1. The objectives of the National Law are set out in section 3(2) including, most relevantly, 'to ensure the safety, health and wellbeing of children attending education and care services'.
2. The guiding principles for the National Law are set out in section 3(3) in the following terms (so far as relevant):
   • (a) that the rights and best interests of the child are paramount;
   • (b) that children are successful, competent and capable learners;
   • (c) that the principles of equity, inclusion and diversity underlie this Law;

(f) that best practice is expected in the provision of education and care services.

Overview of legislative framework regarding provider approval

1. The decision whether to grant or refuse provider approval is made by the Department under section 15 of the National Law. The Department must not grant a provider approval unless it is satisfied that the person applying is a fit and proper person.[11]
2. While the phrase 'fit and proper person' is not defined in the National Law, section 13 sets out matters to be taken into account in assessing whether a person is fit and proper. There are some mandatory requirements set out in section 13(1), and other matters in section 13(2), to which the Department 'may have regard'.
3. The mandatory requirements include 'the person's history of compliance with ... this Law'.[12]
4. The discretionary requirements in section 13(2) include:
   • (b) whether the financial circumstances of the person may significantly limit the person's capacity to meet the person's obligations in providing an education and care service in accordance with [the National] Law; ...
   • (c) whether the person has the management capability to operate an education and care service in accordance with [the National] Law; and
   • (d) any of the following actions taken under the [FAA Act] ...
     • (i) any sanction imposed under section 200 of that Act ...
5. Section 13(3) of the National Law provides that nothing in sections 13(1) or 13(2) 'limits the circumstances in which a person may be considered not to be a fit and proper person'.
6. Section 301 of the National Law provides for regulations to be made in respect of various matters, including 'requirements and standards to be complied with for the safety, health and wellbeing of children being educated and cared for by an education and care service'. Those regulations are the Education and Care Services National Regulations 2011 (NSW) (National Regulations).[13]
7. Among the many regulations that apply, there are some specific obligations imposed on approved providers, including:
   • Regulation 151, which requires an approved provider to keep records that include the 'hours that each educator works directly with children being educated and cared for by the service'.
   • Regulation 158, which requires that:

[t]he approved provider of an education and care service must ensure that a record of attendance is kept for the service that -

(a) records the full name of each child attending the service; and

(b) records the date and time each child arrives and departs; and

(c) is signed by one of the following persons at the time that the child arrives and departs -

• (i) the person who delivers the child to the education and care service premises or collects the child from the education and care service premises;
• (ii) a nominated supervisor or an educator.

• Regulation 169, which requires an approved provider to have various policies and procedures in place including policies and procedures for the 'monitoring, support and supervision of family day care educators'.
• Regulation 170, which requires an approved provider to take 'reasonable steps' to ensure the policies and procedures required under regulation 169 are followed.

32 The fitness and propriety of a FDC Provider can be reassessed by the Department 'at any time'.[14] Section 13 continues to apply in making any reassessment.[15]

1. If, following a reassessment, the Department is satisfied that the FDC Provider is not a fit and proper person to be involved in the provision of an education or care service, the Department may cancel the provider approval.[16]
2. The Department may also cancel a provider approval where, under section 31 of the National Law, it is satisfied:
   • (b) the continued provision of education and care services by the approved provider would constitute an unacceptable risk to the safety, health or wellbeing of any child or children being educated and cared for ...

(e) the approved provider has breached a condition of the provider approval; or

(f) the approved provider has not operated any education and care service for a period of more than 12 months ...

1. However, before doing so, the Department must issue a show cause notice.[17] Following consideration of 'any written response from the approved provider', the Department may proceed to:
   • cancel the provider approval;
   • suspend (for not more than a prescribed period) the provider approval; or
   • decide not to cancel the provider approval,

and must give written notice of that decision to the FDC Provider.[18]

1. An alternative pathway is for the Department to vary the conditions of, or impose new conditions on, a provider approval.[19]

1. In New South Wales, it has been observed that to ensure the safety, health and wellbeing of children, 'the National Law is a law calling for strict compliance' with a large number of regulatory requirements, and that it 'is not for the holder of a service approval to choose which requirements to comply with'.[20]
2. That the failure to comply with such requirements may have a direct connection with the health and safety of children is evident from the decision of the AAT in It All Starts Here Family Day Care Scheme Pty Ltd and Secretary, Department of Education (It All Starts Here FDC).[21] The AAT affirmed a CDET decision to cancel CCB approval where CCB claims had been made while educators or children were overseas (in that case, involving 1,436 sessions of care). The member concluded:[22]

I am satisfied that cancellation is the appropriate sanction. The health and safety of children and the quality of the care provided is of paramount concern. Should the applicant's approval not be cancelled there is a risk that any children in the care of the applicant may not be appropriately cared for given the systemic failure of the applicant to oversee the level of child care that it held approval to provide.

