that we have provided, and then find - tell me when you've found that document and I'll give you a page number?‑‑‑So I have a document called "IEU key documents."  Is that the document?


Yes?‑‑‑Okay, and this goes to - - -


And if you can find - if you're able to manipulate it to open document number 140?‑‑‑Okay.  So this only goes to document 40.


Apparently you might have two link documents?‑‑‑Okay, I'll have a look for the other.


One has got less links than the other?‑‑‑Okay.  The other link that I have is a link, "Master document?"

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


That's the one?‑‑‑And there are - okay, and there are names on the left‑hand side, and it says things like - - -


Yes, if you go forward a few pages you will start finding documents which are numbered?‑‑‑I've got it.  Excellent.


If you've opened that document, are you able, for me, to go to page 123?‑‑‑Yes.


That's standard 1.3, "Assessment and planning?"---Yes.


This is one of the standards against which all early childcare providers are judged, and if you go to page 125 you see a - - -?‑‑‑A cycle of planning?


A cycle of planning, thank you for that.  So this is what educators, including early childhood teachers, are expected to do under the NQS, do you agree with me?‑‑‑Yes.


One of the things that they are doing is making - top left‑hand - "effective, meaningful and relevant observations", which then feed into a process of planning and then implementing the learning process?‑‑‑Yes.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


That is how - it's against that standard, and more generally the standards, but that standard that educators and childcare centres are currently judged.  What I want to suggest to you is that is quite a different and a more complex set of requirements than one finds at pages 44 and 45 of the 2005 document wherein what was being assessed was simply whether certain processes were occurring, such as using open‑ended rather than closed experiences, sitting with children to explore toys, having regular conversations with each child, et cetera?‑‑‑Okay.  So that planning cycle is not new since the National Quality Standards.  I was taught that planning cycle in 1991 when I went to uni.  When we were assessed under the QIAS, the records of documentation that they refer to in both those systems and the 2000 system was this process of planning.  So there was an expectation that educators, when they showed learning records for children, that there were observations on children, that those observations were analysed to determine the child's current level of development, and what goals and objectives you would write for those children to progress and scaffold on their current knowledge.  The documentation is the program that goes on the wall that collects all of those experiences that you've planned.  The planning is the implementation and what you're going to do further, and the reflection is what we used to call evaluation.  But this is not new.  This is not something that any - when we had the National Quality Standards be implemented, this was not the thing that worried us.  This was what we were already doing.


Yes?‑‑‑This was already being assessed.


What's being assessed, at least at page 45 of the document, was what staff did, rather than what outcomes were achieved by doing those things.  Do you accept that?‑‑‑Well, that's for mathematics, so that was problem‑solving and mathematical abilities, but on page 32 we talk about "each child's learning is documented and used in planning of the program."  So we talk about, you know, what type of documentation, why we're documenting, what it could include.  So the documentation that we had to make is different to what might be expected to see when we were helping children, or when we were promoting each child's problem‑solving and mathematical abilities.


What I want to do now is ask you to open the EYLF.  It is document number 84 in that same link.  Sorry, don't let me get ahead of you.  Let me know when you've got there?‑‑‑It doesn't want to open.  Okay.  What page would you like me to go to?


Page 1203 in the bottom left-hand corner, 17 in the right‑hand side?‑‑‑Yes.


So under this heading, "Assessment for learning", the document at the bottom of the left‑hand column on this page says:


The five learning outcomes in this framework, as outlined later, provide early childhood educators with key reference points against which children's progress can be identified, documented and communicated to families, other early childhood professionals and educators.


You've already accepted the proposition that this is something that was new.  I thought you were resisting the proposition that this was actually providing assessment points that children would be assessed against.  That is in fact what it does, is it not?‑‑‑Yes, it does.  It certainly does, just like the milestones - the children's developmental milestones did prior to the Early Years Learning Framework being introduced.  So it's a different form of assessment we're looking at.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


Those milestones are the ones that - just so in case we're at cross‑purposes - were not themselves set out in the NQS but were developed by each individual centre?‑‑‑We probably didn't - no, that's the goals you're talking about.  The developmental milestones are theoretical‑based and they demonstrate children's development from birth to a certain age and, you know, at three months a child will roll over, at four months a child will smile, and it was broken up into the developmental domains of cognition, gross motor, fine motor, language, social/emotional development.  So that was the assessment tool that we would assess children's development by and create learning programs for children by.


