Health
Amanda Biggs, Rebecca de Boer, Dr Rhonda Jolly and Dr
Matthew Thomas
Social Policy Section
Introduction
Broadly, this Budget is aimed at meeting election commitments,
such as the funding of promised health and hospitals reform
measures, the establishment of GP Super Clinics and a range of
preventative health measures. To meet these election promises,
funding has been drawn from future surpluses, the excise on
so-called alcopops (expected to generate $3.1 billion) or
redirected from programs funded by the previous government. This
Budget also outlines significant changes to the framework in which
future Commonwealth health funding will be provided to the states,
by reducing the number of Specific Purpose Payments and introducing
new national agreements.[1]
Although the proposed changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits
Scheme (PBS) failed to generate significant media attention, the
shift towards full cost recovery for the listing of products on the
PBS and the National Immunisation Program (NIP) represent a
dramatic shift in government policy and how the PBS operates.
Another under-reported shift in health policy is the means-testing
of the subsidy for insulin pumps, to be used in the treatment of
type 1 diabetes (T1D). This is the first time in the 60-year
operation of the PBS that a listed item will be subject to
means-testing. One of the implicit policy objectives of the
National Medicines Policy and the PBS is universality of access on
the basis of need, rather than capacity to pay.[2]
Given that a number of significant reports in recent times have
emphasised the need for innovative thinking about ways to improve
health workforce recruitment and retention, it is disappointing
that the Budget did not make provision to explore such options.
Savings and realignment of other funding
Amanda Biggs
Social Policy Section
A number of existing health programs identified as
underperforming, duplicating or not doing the job have had their
funding significantly reduced in order to fund other budget
initiatives.[3]
Significant savings have been made in areas affecting general
practice ($244 million), the private health insurance rebate ($299
million), clinical training for nurses ($169.9 million) and
advertising campaigns ($50 million).
Arguably not all programs identified for savings are without
merit. For example, the GP Immunisation Services Incentive Payment,
identified as a saving of $83.7 million, is paid to GPs as an
incentive for the completion of a childhood immunisation. It has
helped achieve immunisation rates of 90 per cent in general
practices around Australia. The government argues that this
incentive payment duplicates existing immunisation incentives and
initiatives.[4] There
may be a risk that by removing this duplication other immunisation
efforts may be undermined. Some have also warned that the cuts to
general practice programs such as this one may exacerbate tensions
between the government and some doctors groups.[5]
Health and Hospitals Reform
Significant reforms to health and hospitals were announced prior
to the election, as part of Labor s promise to end the blame game .
Further funding announcements, notably $600 million in funding to
the states and territories to reduce elective surgery waiting
times, and significant spending on the nursing workforce have been
made in recent months. This Budget also announces the establishment
of a $10 billion Health and Hospitals Fund, to support investment
in health infrastructure, medical equipment and research. The
Health and Hospitals Fund, to be supported by budget surpluses and
established by 1 January 2009, replaces and expands the previous
government s Health and Medical Infrastructure Fund.[6] Full details are yet to
emerge as to how projects will be assessed for funding, other than
as part of each year s budget process. This lack of detail has
raised some concerns that such a large fund could be used for other
purposes, such as to fund future election commitments.[7]
Preventative health and chronic disease initiatives
The Budget provides significant funding to meet a range of
election commitments in the preventative health and chronic disease
prevention areas. Significant funding has been allocated to: the
Healthy Kids Check for all four-year-olds ($25.6 million), cancer
and cancer screening ($173 million), a range of initiatives to
tackle obesity ($62 million), binge drinking ($53.5 million) and
tobacco ($29.5 million), support for perinatal depression ($55
million from the Commonwealth with $30 million to be sought from
the states and territories), closing the gap on Indigenous health
($334.8 million) and support for dental health ($780.7 million).
The increased excise on so-called alcopops , expected to raise some
$3.1 billion in revenue, will help fund these initiatives, but the
Coalition has claimed that the tax will fail to reduce binge
drinking.[8]
Dental initiatives
The dental health funding is significant as it marks a more
direct role for the Commonwealth in funding dental health. During
the 2007 election Labor promised to redirect funding from the
existing Medicare Allied Health and Dental Care initiative for
people with chronic conditions to two new dental programs and also
to fund the James Cook University s dental school. This Budget
allocates $780.7 million for these initiatives. Funding of $290
million over three years is to be provided to the states and
territories to clear public dental waiting list backlogs (estimated
at 650 000). Although priority is still to be given to
patients with chronic conditions, the National Oral Health Plan
specifies that equal priority be given to other disadvantaged or
vulnerable groups.[9]
One problem that may affect the capacity to reduce waiting lists is
the shortage in the dentistry workforce, particularly the public
dental workforce. It has been estimated that by 2010 there will be
1500 fewer oral health providers than will be needed just to
maintain current levels of access.[10]
The Budget also provides $490.7 million for the Teen Dental
Plan, due to commence on 1 July 2008. This means-tested initiative,
paid through Medicare, provides for up to 1.1 million eligible
teenagers (aged 12 to 17 years) to receive assistance of $150 per
year for a dental checkup. While previous Medicare arrangements for
dental services targeted specific population groups, the focus has
remained firmly on clinical need, not socio-economic status. This
means-tested application of Medicare represents a shift from a
model that has previously provided universal access based on
clinical need.