1. It should also be noted that there is another connection between FDC Provider approval and CCB approval. While it is possible for a FDC Provider to operate a family day care service without registration under the FAA Act, it may make it harder for a provider to attract parents (or at least those eligible for the CCB) to use its service.[23] The inability to operate the service without CCB approval, or evidence of other funding, has been taken into account when considering cancellation decisions.[24]
2. Lastly, again in the context of CCBs claimed while educators or children were overseas, it has been observed by the Federal Court in Azaria Family Day Care Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Education and Training[25] (Azaria) that allegations of fraud committed by the educators may be a mitigating circumstance, which should be considered in determining whether to impose a sanction (albeit in that case, under the FAA Act).

1. The Department relies on one or more of sections 31(a), (b), (e) or (f) of the National Law in support of its contention that the Decision should be affirmed, namely that:[26]
   • Jump Start is not a fit and proper person to be involved in the provision of an education and care service;
   • the continued provision of education and care services by Jump Start would constitute an unacceptable risk to the safety, health or wellbeing of any child or children being educated and cared for by an education and care service operated by Jump Start;
   • Jump Start has breached conditions of its provider approval; or
   • Jump Start has not operated any education and care service since on or about 6 March 2018, a period in excess of twelve months.
2. Apart from the last point, these reflect the same reasons given by the Department at the time of issuing Jump Start with the Show Cause Notice.
3. Due to the views I have reached on the first of these issues, it is unnecessary to explore the other bases in support of the Decision.

Is Jump Start a fit and proper person to be involved in the provision of an education and care service?

1. The Department contends that it is:[27]

open to the Tribunal, having regard to the seriousness of the decision [by the CDET to cancel Jump Start's CCB approval] and the terms of s 13(2)(d)(i) [of the National Law], to find that [Jump Start] is not a fit and proper person to hold provider approval, based solely on the [CDET decision] (and before even considering the conduct upon which [that] decision is based).

1. Further, even without that express reference to sanctions under the FAA Act, the Department contends that the CDET decision, which 'remains in effect', 'can be taken to impact on the reputation of [Jump Start], which is relevant to whether it is a fit and proper person'.[28]
2. In closing submissions, Mr Stoller (who represented the Department) clarified that while 'honesty, knowledge and ability'[29] may all be relevant to an assessment of whether a person is fit and proper for a particular vocation, in this case, the concern is only with Jump Start's knowledge and ability to comply (ie. there is no allegation of dishonesty made against Jump Start or Mr Wanaw, its director).

1. At the end of the hearing, Mr Wanaw said he was still 'struggling to understand' the Decision.
2. He submits the record keeping breaches, which Jump Start admits, do not mean that Jump Start is not a fit and proper person.
3. In this regard, he notes that the breaches were 'committed by the educators' and, while he accepts that Jump Start is responsible for the errors as the FDC Provider, he was not aware of the issue and considers that 'other bodies could have assisted' by alerting Jump Start to it. Despite the audits which were conducted by the Department over time, the issue of claims being made while educators or children were overseas was never raised by the Department.