Thank you.  Yes, I recall that now.  And this though is a quite different approach.  There are no milestones contained in this document?‑‑‑No, and the problem - absolutely.  And the problem that we had once this document was released was that everybody decided that we didn't need to worry about children developing through milestones any more, and they were referring only to the Early Years Learning Framework.  Because of that ACECQA had to re-introduce the milestones to the sector and had to encourage educators to use the milestones again when assessing children's development.  So in conjunction with the outcomes, Early Years Learning Framework outcomes, you still need to use, and they are still encouraged to use, the milestones - children developmental milestones to accurately track where children are and where they're progressing to.


At various times you and I have used the expression learning outcomes.  Just so that we can be clear about what they are by reference to this document, would you mind just for example going to page 43, bundle number 1229, under the heading, Outcome 5 Children Are Effective Communicators, subheading, Children Begin to Understand How Symbols and Pattern Systems Work.  There's two columns under that.  Do you have that page, 1229?‑‑‑Yes.


On the left-hand column on this page and every page one finds the words, "This is evident for example when children".  There is above that, firstly, the broad proposition, "Children Begin to Understand How Symbols and Pattern Systems Work"?‑‑‑Yes.


Those words are a learning outcome; are they not?‑‑‑Yes.


So when we've used that expression that's how - just so we're not at cross-purposes, that's what we've been talking about?‑‑‑Yes.


Those things.  And then when educators and early childhood teachers are determining whether a child has met that learning outcome they will use the dot points on the left-hand side of each page to identify in effect the types or levels of understanding that meet that learning outcome?‑‑‑They can, because it's - that's not an entire list of when that would be evident, which is why that says, "This is evident for example when children".

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


Yes?‑‑‑So they could use those and - but there might be other things that they could - they would find or see that would demonstrate "Children Begin to Understand How Symbols and Pattern Systems Work".


Thank you.  Can I now turn the document behind tab 4?‑‑‑Tab 4.


I have, I think - we've already identified that what you're doing is commenting on something that was said by Ms Connell who worked in a community preschool.  I want to ask you about a number of these entries.  Can we start with the first entry?‑‑‑Yes.


Ms Connell identifies that in her work there is a requirement to sign not only when arriving at work, but also sign into a room.  And I think you say ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.


‑ ‑ ‑that's not something that you understand the NQF to require?‑‑‑That would be the - if she's signing into the room it wouldn't be a national quality - it would be a regulation thing, but that's not a regulation that we have in our centres in WA.  No-one has ever requested ‑ ‑ ‑


The national regulations require, do they not, at 151 and 152, to have certain minimum ratios of staff present?‑‑‑Yes.  Yes.  Yes.


And your obligation is to be able to demonstrate that those ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.


‑ ‑ ‑ratios are being met?‑‑‑Yes.


And that was not something that was required under the NQIS.  There was no obligation to demonstrate particular ratios?‑‑‑No, because that wasn't - the National Quality Improvement System was an accreditation system and not a regulatory system.  Under the regulations we were required to maintain a certain ratio, so there is no change there for us.


So to demonstrate to any assessor that the ratio was maintained at any particular point in time ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑Yes.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


‑ ‑ ‑it would be, do you accept, a consequence that a centre would have a system where staff sign into a room and out so that they can demonstrate in respect of any previous point in time what staff were in the room or not?‑‑‑Yes.  Sure, but in WA the regulatory authority accept timesheets.  So long as an educator is in contact with children and they're signed into their timesheet and they're working and in direct contact with children, then they are considered within ratio.  Where there is no expectation that children - that educators be in a certain room at a certain time, because there are a certain number of children in those rooms, it'd just be - it's called under the roof staffing.  So, so long as we can demonstrate that all educators who have signed in on their timesheet and are supposedly in direct contact with children are actually in direct contact with children then the regulator is satisfied with that, and we use timesheets, and timesheets have been accepted by the regulator when they've asked for copies of attendances and staff attendances, so that might just be a system that she uses.


At number 3 you read that Ms Connell said that one of the things that is done between 8 and 8.30 is a room safety check?‑‑‑Yes.


Ms Connell didn't suggest that that was any change and you yourself have then said that's not new?‑‑‑No.


You didn't understand Ms Connell to say "wasn't" did you?‑‑‑Look, I have actually, if she's written it here now, she's written something under the "now" column I'm understanding that she never did that before.