Medicare levy surcharge changes
The Medicare Levy Surcharge (MLS) is an additional 1 per cent
surcharge on top of the 1.5 per cent Medicare levy on taxable
income which helps fund Medicare. Introduced in 1997, the MLS
applies to those on incomes over $50 000 (individuals) or
$100 000 (couples) without private health insurance. Some
465 327 individuals paid the surcharge in 2005 06, raising
around $289 million in taxation revenue.[11] The government proposes to raise the
MLS thresholds (which have remained unchanged) to $100 000 for
singles and $150 000 for couples. The measure is expected to
generate savings in the form of reductions in government rebates
for health insurance premiums, resulting in $299.2 million in
savings overall.[12]
The changes to the MLS have attracted criticism. The Australian
Health Insurance Association (AHIA) and the Australian Medical
Association (AMA) have expressed concerns that the changes will
lead to an exodus of members from private health insurance and
strain the already stretched public hospital sector.[13] Not all in the private
sector agree; the Australian Private Hospitals Association
described the likely effects of the proposed changes as greatly
exaggerated .[14]
While the government has conceded that it expects some
485 000 people may elect to drop their private health
insurance as a result of this measure, claims of a mass exodus and
its possible impacts on the public hospital system have been
questioned for a number of reasons.[15]
First, the decision to purchase private health insurance is not
based solely on avoiding a tax penalty. In addition to the MLS,
there are other incentives that encourage private health insurance
membership notably Lifetime Health Cover and the Private Health
Insurance Rebate. It has been pointed out that when the MLS was
introduced in 1997 it failed to halt declining private health
insurance membership. This decline was only reversed from 2000,
following the introduction of the other two health insurance
incentives.[16]
Furthermore, other factors influence a decision to purchase health
insurance, including personal preferences and incomes. According to
one industry executive, the most important drivers of private
health insurance membership, along with government incentives, are
rising incomes and falling confidence in public hospitals.[17]
Secondly, it has been argued that those who purchase health
insurance to avoid the penalty of the MLS tend to be young and
healthy. They purchase the cheapest products with high co-payments
(or front-end deductibles) and continue to use public hospital
services to avoid these high co-payments.[18] If so, this suggests that their
opting out would not place an additional burden on the public
hospital sector and therefore the negative impact may be less than
some have claimed. Regardless, the assumption that the young will
opt out may not be correct. Other penalties, such as the higher
premiums for health insurance that are faced after the age of 31,
may well prove a disincentive to dropping private cover for those
aged over 30.
If there were to be a decline in membership of younger healthy
members, it may add pressure to premiums as funds seek to reduce
their costs. But, in an indication that the health insurance
industry does not envisage any longer-term damage, the proposed
acquisition by BUPA Australia of the heath fund MBF is set to
proceed, despite the announced changes to the MLS.[19]
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
Rebecca de
Boer
Social Policy Section
Over the past 18 months, the operation of the Pharmaceutical
Benefits Scheme (PBS) has undergone significant policy change. The
previous government introduced the PBS Reform Package in late 2006
with a staged implementation model (with Stage 2 to be implemented
in August 2008). There are two budget measures which will be of
particular significance to the operation of the PBS the move to
cost recovery for evaluation and listing on the PBS and the
decision to reduce the funding for the generics medicines awareness
campaign. Other PBS measures include the listing of several high
cost drugs on the PBS and the subsidisation of insulin pumps, to be
used in the treatment of type 1 diabetes (T1D).