1. I do not entirely agree with the approach contended for by either the Department or Jump Start.
2. In relation to the Department's submissions, while regard may be had to sanctions imposed under the FAA Act, it is just one consideration. Having regard to the structure of section 13 of the National Law, it is inappropriate to consider that factor alone and draw a conclusion.
3. In relation to Jump Start's submissions, it seems to me that, based on the decision in Azaria, the matters which have been raised go to the question of whether Jump Start's provider approval should be cancelled or one of the other sanctions available under sections 23 and 33 of the National law should be imposed instead.
4. As previously observed, a mandatory consideration in section 13(1) of the National law is 'the person's history of compliance with ... this Law'.
5. The matters which lead to cancellation of Jump Start's CCB approval - and which are admitted by Jump Start - clearly involve breaches of the National Regulations.
6. In terms of regulations 151 and 158, when children were overseas, they were not 'attending the service' and so should not have been included in the records that Jump Start was required to maintain. When the educators were overseas, there was either a breach of the same requirement (ie. if no family day care was provided) or a breach of the requirement that the attendance record be signed by an educator at the time the child arrives and departs (as the educator could not have done so).
7. In terms of regulations 169 and 170, given the considerable number of educators and care hours involved, it is apparent that either:
   • the policies and procedures of Jump Start for the monitoring, support and supervision of its educators were inadequate; or
   • Jump Start failed to take reasonable steps to ensure they were followed.
8. These were not simple one-off record keeping errors; rather (like the situation in It All Starts Here FDC) they involved 'systemic failure ... to oversee the level of child care that [the approved provider] held approval to provide'.
9. The lack of compliance with those regulations on multiple occasions over an extended period is a factor which strongly points against Jump Start being a fit and proper person.
10. There is no suggestion by the Department that the other mandatory considerations in section 13(1) of the National Law (eg. relating to a person's criminal history or insolvency) are relevant in Jump Start's circumstances.
11. In relation to the discretionary considerations in section 13(2) of the National Law, the cancellation of Jump Start's CCB approval under section 200(1)(e) of the FAA Act also points against Jump Start being a fit and proper person.
12. It is true that Jump Start is still seeking review of that decision by the AAT. However, the Applicant's Statement of Facts and Contentions in that proceeding[30] makes clear that the review relates to the particular sanction imposed (ie. cancellation of its CCB approval) rather than the fact that Jump Start 'has not complied ... with a condition for the continued approval of the service' enlivening the range of sanctions available under section 200(1) of the FAA Act. It is the imposition of any sanction which is relevant under section 13(2)(d)(i) of the National Law.
13. The considerations in section 13(2) of the National Law relating to the approved provider's financial circumstances and management capability are also of importance in the current case.