I see, notwithstanding that she didn't suggest anything to that effect in the next column?‑‑‑That's right.  So I just assumed she's saying, I'm doing that now and I just assumed that that meant she didn't do that prior to 2012 and any comments in the 2012 column were just extra bits of information for us.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  So, Mr Taylor, how do we read this document, or Ms Connell's document?  I assume that, as the witness did, that where there's an (indistinct) prior to 2012 and there's two contrasting comments, it's suggesting that the difference between the two was not done.


MR TAYLOR:  I think that's right.  With respect to number 3 and number 4 you will see there is no contrasting comment, yes.  It just appears that - I just wanted to clarify and the witness, I think, has made clear that she was working on the basis that every STEM in the first column was new and addressed it on that basis.


VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER:  So if it's blank we assume it was done prior to 2012?

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


MR TAYLOR:  Well, I think, the fair way of reading it is that if Ms Connell hasn't said that it was done differently then all we know is that we do it now.  It would be difficult for us to make a submission that it was done differently if Ms Connell hasn't said so.


At item 5 you respond to Ms Connell identifying that programs at her community preschool often went for one to two weeks and were thematic rather than individualised and I think - I can't now remember whether at a later point she gave examples, I think she did, of autumn, the season of autumn or alternatively Easter.  So there would be a theme for the week and she was contrasting that with the way in which it is now done, are you saying that throughout the long day‑care centre industry in WA things of that nature were not a prevalent part of long day‑care centres going back to 1993?‑‑‑No.  I would say that in - no, they're not part of the long day‑care sector and the way that we program.  If we're going to go back to 1993, I'd say there would have been a residual group of educators who would have been programming thematically, because the introduction of the quality standards, the principles, changed our practices in programming, so there was a much more - or we were expected to provide more evidence that programs were individualised for children, and our training revolved around that as well.  So the diploma training and the training that I did was based in individual program‑planning for children and children's own development.  This thematic programming will only allow you to provide learning experiences that are directed at generic milestone achievements.  So in that sense, for autumn say, and she wanted that group of children to be cutting, or she would have a template of leaves and the children had to cut around those leaves.  It wasn't specific or individualised for any child's current level of development, or specific or individualised for any current progression through their development.


At various points in this document, you refer to material - an example perhaps that jumps out is at number 19, which you say, again on this same subject of programs being dynamic and living, that you annex documents.  Each of those documents at 5, 6, 7 and 8, and I think there are some others as well, were publications of the NCAC, is that right?‑‑‑That's correct.


And they were publications that were published, to your knowledge, with a view to encouraging long day‑care centres to take particular approaches to the way in which they provide care and education for children?‑‑‑I would say that they're publications supporting the education and care sector, based on findings from the validation visits.  So people may have not been meeting, or not been working towards a higher standard for planning, so the National Childcare Accreditation Council conducted a series of learning tools, I suppose, for educators to help them and support them.


This was part of its role as the regulator to improve or lift the nature and quality of early childhood education?‑‑‑Yes, and ACECQA do the same.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


So these documents that you've annexed in those tabs, and the others, are documents that were developed by NCAC to assist services to improve, that is, to change to a higher level?‑‑‑Yes.  They were documents that were created to set the expectation of all educators in the long day‑care sector about what programs should look like and what programs for children specifically should look like.


As a matter of fact, I think all of them are dated 2008 or later?‑‑‑Yes, 2008 and 2009.


I think tab 9 is 2011, and tab 10 is 2009, and tab 5 I'm told is 2006 - no, it's 2008?‑‑‑I've got 2006.


Yes, 2006, my apologies.  Yes, I was looking at the date at the bottom of the page rather than the top.  So at this time between 2006 and 2011, the regulator was identifying that varying services through its assessment processes needed more information to lift them to a higher level by publishing these documents to encourage those services to start doing these things, is that fair?‑‑‑They must have decided that there was a need for these documents.  Again, we're talking about a system that - we learnt off each other; we learnt what the expectation was off each other, and that is often third party conversation.  So assessors or validators would go into services; services would be thinking that they're delivering something; the validator would see something completely different, and these documents gave everybody something common to work towards, or to use to improve practice, or just to check themselves that they're doing the right thing, and not be concerned that they heard that some centre somewhere did something for learning spaces and they're not doing that, so they need to do that as well.  So these documents were created as a support tool, not necessarily because people were struggling to achieve a certain level.