Cost recovery for listing of products on the PBS and NIP
The shift towards cost recovery of the administration of the
Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), the Committee
which advises which drugs should be subsidised, and the system of
listing drugs on the PBS is expected to generate additional revenue
of $7 million over four years, with a net cost of $2.2
million.[20]
This measure was first announced in the 2005 06 Budget, with a
proposed implementation date of 2007 08 (later set for 1 July 2007
and then 1 January 2008). At the time, there was widespread concern
about the introduction of this measure with concerns that it may
undermine the independence of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory
Committee (PBAC) and possibly result in manufacturers declining to
list products on the PBS (especially for low volume
products).[21]
Although described in the budget papers as an election
commitment, it has not been possible to locate the introduction of
cost recovery to Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC)
processes in the ALP election platform or other health policy
documents. Furthermore, during the parliamentary debate about the
legislative change package associated with the introduction of the
PBS Reform package in 2007, Nicola Roxon noted:
The PBAC needs to be independent of government
and of industry, and we cannot see the justification for this move
to the cost-recovery model.[22]
It would appear that the introduction of cost recovery
arrangements therefore caught the pharmaceutical industry by
surprise.[23] In
addition, there are fears that this measure could undermine the
independence of the PBAC and result in higher drug prices to
consumers.[24] As
it will be necessary for the industry to recoup these additional
costs, it may lead to higher prices for pharmaceuticals and a
subsequent increase in cost to government. This was acknowledged by
senior Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA) officials during a
Senate Estimates hearing in 2005.[25]
DoHA has argued that as the Therapeutic Goods Administration
(TGA) operates under cost recovery arrangements, it is a logical
extension for the PBAC to operate under the same
arrangements.[26]
However, the TGA and PBAC have vastly different roles: the TGA
determines whether a drug (or medical device) can be marketed in
Australia whereas the PBAC recommends to the Minister which drug
should receive public subsidy on the PBS and which vaccines should
be publicly funded under the National Immunisation Program
(NIP).
In this context, the role of cost recovery is questionable.
Although cost recovery arrangements for the TGA and for the
evaluation of prostheses for listing on the Medicare Benefits
Schedule exist, it is difficult to compare these with the proposed
arrangement for the PBS.
Cost recovery arrangements for prostheses were designed to
reduce expenditure on prostheses which had been increasing
significantly.[27]
In this budget measure, cost recovery arrangements are being
introduced to offset the additional costs associated with
evaluating and listing new products on the PBS.[28] Given these vastly different
objectives, comparisons between the two are difficult, except to
note that pharmaceuticals are widely used in the community and the
PBS (including the listing process) is an integral part of the
delivery of timely and affordable access to medicines.
According to the Productivity Commission, cost recovery
arrangements should only be introduced to improve economic
efficiency and cost recovery should not be implemented where it
would be inconsistent with policy objectives .[29] This view is also echoed in the
Australian Government Cost Recovery Guidelines.[30] Subjecting assessment of
medicines to cost recovery in order to increase economic
efficiencies may undermine government health policy objectives in
relation to timely and affordable access to essential medicines. As
the primary focus of the PBS is timely and affordable access at a
cost the community can afford , charging companies for the products
to be listed on the PBS may lead to delays in listings and higher
drug prices for government.
Leaving aside the policy and regulatory arguments, the proposed
implementation date of 1 July 2008 puts considerable pressure
on DoHA, the pharmaceutical industry and the PBAC. Although DoHA
has released a Frequently Asked Questions document explaining the
changes, it has not released the associated charges or the proposed
consultation strategy.
In addition, an unintended consequence of this policy may be
that it will now become more difficult for non-industry bodies to
apply for products to be listed on the PBS. There are no
restrictions on who can make a submission to the PBAC. In order to
be considered by the PBAC, submissions must fulfil the technical
requirements. It may be difficult for clinicians or patient groups
to raise the necessary funds to not only prepare the submission,
but also to have it considered by the PBAC. The proposed cost
recovery arrangements may therefore well act as a barrier to their
applying.
The PBS Reform package was expected to save the government more
than $580 million.[31] A key feature of the PBS Reforms, and indeed, a key
factor in the predicted savings being realised was the increased
usage of generics. It is with interest to note that the proposed
generics medicine campaign designed to promote the use of generics
to prescribers and consumers and to be implemented as part of the
PBS Reform package will be reduced from $20 million to $5.1
million, to be spent before the end of this financial year.[32]
When the government was first considering the generics awareness
campaign it was expected to comprise print, radio and television
advertisements, which promote the safety, health and economic
aspects of generic medicines .[33] The decrease in funding will curtail the extent
of the advertising campaign and potentially limit its
effectiveness. It will also limit the information available to
consumers about the benefits of generic medicines.[34] This may have flow-on effects to
whether the full extent of the savings might be realised from the
PBS Reform package and may result in unnecessary expenditure by
consumers. It has been noted by the Generic Medicines Industry
Association that last year consumers paid a premium for medicines
which had a generic equivalent for over 28 million
prescriptions.[35]
New drug listings on the PBS
This Budget also extended the listings of many products that
were already listed on the PBS, as well as introduced the listing
of Naglazyme (galsulfase) to assist patients with a rare,
debilitating enzyme deficiency called Maroteaux-Lamy Syndrome.
Notably, insulin pumps for young people with T1D will be subsidised
on a means tested basis. As noted in other parts of this section,
the means testing of subsidies is a shift away from universal
access based on clinical need.