1. When Mr Wanaw was giving evidence, he was asked a number of questions by Mr Stoller and me about the financial circumstances of Jump Start. In this regard, his evidence was that:
   • Jump Start had never made a profit 'because of the number of educators and the cost of running the service'.
   • Jump Start has not been operating since the CDET cancelled its CCB approval on 31 March 2017 because 'at the time' they only provided services under the CCB regime, although it was 'transitioning'. After cancellation of Jump Start's CCB approval 'educators moved away', which resulted in a loss of income and affected Jump Start's continuity. However, Jump Start had continued to pay its annual fee to the Department.
   • As Jump Start's CCB approval has been cancelled, it will have to 'change the way the service operates' by using 'educators that do not rely on child care benefits'. Mr Wanaw has 'no doubt this will be successful' because there is a 'network of people who are desperate to have the service restarted'.
   • Jump Start has not as yet recruited any educators that do not rely on child care benefits because it is 'in the process of seeking review of the Commonwealth decision, which is not fair and not right'.
2. While Mr Wanaw suggested that Jump Start had developed strategies to move forward, he could not point to any numbers or business plan. He suggested that Mr Barry Pestana, whom he called as a witness, would provide details of the strategy, but Mr Pestana's focus appears to have been on matters of policy and procedure rather than financial viability or strategy more generally.
3. Given Jump Start's inability in the past to produce a profit, the lack of operations since March 2017 and the absence of any detailed financial plan to demonstrate Jump Start's viability in the absence of CCB approval, I consider that its financial circumstances 'may significantly limit [Jump Start's] capacity to meet [its] obligations' under the National Law.
4. I also asked Mr Wanaw a number of questions to understand his management capability. His evidence was that:
   • He was a registered migration agent.
   • Prior to starting Jump Start, he had no experience in education and care services, although he was a leader in the Ethiopian community, and had been involved in community development programs and founding a not-for-profit entity (of which he remained a board member until June 2019).
   • He decided to establish Jump Start because he identified a 'need' for it within his community and, as he has a large family of 5 children (including an adopted orphan), he has a 'passion for building family'.
   • At the time he established Jump Start, his adopted daughter was attending child care and he discussed the possibility of setting up a family day care service with Sharon,[31] the director of that child care service.
   • Sharon helped to establish Jump Start's family day care service, developing policies and procedures, and became the first supervisor. Sharon ran the service for the first year and a half, and was responsible for the recruitment of the initial educators.
   • When Sharon left the service, to look after her mother, Mr Wanaw recruited a new supervisor, Ms Ali. It was Ms Ali that identified the need to get a third party involved to help Jump Start with its policies and procedures.
   • Prior to the CDET decision, Jump Start engaged JPS Family Day Care Advisers (JPS) to provide business and operation improvement services.[32] This included a 'review of policies and procedures for compliance and currency', as well as assistance to improve 'compliance and professional practice, 'engage and retain current educators' and 'recruit educators to operate at capacity'.
   • Mr Pestana was 'developing the policies and procedures'.
5. The only other witness was Mr Pestana. Mr Pestana's background is as a quality manager, and he has experience in compliance for aged care and home care as well as some experience in child care. His evidence was that it was 'quite well known that there was an issue with educators and families taking advantage of family day care' benefits.
6. He gave evidence that the best way to address the issues which arose in this case was to have a 'good look at [Jump Start's] policies and procedures to see whether they are effective and meet the standards', coupled with education for the educators, with an emphasis as to the 'importance of being truthful'.
7. However, as he had only been formally engaged by Jump Start 'a couple of months ago',[33] he had not, as yet, fixed its policies and procedures. In cross-examination, Mr Pestana was asked whether it follows from his evidence that Jump Start's policies were not adequate. His response was that 'the whole system was not tight enough' and that it was 'only in the last 2 or 3 years' that steps to strengthen the system had been taken.
8. Mr Pestana expressed the view that 'Mr Wanaw's heart is in the right place - where he has fallen down is attention to policies and procedures to be imposed and strengthened'.
9. The difficulty for Jump Start is that the evidence is quite clear that:
   • Mr Wanaw appears to be the only person currently involved in the management of Jump Start and, on his own evidence, he does not have the management capability to operate the family day care service, but rather requires the assistance of others to do so.
   • At this time, Jump Start's policies and procedures do not adequately meet the requirements under the National Regulations or address the issues leading to the CDET decision.
   • It will take some time for those policies and procedures to be developed, with no evidence as to the time period involved.
   • Even after the policies and procedures are developed, Jump Start will be unable to operate in accordance with the National Law until it has a new supervisor in place, and a team of trustworthy educators.
10. In those circumstances, I am of the view that Jump Start does not (at least presently) have the 'management capability to operate an education and care service in accordance with [the National] Law'.
11. For completeness, while section 13(3) of the National Law provides that nothing in sections 13(1) or 13(2) 'limits the circumstances in which a person may be considered not to be a fit and proper person', the Department did not refer to any additional considerations in this context.
12. It is inevitable, and I find, that Jump Start is not a fit and proper person to be involved in the provision of an education and care service.

Should the cancellation of Jump Start's provider approval be affirmed?

1. Having found that Jump Start is no longer a fit and proper person, the Tribunal (stepping into the shoes of the Department) 'may' cancel Jump Start's provider approval under section 31(a) of the National Law.
2. As it is made clear in section 45(1) of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic), the use of 'may' connotes a discretion and this then raises the question as to the 'preferable' decision in all the circumstances.
3. As noted above, other possibilities would be to 'decide not to cancel the provider approval',[34] to 'suspend the provider approval'[35] or to 'impose a new condition on the provider approval'.[36]