Can I ask you about the entry at 10, responding to emails?‑‑‑Absolutely.


The current position at your centres is that parents do communicate by email.  That's an email that goes to the centre manager, is that right?‑‑‑Correct.


And if the centre manager is not there, is someone else monitoring these emails?‑‑‑Yes, the assistant centre manager.


You identify that there's a communication app?‑‑‑Yes.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


And that's not a one‑way communication; that is, it's not just from your centre to the parents, but they can in turn communicate back to the staff?‑‑‑They can make comments, yes.


And in addition to comments, is there anything stopping them asking questions?‑‑‑They can, but my experience is they don't.  They might ask something like what did they eat for lunch or if it wasn't clear enough what the lunch was, but it's only if they have a specific question, and they often don't.  They're quite happy with the application, because they can see for themselves what's going on.  They don't need to ask that many questions.  So for instance, we have a child who is a vegetarian and it looks like there's a sandwich with ham in it in front of them.  A photo is taken of that child and the parent might say why is there a meat sandwich.  So those are good questions that we would be expecting people would ask.  They don't ask questions ongoing like, you know, how many friends did Johnny play with today; did Johnny climb the slide; did Johnny do a painting - they don't ask questions like that.  It's not ongoing.  They're busy too.  They're at work.  So those applications, what they do is they provide parents real time information about their children so that that information is not now having to be relayed at a different time during the day.


And you expect your staff to respond to questions that are sent by parents using the app?‑‑‑Absolutely, of course.  Absolutely, because a parent might ring - - -


And that's a response that - - -


MR FAGIR:  Could she finish the answer?


THE WITNESS:  A parent might ring on the phone - so prior to the apps, a parent might ring on the phone and want to speak to an educator about something.  They might have forgotten to tell them about the medication that they had, the child had had before they had come to day‑care, or they had had a bad night.  It's good customer service and common courtesy to take the phone down and give the educator the phone to speak to the parent directly rather than take a message and get the educator to call them back.  This is no different.  The staff are able to communicate back immediately and they are able to do it in a manner that is convenient for both the parent and the educator.


So expectation is that staff are carrying a device at all times?‑‑‑Yes.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


And monitoring that device to see whether any communication has been sent to them which they - you'd expect them to respond to?‑‑‑So the device itself is my device that we purchase.  The device is an expectation, they need it, it's their tool.  It's a tool of trade for them.  They take all their observations on it, all their programming is done online, they then take all of those observations and all those records that they've made using this device.  So the fact that a parent might send a message isn't going to be out of the ordinary for them to check because they have the device on them, and they use the device as they would pen and paper prior to 2012, or prior to four years ago before this application was released.  So what they do on the device they used to do on paper.  No extra burden, no extra expectation.  It's just a different mode and a different mechanism to record children's learning and development on.


At various times in the document and number 15 is an example, you start something by saying, "We were required to demonstrate" or "we were required"?‑‑‑Yes.


Then there's an example given.  Is it the case that when you are doing that you are identifying what you recall from your experience the particular centre or centres required to be done or are you suggesting here that this was actually a requirement of the accreditation principles themselves?‑‑‑I'm suggesting that based on my experience on lots of different childcare centres, going to lots of different validation visits, for lots of different organisations, not just my childcare centres, talking to lots of different providers over the period of time that validators would ask to see that casual staff receive the same orientation as permanent staff.


I see, but the principle 7.2, it was sufficient for accreditation that there's a brief introduction - induction process specifically for new relief staff as against a comprehensive induction for new staff.  So relief staff just needed a brief one rather than the full one under the standard to be accredited, but this is really why I was getting to whether what you're doing here is describing the policy and approach of the particular centres as against actually what the principles say?‑‑‑Okay.  So a comprehensive induction process would need to demonstrate that we fully inducted the staff on all aspects of service delivery and the brief induction would have been take the casual staff through the casual staff handbook and alert them to children who have medical plans and asthma anaphylaxis allergies and/or any other medical condition, such as cystic fibrosis.  So back in 2010 we were inducting casual staff and it wasn't a comprehensive induction but it pretty much looks like what Ms Connell is doing now.  She just takes them through the handbook, she shows the staff any medical plans and that's it. She doesn't show them - she doesn't say that she shows people - the casual staff the emergency evacuation plans, she doesn't give them a buddy.  So a comprehensive induction would include sitting staff down, giving them access to the policies.  What she does now is what we did back in 2010 but now what we do with our casual staff is what we do with our permanent staff.  So they go through the whole induction process because our casual staff often turn into permanent staff, and we've discovered that if you don't spend the time with them at the beginning you miss your opportunity.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