Insulin pumps
The Budget provides $5.5 million over four years for
means-tested subsidies on a sliding scale towards the cost of
insulin pumps for people with T1D under the age of 18. Those
receiving the maximum subsidy of $2500 will need to pay at least
that amount again for the most basic model of insulin pump. The
measure does not take into account other people who may have a
clinical need for an insulin pump and need support, including young
adults with T1D and women with gestational diabetes. The budget
papers do not indicate how much of the funding will be provided to
Centrelink to administer the means testing .[36]
Aged Care
Rebecca de
Boer
Social Policy Section
The previous government introduced significant changes to the
aged care sector as part of the 2007 08 Budget. Many of the
changes, such as the Aged Care Funding Instrument, have been
retained by the Rudd Government. This Budget announced a range of
measures for the aged care sector including:
- additional transition care places
- increasing the level of the Conditional Adjustment Payment
(CAP)
- $300 million in zero interest real loans
- increasing the nursing workforce in residential aged care
and
- a commitment to regularly reviewing the aged care planning
ratios.
These budget measures have failed to generate significant
commentary. The Aged Care Industry Council expressed relief that
there were no significant cuts to the aged care sector and were
relieved that the CAP was extended.[37] Other peak lobby groups have focussed
on the gaps between the cost of living and the aged pension rather
than the budget measures per se.[38]
As has been a recurring theme in the analysis of the Budget,
many of the aged care measures reflect either election commitments
or announcements made prior to the Budget (for example, the
Ministerial Council on Ageing, the appointment of an Ambassador for
Ageing, zero real interest loans and additional transition aged
care places).
Earlier commentary in this brief has noted that it is
disappointing that this Budget did not make any meaningful
contribution towards addressing the significant health workforce
challenges. An extra (up to) 1000 nurses over five years in the
residential aged care sector will do little to address the
declining workforce and pay disparities in the sector or the
broader challenges facing the aged care workforce.
This initiative is part of a broader measure to encourage 8750
qualified nurses to return to the workforce and to create 90 new
Commonwealth supported university places in nursing in 2008 and
2009.[39] Unless
these places are specifically quarantined, there is a danger that
these places will become part of the allocation for the entire
nursing sector and will not directly benefit the residential aged
care sector.
Health workforce
Dr Rhonda
Jolly
Social Policy Section
Prior to the Budget the government made commitments to a number
of health workforce initiatives. These included an announcement
that up to 50 000 additional training places for allied health
professionals, an area of the health workforce that has often been
overlooked in workforce planning, would be introduced from January
2009.[40]
Budget press releases confirm the commitment to new allied
health workforce places and introduce a number of other workforce
measures. The only other measure to target allied health workers
specifically, however, is minor. From 2009, allied health students
will be able to apply for scholarships to undertake clinical
placements in rural and remote areas. This program will receive
$2.5 million over a three year period from 2009. While this
commitment does respond to concerns expressed by the allied health
representative body about clinical training places, funding for the
measure is far from substantial.[41]
As it is intended that allied health professionals are an
integral part of the government s new Super Clinics strategy, it is
surprising that allied health measures did not figure more
prominently in the 2008 09 Budget. One such measure could well have
been an education program to inform general practitioners about the
allied health professions, the services they can offer and the
health cost-effectiveness of many treatments delivered by allied
health professionals.[42] Another measure might have been an incentives program
to encourage allied health professionals to relocate to rural Super
Clinics, given that there may be some resistance from these
professionals (and nurses) to working in a general practice
oriented setting as opposed to a community health or an autonomous
practice environment.
The most significant health workforce budget measure is a
commitment to funding of $99.5 million over four years from 2008 09
for new Commonwealth supported university nursing places. Under
this measure, 90 places will be available from July 2008 and a
further 1170 in 2009. By increasing places in nursing and medicine,
this measure complements recent efforts by the previous government
to respond to predictions that student places were inadequate to
meet future health demands.
Another measure which aims to increase nursing numbers involves
the offer of cash bonuses to encourage some of the 30 000 qualified
nurses currently not employed in the health and aged care sectors
to return to their profession. This measure responds in part to
Australian Nursing Federation (ANF) criticism in 2007 of the
previous government s proposal to introduce hospital nursing
schools. At that time the ANF argued that encouraging already
trained nurses back into the profession was a more effective
solution to nursing shortages than increasing the cohort of less
skilled nurses.[43]
Bonuses under this return-to-nursing measure will be available
to those nurses who have not been employed in the health workforce
for a period of more than a year. Six months after their return to
the hospital or residential aged care systems the nurses will
receive $3000, with a further $3000 being paid after they have been
employed for 18 months. Hospitals and aged care providers will
receive $1000 for each nurse who re-enters the workforce to assist
with the re-training of these nurses. This measure will receive
$39.4 million over five years.
