Moonlight Family Day Care Pty Ltd and Secretary, Department of Education and Training

This matter concerned an appeal by Moonlight Family Day Care Pty Ltd (Moonlight) against a decision by the Secretary, Department of Education and Training (the Respondent) to cancel its approval to operate a child care service and receive Child Care Benefit (CCB) payments. Moonlight admitted to errors and shortcomings in its dealings with the Department, including making false statements in its s 219N reports regarding at least 7750 sessions of care. The core of the dispute was whether these admitted breaches warranted the cancellation of Moonlight's approval, or if a lesser sanction, such as suspension, would be more appropriate.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was required to determine whether Moonlight was a suitable person to operate a child care service and whether it had failed to demonstrate continuing compliance with relevant provisions of the Child Care Benefit (Eligibility of Child Care Services for Approval and Continued Approval) Determination 2000, specifically section 16(1). The Tribunal also had to consider the proportionality of the sanction of cancellation in light of the admitted failures and the submissions made by both parties regarding the seriousness of the contraventions and the potential impact on child safety.

The Tribunal found that Moonlight did not dispute the allegations of breach, accepting that the errors and shortcomings were established. Moonlight’s representative argued that the false statements, while numerous, represented a small proportion of total care sessions and that the director’s qualifications and experience supported a less severe sanction. Conversely, the Respondent contended that the breaches were serious, involving a lack of necessary governance arrangements and the obtaining of significant funds through inaccurate reporting. The Respondent drew a distinction from the case of *Re Pananga Pty Ltd*, arguing that the present matter was more serious due to its wider-ranging contraventions and potential implications for child health and safety. The Tribunal noted that the Respondent pointed to Moonlight's attempts to downplay the seriousness of its conduct.