Can I take you to paragraph number 20 now and your response to the statement that Ms Connell applied for principles and practices of the EYLF, and just can I note the next page, 21, the text that Ms Connell put against that as been moved to the next entry but I just note that for the record.  If one actually looks at the document you'll see that the interactions between teacher and child is actually associate with number 20 not 21.  Can I just come to your response to 20.  You say this in the first sentence:


Now the EYLF gives educators context in which to do this by.  It's taken the guesswork out of planning for educators.




The notion that there was guesswork before, is that true - I thought you were suggesting that educators were given some very clear guidance before but is it in fact the case that there was a level of guesswork?‑‑‑Well educators were trained to move through the planning and assessment cycle and use the milestones to progress children on their learning journey.  The framework gives us all a common framework to work towards, common language to work towards.  So when I say guesswork, I mean if you move from one sentence to the next back in say 2010, you would be probably a little bit behind the eight ball because you needed to figure out how they program, what kind of programming they did, how they linked - what kind of goals and objectives they would set and how all of that looked.  The Early Years Learning Framework, it won't matter where you go to, everybody uses that same document.


Now you've read that Ms Connell draws a distinction between a valuation and critical reflection.  Firstly, I think earlier you said and I think you say in this document that to you a valuation and reflection are much the same thing?‑‑‑Yes.


Can I suggest to you that one of the features of the National Quality Standards which have come in in 2012, is a focus that didn't exist before not just on reflection occurring at the time it's being done but critical reflection which involves the educators and teachers looking at the outcomes that have been achieved and critically reflecting on how they can alter the way in which things have been done to achieve better outcomes?‑‑‑So I agree that most services may not have been evaluating to that depth, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have been.  Which is why I'm imagining that this developing a culture of learning through reflective practice document was created, so that the National Childcare Accreditation Council would give some framework to educators about thinking more deeply about evaluating children's learning and evaluation learning environments and evaluating their own influences over those environments.

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR


That document is an example of a document you say which shows that the NCAC was considering a need to improve quality by having educators start doing things that at least in some senses they hadn't been doing prior to that time?‑‑‑That's right.


Against number 23 you say:


My centres have always scaffolded in terms of learning education, planning intentional teaching learning opportunities -


and the like, and you say:


The particular terminology may not have been used but it was certainly occurring.




By the particular terminology, you're referring firstly to the concept of scaffolding?‑‑‑No, scaffolding was certainly terminology that we were using because it's part of a - it's a theoretical concept from the Vygotsky I think.  Intentional teaching is new wording.  That's something from the Early Years Learning Framework.  Holistic curriculums, that's something new that the Early Years Learning Framework has coined, I suppose.  But intentional teaching, learning opportunities, we were already doing that because we knew that groups of children needed to learn certain things

END OF EXTRACT                                                                               [3.21 PM]

***        SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST                                                                                           XXN MR TAYLOR



NIDA KHOURY, AFFIRMED.......................................................................... PN7677

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR FAGIR................................................. PN7677

EXHIBIT #105 WITNESS STATEMENT OF NIDA KHOURY WITH ATTACHED REPORT DATED 23/05/2018.............................................................................................. PN7686

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TAYLOR................................................. PN7690

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR FAGIR............................................................. PN7846

THE WITNESS WITHDREW.......................................................................... PN7861

SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST, AFFIRMED....................................... PN7881

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR FAGIR................................................. PN7881

EXHIBIT #106 WITNESS STATEMENT OF SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST DATED 25/05/2018............................................................................................................. PN7891

EXHIBIT #107 SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST DATED 01/07/2019.............................................................. PN7896

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR TAYLOR................................................. PN7898


EXHIBIT #109 PRENDERGAST UPDATED DAILY FEES...................... PN8161


THE WITNESS WITHDREW.......................................................................... PN8200

SHELLEY ANNA PRENDERGAST, RECALLED...................................... PN8204


EXHIBIT #110 KATE ELLIS MP REMARKS TO NCAC 24/10/2011....... PN8274