Other nursing initiatives in the Budget include: an additional
$35 million over four years to provide postgraduate scholarships
for mental health nurses, funding for the creation of a Chief
Nursing and Midwifery Officer position and funding of $12 million
to train specialist breast cancer nurses.
Given the ageing of the population, it is regrettable that the
Budget did not provide more funding for specialist nursing training
or support in areas such as geriatric nursing. As the Australian
Nursing Federation response to the government s aged care funding
announcements in the Budget points out, aged care nurses and carers
are the worst paid in the health care industry.[44] However, apart from the cash
bonuses incentive, nothing in the aged care package or in the
Budget generally addresses this fundamental problem. Reports have
consistently noted the shortage of nurses in aged care and pay and
conditions are fundamental barriers to their recruitment and
retention. The previous government provided funding to encourage
more people to choose geriatric nursing as a career through a
scholarship program which was allocated funding until 2010
11.[45] Further
support could have been provided by supplementing this recruitment
measure with a retention incentive program. Suggestions for the
introduction of nurse practitioner pilot programs for aged care
could also have been taken up.[46]
Funding for medical workforce initiatives in the Budget is
minimal. It does, however, include $4.6 million over four years to
expand the John Flynn Placement Program (formerly the John Flynn
Scholarship Scheme). This program has been a long-term strategy of
government to increase the number of doctors choosing to practice
in rural and remote areas. It subsidises supervised placements for
students in general practice, hospitals or other medical facilities
in rural and remote communities for a minimum two-week period over
a four year period. An additional 150 places will commence in the
program over each of the four years of funding. These will double
the total number of places from 600 in 2008 to 1200 in 2012.
Additional funding of $12 million over four years will be given
to the Medical Specialist Outreach Assistance Program which
provides funding to support specialists who visit rural and remote
areas and who provide support to rural and remote specialists and
general practitioners. The Specialist Obstetrician Locum Scheme
will also receive funding of $7.9 million.
Understandably, pre-budget submissions from lobby groups, such
as the Australian Medical Association (AMA) and the Royal
Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP), urged the
government to concentrate its health workforce efforts on the
medical workforce. The AMA called for funding to deliver training
opportunities for doctors in the private sector and increased
support for medical student clinical placements and the funding of
pre-vocational medical student training placements in general
practice.[47] The
RACGP also sought funding for teaching practices and increased
incentives to encourage doctors to take on more trainees. It also
called for funding to be provided to improve the working, economic
and social conditions available to overseas trained doctors, by
giving these doctors access to benefits like educational support
and Medicare.[48]
No funding was provided in the Budget for these measures, a
number of which have potential to contribute to the government s
overall objective of delivering responsible health spending. The
pilot program suggested by the RACGP, which would assist overseas
trained doctors to acquire Australian general practice fellowship
qualifications, is an example of where a minimal budget outlay
could potentially have delivered significant positive outcomes.
Overall, in terms of health workforce planning, this Budget
perhaps reflects that the government has had limited time in office
to consider more comprehensive and subtle workforce planning apart
from increasing training numbers. Given that training for any
health profession takes time, allocating funding initially for
training purposes is not a bad start. Within the wider health
reform agenda, however, opportunities have already appeared that
the government should seize on in thinking more creatively about
the composition and structure of the future health workforce. One
of these coincided with the announcement of the findings of a rural
workforce audit on 30 April 2008. At that time the government
committed to examining existing programs that support rural health
professionals. This situation presents the opportunity to explore
workforce options beyond traditional solutions to shortages and to
more efficient delivery of services, such as the introduction of
new health professionals or innovative approaches to the types of
work undertaken by different health workers. [49] These types of options have been
discussed for some time by health academics and practising
professionals and they fit within the framework outlined by the
government for long-term reform focused on delivering better health
outcomes and sustainable improvements to the system.
Alcopop tax
Dr Matthew
Thomas
Social Policy Section
As a part of its revenue measures, the government has increased
the excise tax on other excisable beverages not exceeding ten per
cent alcohol by volume a category that includes Ready to Drink
alcohol products, or alcopops to match the tax rate for
full-strength spirits. The measure increased the tax rate from
$39.36 to $66.67 per litre of alcohol from 27 April 2008. This
increase in excise has been presented by the government as a health
measure, calculated to tackle the problem of binge drinking among
young Australians, and especially young women. The measure was
prompted, in part, by 2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey
figures, which indicate that a significant number of young women
are drinking at risky levels.[50] Alcopops are widely recognised as being young
Australian women s drink of choice.