1. In submissions headed 'Application for Internal Review' filed on 30 August 2019, Jump Start contends that:
   • 'it is impossible for management to check on every educator and every child every day of the week';
   • while it does not deny 'the anomalies highlighted in the [CDET's] report occurred reflecting some shortcomings in our systems', the fact that the issue was not detected by either Jump Start's or the Department's audits shows it was a 'systems failure, which was not easy to detect';
   • the 'severity of the punishment imposed on our service is akin to cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer' and a 'fine would have been a much fairer penalty';
   • 'to adequately protect systems abuse in the future, the company proposes to engage the services of an expert in this field, to assist if the approval is reinstated' and 'continue to engage JPS ... to review our operations, including all policies and procedures';
   • an important point in its favour is that it had recognised 'the need to engage external consultants', and had engaged JPS 'prior to receiving the [Show Cause] Notice';
   • it is 'more than happy to accept a condition ... that it engage a consultant acceptable to the Department and, further, that it provide reports to the Department from the consultant at any interval which the Department considers appropriate' and is 'prepared to submit to any [other] conditions which the Department might consider appropriate to improve its governance', such as 'agree to perform a certain number of random audits';
   • it 'accepts its responsibility to repay the amount [of CCB incorrectly claimed], regardless of whether it is successful in obtaining a refund from the educators in question';
   • it will 'amend its contracts of employment with educators to include a clause which asks them whether they have ever been subject to an allegation that their timesheets have been false or inaccurate' and all 'promotional materials, Service Agreements and other documentation will also be reviewed';
   • '[s]ubject to privacy issues, it will also seek to engage with the parents of the children who are in care to cross check that their children have in fact been in care';
   • '[m]ore spot checks of educators and children will be carried out, especially during school holiday periods'; and
   • it will seek the assistance of the industry peak body, Family Day Care Australia, 'in providing advice and training, as well as to keep up to date with legislative changes'.
2. In the same document, Jump Start also points to the following matters by way of mitigation:
   • 'it has no prior history of breaching its obligations [in a] similar situation';
   • 'there is no suggestion that the welfare of the children cared for was compromised'; and
   • 'cancellation is a Draconian step, which has very serious consequences for all concerned, not least for the many children who need family day care'.
3. In closing submissions, Mr Wanaw also submitted that 'this whole situation has impacted on [him] and [his] health', and noting that it would have negative implications for his community work (for which he has 'great passion') to be 'implicated with a service that lost its approval' and that he is 'trying to make the service right and efficient'.

1. In response, the Department submits that the Decision should be affirmed. In this regard, the Department notes that:[37]

While the Applicant has offered (if its provider approval is reinstated) to engage external consultants; to accept conditions on registration; to reconsider all promotional materials; service agreements and other documents; to repay money paid by the Commonwealth based on false claims it has provided no concrete details of when or how much it will repay (and, indeed, has repeatedly promised to repay over a number of years without providing any evidence of having done so); has provided no updated policies or procedures, governance arrangements or policies; and has provided no details of proposed conditions on its registration.

1. Further, the Department contends that:
   • the responses by Jump Start in respect of both the Commonwealth and Victorian decisions, blaming the authorities for failing to alert it to the fraudulent claims, 'demonstrated a failure to understand the significance of it having made such significant false claims, or to take responsibility for those claims';[38] and
   • the Tribunal should reject the contention that the welfare of the children was not compromised.[39] In this regard, the Department says the 'most fundamental statutory task of an approved provider is to adequately monitor and supervise its educators', in order to ensure the safety, health and wellbeing of children in its care. Accordingly, the failure to provide adequate monitoring and supervision 'means the welfare of children in its care was compromised'.

1. As mentioned in the discussion of the applicable law, in determining what the correct or preferable decision is, the Tribunal must be guided by the objectives and guiding principles underlying National Law, with a focus on ensuring the 'safety, health and wellbeing of children attending education and care services'.
2. The National Regulations clearly serve this purpose, and it is not possible to say that the failures to comply with those regulations did not place the children at risk.
3. As already observed, in at least one case, the educator went overseas leaving children in the care of other family members. This posed an obvious risk to the safety, health and wellbeing of the children concerned.
4. More generally, the failure by Jump Start to identify the issue:
   • despite the extraordinary number of care hours involved and the number of its educators concerned; or
   • before it was raised by the CDET, notwithstanding the evidence of Mr Pestana that the risks of incorrect claims was well known in the industry,

evidences the 'systemic failure' of the policies, procedures and systems which Jump Start had in place for monitoring, supporting and supervising the educators for which it was responsible. As was found in It All Starts Here FDC, systemic failure of this nature clearly put children at risk.

