Survey responses on support for change — Consenting to the role Survey options Survey Support for retaining the current arrangements (no change) 89 (56%) Support for changing the current arrangements (change) 70 (44%) Total responses 159 Assessment of net benefit There are no costs associated with the implementation of Option 8.3.4B as the option does not require any additional actions, simply a removal of unnecessary administrative burden. The benefits associated with the implementation of Option 8.3.4B are expected to accrue to services in the form of time saved through the removal of the requirement for written consent. Similarly, regulatory authorities are expected to benefit through reduced monitoring requirements. Given the absence of costs, it is expected that even minimal benefits arising from the decreased administrative burden will result in a net benefit. Preferred option The proposed options were received with mixed levels of support during the consultation period, which can be attributed to some level of confusion in the sector regarding the implications of the options. It was put forward in several submissions that written consent was an important process for nominated supervisors as it supported a clear understanding for the supervisor regarding the nature of the responsibility they were undertaking. In response to this, it suggested that Option 8.4.3B be further clarified to ensure the proposed change is properly understood. Under the option, the written consent requirement remains for all nominated supervisors unless the approved provider is an individual (and not an entity) who is to be the nominated supervisor. It is considered that written consent is not required where a person is to be appointed as the PIDTDC as, unlike nominated supervisors, there are no other legal consequences that flow from the appointment. As such, the reference to PIDTDC has been removed from Option 8.3.4B. PREFERRED OPTION: Option 8.3.4B (with PIDTDC removed and amendment) Amend the National Law to remove the requirement for written consent if the approved provider, as an individual applicant, is to also fulfil the role of nominated supervisor. It is also noted that in all other circumstances written consent is to be required where a person is to be appointed as the nominated supervisor.
High level overview of regulatory costs and savings Decision RIS Chapter No. changes costed Estimated cost impact (pa) Estimated saving impact (pa) Cumulative impact (pa) 1. Refining the NQS and assessment and rating process 3 $1,566,550 -$57,861,128 -$56,528,686 2. Removing Supervisor Certificates 1 $0 -$116,802 -$116,802 5. Changes to prescribed fees 1 $617 $0 $617 6. National educator to child ratio for OSHC services 1 $2,019,957 $0 $2,019,957 7. Improved oversight of and support within FDC services 3 $10,387,833 $0 $10,387,833 8. Other changes 20 $1,712,451 -$1,110,324 $602,127 Total 29 $15,687,409 -$59,088,254 -$43,634,458 Note: costs and savings are estimates and are indicative and not definitive The net regulatory cost or saving for each separate proposal is outlined in the table below. Estimated net regulatory costs and savings for proposals DRIS Proposal Proposed change Cost type Net regulatory cost or saving ($pa) 1.1 Reducing the complexity of the National Quality Standard Ongoing saving, one off transition cost* $39,482 1.3 Reduction in documentation of assessments or evaluations of school children in care Ongoing saving, one off transition cost -$56,585,867 1.6 Excellent rating Ongoing saving, ongoing cost* $17,818 2.1 Remove the supervisor certificates Ongoing saving -$116,802 5.1 Introduce a fee for the extension of a temporary waiver Ongoing cost $617 6.1 National educator to child ratio for OSHC services Ongoing cost, one off recruitment cost* $2,019,957 7.1 Approved FDC providers across jurisdictions N/A N/A 7.2 Limiting the number of FDC educators in a service Ongoing cost $616 7.3 Mandating a ratio of FDC co-ordinators to educators Ongoing cost, one off recruitment cost* $10,381,011