The Budget papers indicate that the Minister s original estimate
of the amount of revenue likely to be raised as a result of the
tax, $2 billion, was understated. The ongoing gain to revenue of
the measure from 27 April 2008 and over the forward estimates
period is now expected to be $3.1 billion.[51] This revision, when combined with the
fact that alcopop drinking levels are forecast to increase in spite
of the tax rise, has led the Opposition and some other commentators
to criticise the increase as a blatant tax grab .[52] In response to such claims, the
Treasurer, Wayne Swan, has defended the measure as a legitimate
means to tackle the problem of teenage binge drinking, stating that
all of the medical evidence and all of the scientific evidence and
all of the behavioural evidence indicates that [young people] are
responsive to price .[53]
There is indeed such evidence. Treasury advice tabled in
Parliament indicates that the tax change is anticipated to slow the
consumption of alcopops by 202.7 million bottles over the forward
estimates period.[54] According to the World Health Organisation (WHO),
increased alcohol taxation has demonstrated evidence of
effectiveness in reducing alcohol-related problems among young
people. Because young people tend to be on limited budgets, the WHO
notes that alcohol consumption amongst this demographic is more
sensitive to price changes. And, where alcohol taxes have been
increased in some developed countries, this has been found to have
reduced among young people the harmful consequences associated with
excessive drinking.[55]
Nevertheless, it should be noted that there is also some
evidence that restrictions placed on the sale and availability of
alcohol can increase the use of harmful alcohol substitutes among
young people.[56]
It is also the case that young people could avoid the tax by
purchasing bottled spirits and soft drinks and mixing their own.
Indeed, according to some reports, young people are already doing
so.[57] Where this
does occur, concerns have been expressed by Drug and Alcohol
Services SA Executive Director, Keith Evans, that young people
could mix drinks that have an alcohol content significantly higher
than that of alcopops .[58] Alternatively, despite their preference for pre-mixed
spirit drinks, young people could simply binge drink using
alternative, cheaper alcoholic products, such as wine or
beer.[59]
Given the multi-faceted nature of alcohol-related problems,
broad-based policy approaches that employ different, but
synergistic, strategies, rather than individual measures in
isolation, are required to effectively tackle binge
drinking.[60] This
is where the National Binge Drinking Strategy measures, also
introduced in the Budget, are intended by the government to come
into play. The government has committed:
- $19.1 million over four years to support early intervention and
diversion programs for people under the age of 18 years who engage
in binge drinking[61]
- $20 million over two years towards an education and information
campaign via television, the radio and the Internet that will
confront people with the costs and consequences of binge
drinking[62]
- a further $14.5 million over four years to develop partnerships
with community and sporting organisations to tackle binge drinking
among young people.
Each of these measures is to be funded using
existing resources. The government has been silent on the question
of whether or not it intends to introduce restrictions on alcohol
advertising to complement the National Binge Drinking Strategy
measures.[63]
Based on a review of research and statistics from Member States,
the WHO found that educational approaches to the prevention of
alcohol problems among young people are of limited use, in and of
themselves.[64]
Moreover, it should also be noted that the education and
information campaign will need to compete with the alcohol
promotion and marketing activities of the alcohol industry, which
frequently target young people. However, where the campaign is
combined with the early intervention and diversion programs, and
supported by the public and relevant stakeholders, it is possible,
based on available evidence, that it may yield some
results.[65]
It is worth noting that while the government has indicated that
it is committed to investing a proportion of the revenue gained
through the tax in preventative health initiatives, it provides no
indication of how much this is to be.
On 15 May 2008, the alcopop tax was referred to the Senate s
Community Affairs Committee.[66]
Carol Kempner
Social Policy Section
Introduction
Under the label Education
Revolution, the Rudd Government has introduced a package of
education expenditure measures in the 2008 09 Budget which totals
$13.5 billion over four years (a small amount of this has been
expended in 2007 08). The Minister s Budget: Education
Revolution 2008 09 statement estimates the commitment at $19.3
billion over the next four years.[67] The main education innovation in this Budget is
in the area of early childhood education (addressed in a separate
section of this Budget Review) where the government s aim is to
provide universal access. In the school education, higher education
and vocational education sectors the Budget focuses on meeting the
government s election commitments. The promises of retaining the
current system of funding for non-government schools until 2012,
phasing out domestic undergraduate full-fee paying places and
replacing the Australian Skills Voucher program with a new program,
the Priority Places program, are all met. However, in all three
areas major systemic changes to funding arrangements are awaiting
the outcomes of reviews and negotiations with the states and
territories and other stakeholders.
