Document 1
Out of scope
From: 9(2)(a)
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 3:25 PM
To: Anya Zohrab <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Link
Hi Anya,
Here are some examples below of services either being downgraded or under consideration for
downgrade:
Teacher qualifications were photocopied in black and white instead of in colour.
A Persons Responsible was asked to come out of the classroom by the Ministry for a meeting,
then the Ministry said the service was out of ratio.
A single cat poo in the sandpit
Basic play boxes on the bark needed to be reviewed against the “user manual” because there
was too much bark near the bottom.
A thermometer was not close enough to the ground to check the room temperature, despite
the room registering as suitably warm enough when it was repositioned.
Ministry said the Persons Responsible details weren’t displayed on the wall when, in fact,
they were.
A plumber coming to urgently fix a broken pipe hadn’t been police vetted despite them being
fully supervised the entire time.
A first aid sign was incorrectly displayed beside the door instead of above it.
A first aid policy was criticized by one regional MoE office, the policy was rewritten by the
former head of a NZ medical school, was approved for use by a different regional MoE office
but still unapproved by the original regional office who criticised it. One word was changed in
the policy and the original office finally approved it for use.
Safety check evidence was dated one day after the finalised safety form was completed.
One of the major reasons for downgrades is police safety checking breaches. One incorrect date
can be all it takes for a service to be downgraded. Services are being failed even if all the
evidence is there to prove the person is safe to be around children. Downgrades are issued if one
piece of documentation (such as a photocopy of the qualifications) was not signed and dated
prior to the finalised safety form being marked as completed. The MoE gives no leigh way at all
in respect to this despite the person having met all the vetting requirements and is determined
as safe to be around children. So the Ministry is simply imposing downgrades for minor
administrative errors.
Whilst given as a recommendation and not seen as a breach, a recent MoE visit to a provider
strongly recommended they have a title page before their contents page in their policies and
procedures. This was clearly in a labelled folder.
Serious breaches of H&S should be dealt with and our sector supports downgrades for services
where there are serious issues, such as a child escaping or poor supervision. These needs to be
investigated to review how it happened and ensure it doesn’t happen again. Downgrades should
be saved for incidents of this nature. A minor issue, like a cat poo, would be detailed on a report
only as a Health and Safety breach as would a very serious equipment failure that could hurt a
child. There is no distinction from which parents can make informed choices about whether the
issue is serious or not.
I hope this is helpful. Feel free to call if you want further clarification or information.
9(2)(a)
Out of scope
Document 2a
OUTSIDE Hazard Identification Checklist 9(2)(b)(ii)
Month……………
M
Tu
W
Th
Fr
M
Tu
W
Th
Fr
DATE:
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
Bodies of water
Sandpit clear of animal
faeces and debris
Check for insects, bugs,
beetles, mice dropping and
other pest bodies.
Ground checked for sharp
objects and other debris
Gates secured
Check playground
equipment, planks and any
attachments to fixed
apparatus.
Poisonous Plants
Windows and other areas of
glass
Treehouse and boxes
checked for sharp objects or
other debris.
Sweep sand, bark, leaves and
other debris from door tracks
Check for any vandalism
Test bar on the fire exit gate
INTIAL:
Document 2b
9(2)(b)(ii)
9(2)(b)(ii)
Risk Register
The contents of this risk register will be reviewed three monthly
Reviewed
Name and Signature
Reviewed
Signed
27/03/2023
9(2)(a)
End march 2024
24/06/2023
9(2)(a)
24/09/2023
9(2)(a)
28/12/2023
9(2)(a)
9