1. While it would be relevant if steps had already been taken to effect repayment of the overclaimed amounts and to put in place new procedures and policies to address the problems identified, the evidence is that neither of these things have occurred as yet, with rather vague plans and promises to do so if provider approval is restored.
2. As I said to Mr Wanaw at the hearing, a further difficulty for Jump Start is that it has not identified how it will be able to make the service viable in circumstances where its CCB approval remains cancelled.
3. I note the concerns expressed by Mr Wanaw about his health and the impact of the Decision on his community work and involvement. I emphasise, for the avoidance of doubt, that the conclusion that Jump Start is not a fit and proper person does not (and should not be taken) to cast any aspersions on the honesty of Mr Wanaw. There is no evidence before the Tribunal suggesting that he was involved with or aware of the false CCB claims.
4. One factor that does point in favour of imposing a sanction other than cancellation of the provider approval is the evidence given by Mr Wanaw (and to some extent confirmed by Mr Pestana) that there is a community need for the service. It is consistent with 'principles of equity, inclusion and diversity'[40] and the respect and support for the 'role of parents and families'[41] that families have access to family day care services within the community that they are comfortable with. However, as the 'rights and best interests of the child are paramount',[42] this factor cannot overcome the concerns already expressed above. Further, Mr Wanaw's own evidence is that he has referred people to other services, so it is not clear to what extent there is an unmet need.
5. I asked Mr Stoller towards the end of the hearing whether there was anything to prevent Jump Start making a fresh application for provider approval if and when it was able to get everything in order. He indicated that there was nothing he was aware of in the National Law that would prohibit it, although the cancellation would of course be a factor in considering whether to grant a new application.
6. As a decision by the Department to refuse to grant a provider approval is, itself, a 'reviewable decision for external review',[43] Jump Start would of course be able to seek merits review by VCAT if it were dissatisfied with such a decision.
7. Taking all these matters into account, I consider that the correct or preferable decision is to cancel Jump Start's provider approval and, accordingly, the Decision should be affirmed.

[1] The National Law is a Schedule to the Education and Care Services National Law Act 2010 (Vic), adopted and applied as a law of Victoria under s 4 of that Act.

[2] National Law, s 3(1).

[3] National Law, s 5(1).

[4] Evidence given by Mr Wanaw in cross-examination.

[5] Respondent's Outline of Grounds dated 30 July 2019 (Outline of Grounds), Annexure 15, pp 477-490.

[6] Outline of Grounds, Annexure 15, p 477.

[7] DBU v Secretary, Department of Education [2017] NSWCATAD 257 [26].

[8] A show cause notice is issued under section 32 of the National Law and must state 'the reasons for the proposed cancellation'.

[9] In any event, the Decision is deemed to be made under section 4 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 and is properly the subject of review.

[10] [2019] VCAT 729 [14]. The case concerned review of a decision under the National Law to prohibit an educator from providing education and care to children in family day care services.

[11] National Law, ss 15(2) and 12.

[12] National Law, s 13(1)(a).

[14] National Law, s 21(1).

[15] National Law, s 21(2).

[16] National Law, s 31(a).

[17] National Law, s 32.

[18] National Law, s 33(1).

[20] Faaea v Secretary, Department of Education [2018] NSWCATAD 85 (Faaea) [25].

[21] [2019] AATA 2512.

[22] [2019] AATA 2512 [39].

[25] [2018] FCA 1640 [33]-[36] (based on s 52(3)(g) of the Minister's rules, which are required to be considered under section 195H of the FAA Act.).

[26] Department's Outline of Submissions dated 13 September 2019 (DOS) [2].

[28] DOS [27], citing Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321, 380 (Toohey and Gaudron JJ) that 'reputation (because it provides indication of public perception as to likely future conduct) may be sufficient to ground a finding that a person is not fit and proper'.

[29] Citing Petracaro v Commissioner of Consumer Affairs (1994) 62 SASR 387, 390-2 and Siguenza v Secretary, Department of Infrastructure [2002] VSC 46 [29].

[30] A copy of this statement, dated 16 August 2019, was provided by Jump Start under cover of an email 26 February 2019.

[31] As Sharon is not a party to this proceeding, was not called as a witness and had left Jump Start prior to the events in question, it is unnecessary and inappropriate to include her full name.

[32] The proposal for the provision of these services is included at Annexure 20, pages 500 to 505, to the Outline of Grounds.

[33] In re-examination, Mr Pestana clarified that he had been 'looking at things' on a less formal basis over a longer period.

[35] National Law, s 33(1)(a)(ii) (noting that the suspension period may not be more than the prescribed period).

[38] Department's Outline of Submissions [36].

[39] Department's Outline of Submissions [40].