As the alternate figures above would suggest, the funding
figures do not explain fully the Government s commitment to its
education revolution . Despite apparent increases in expenditure by
the Rudd Government in many areas, the Budget s estimates of
expenses by function show that total education expenditure of $18.7
billion for 2008 09 varies little from the estimated expenditure
for the 2007 08 year. Furthermore, there is little variation
between the Rudd Government s 2008 09 Budget projections for
education expenses for 2010 11 and those projected in the Coalition
Government s 2007 08 Budget ($20.7 billion and $20.2 billion
respectively). The 2008 09 Budget projections do, however, indicate
an increase to $21.8 billion in 2011 12.[68]
The way that expenditures are accounted for in the different
budget documents is part of the reason why budget measures figures
are hard to reconcile with estimates of expenses by function. For
example, it is unclear whether the government s new early childhood
measures (which are addressed in a separate section of this Budget
Review) or the new Education Investment Fund (EIF) are accounted
for in the expenses for the education function in Budget Paper
No. 1. However, it is also likely that the apparently limited
impact of this Budget on total expenses for the education function
is in part accounted for by the Government s strategy for meeting
the cost of its new commitments with offsets from savings
identified under its Responsible Economic Management
measures.[69]
Therefore, measuring the extent of the education revolution may
well have to rely more on an assessment of the new policy
priorities and programs, and of their effectiveness, than on the
more often-used measure in political debate, the size of government
expenditure.
School education
Marilyn
Harrington
Social Policy Section
The 2008 09 Budget is a transition budget for school education,
with elements of the former government s policies remaining or
redirected to fund the Rudd Government s budget measures, which are
the result of election commitments. With legislation for the new
schools funding quadrennium for 2009 to 2012 due this year, the
schools funding agreements with the states and territories yet to
be finalised, and the Rudd Government s commitment to retain the
current system of funding for non-government schools until 2012,
the future direction of Australian Government funding for schools
remains to be seen.
A note on Budget data
The Budget continues the pattern of Commonwealth support for
schools. According to Budget Paper No. 1, of the estimated
$9.6 billion allocated to schools in 2008 09, 67 per cent will be
provided to non-government schools.[70] The table of expenses by function and
sub-function in Budget Paper No. 1 provides an estimated
$6.4 billion for non-government schools and $3.1 billion for
government schools.[71] These figures vary slightly from those in Budget
Paper No. 3 which show $3.5 billion for government schools and
$6.5 billion for non-government schools.[72]
It is not clear from the budget papers exactly how much money
will be allocated for government and non-government schools by line
item because the payments for schools for 2008 09 have yet to be
determined. Hence, while the Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS)
indicate a total of $7.7 billion for General Recurrent Grants
(GRGs), in Table B.3 in Budget Paper No. 3, only $985
million is apparently allocated for GRGs to government schools
(compared to $1.8 billion in 2007 08) and $2.9 billion for
non-government schools (compared to $5.3 billion in 2007
08).[73] Similarly,
for capital grants, the PBS indicates a total of $473.5 million,
while Budget Paper No. 3 indicates an allocation of $165
million in capital grants to government schools (compared to $528.5
million in 2007 08) and $93 million to non-government schools
(compared to $237.2 million in 2007 08).[74] Nevertheless, it should be expected
that there will be some reduction in the capital funding line item
because of the cessation of the Investing in Our Schools Programme.
There is also a similar discrepancy in the figures for targeted
programs; and the National Partnership Payments are not
disaggregated by school sector.
There is also some confusion about the funding
increase for schools as indicated by the figures in Budget
Paper No. 1 which appear to indicate that funding for schools
is only increasing by 0.3 per cent from 2007 08 to 2008 09,
compared to a percentage increase of 8.8 per cent for the previous
financial year.[75]
However, if the figures from the PBS are applied, the increase is
in the order of 9.9 per cent.[76]
It should also be noted that the tabulations for
estimated payments for education to the states for 2008 09 in Table
B.3 of Budget Paper No. 3 are incorrect because figures in
the totals column have been counted twice.
Policy settings
The Rudd Government has committed to retaining the existing
system of GRGs to non-government schools (the SES system) until
2012, but has promised to conduct a public review of its
operation.[77]
Meanwhile, in response to funding anomalies in the SES system, the
Budget provides an additional $16 million over four years from
2007 08 for Orthodox Jewish schools.[78]
The government is also intent on determining the socio-economic
status of government schools for funding purposes. The Council of
Australian Governments has agreed:
to the development of a national partnership
agreement focused on the particular educational needs of low
socio-economic status school communities. This partnership will
form part of the national education funding agreement to be
introduced at the beginning of 2009.[79]
Some stakeholders are disappointed about the funding for schools
allocated in this Budget.[80] In particular, since 2001 four reports have drawn
attention to the problems of primary school resourcing, for both
government and non-government schools. Two of these reports
concluded that many government and non-government primary schools,
particularly those serving disadvantaged communities, did not have
sufficient resources to meet the National
Goals for Schooling.[81]
The Australian Primary Principals Association has called for
government primary school GRGs to be increased to the same
percentage of Average Government School Recurrent Cost index
(AGSRC) as government secondary school
GRGs.[82]
Currently, government primary schools are funded at 8.9 per cent of
the primary AGSRC amount, compared to government secondary schools
which are funded at 10 per cent of the secondary AGSRC amount.
Based on 2007 government primary school enrolments and the 2007
primary AGSRC amount, such a proposed increase would amount to an
estimated additional $115 million dollars per annum.
Another funding need which has received some
attention, and which has not been responded to in this Budget, is
additional funding for students with disabilities. According to the
Independent Schools Council of Australia, independent schools are
not adequately resourced by governments to meet their legislated
obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act
1992.[83] The
National Catholic Education Commission has called for more federal
government funding for students with disabilities to ensure that
all such students receive comparable funding irrespective of the
school they attend . It also advocated that, as an interim measure
, funding of students with disabilities be equivalent to 65 per
cent of the cost of educating such a student in a government
school.[84] Primary
school principals have also reported grossly insufficient
resourcing for students with disabilities and that many of these
students do not qualify for disability funding.[85] In 2006 the previous government
committed $5.8 million for a project to investigate funding
arrangements for student with disabilities Investigating the
Feasibility of Flexible Funding for Students with Disability.
However, no information on the project s progress has yet been made
available.[86]
The budget measures for schools programs reflect a shift in
policy focus. The previous government introduced a range of
programs that provided funding directly to individuals and school
communities. These programs attracted criticism for various reasons
because they bypassed state and territory education authorities,
were considered as not addressing the total pedagogical needs of
students or were too narrow in their application and benefit. The
exception was the Investing in Our Schools Programme, which proved
very popular with both government and non-government
schools.[87]
Now these programs, either because they have ceased (such as the
Investing in Our Schools Programme) or had their funds redirected
(for example, the National Literacy and Numeracy Vouchers Program,
Summer Schools for Teachers and Rewarding Schools for Improving
Literacy and Numeracy Outcomes), have given way in this Budget to
broadly based programs that have been developed in partnership with
the states and territories. These new programs include the Digital
Education Revolution, the National Action Plan for Literacy and
Numeracy and Trade Training Centres in Schools.
The future of some existing programs remains unclear, notably
the Australian Technical Colleges.[88] The government is considering how
such colleges will be integrated into the education system once
their current funding agreements expire at the end of 2009.[89] There is also some
question about the future of Teaching Australia, established by the
previous government to develop national professional
standards.[90] The
Budget contains an announcement that Teaching Australia will be
reviewed and that, while the review is underway, its funding will
be reduced and its activities constrained .[91]
In contrast to the other school education budget measures, the
Education Tax Refund directly targets individuals. However it is
not a true tax offset, whereby it would reduce the level of a
person s tax payable, as its name implies. Rather, it is considered
a refundable tax offset and will apply to eligible applicants
regardless of their tax liability. That is, it will also be paid if
the person has no tax liability. While the rebate has been
welcomed, there may be some question about its timing and delivery.
The rebate applies to expenses incurred from 1 July 2008 and
its first claiming is linked to assessment of a 2008 09 income tax
return. There are problems in providing assistance by way of tax
rebates and this delay may be problematic for some eligible
disadvantaged families.[92] For example, it is for this reason that the Child Care
Tax Rebate will in future be paid quarterly rather than
annually.
Higher Education
Dr Coral Dow
Social Policy Section
In Opposition, the Australian Labor Party claimed that no policy
is more important than Australia s investment in human capital the
education, skills and training of our workforce and our people
.[93] This emphasis
on investing in education as the basis for productivity growth,
overcoming individual disadvantage and social inclusion continues
in government.[94]
The education-related budget measures implement promises to
increase investment in education; however, the focus is on early
childhood measures rather than higher education. This is not
surprising considering that the government has announced a major
Review of Australian Higher Education. This review is to:
... examine and report on the future direction
of the higher education sector, its fitness for purpose in meeting
the needs of the Australian community and economy, and the options
for ongoing reform. It will inform the preparation of the
Government s policy agenda for the decade ahead.[95]
The review will report by the end of 2008 and we might expect,
as a result, more significant measures in the 2009 2010 Budget.
Instead, this Budget fulfils the government s election promises in
higher education to:
- fund increased university places in early childhood teaching,
education, nursing, dentistry and medicine
- double the number of equity-based Commonwealth Learning
Scholarships and introduce two new scholarship categories
- reduce Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) fees for
mathematics and science graduates and
- replace domestic full-fee paying places with Commonwealth
Supported Places.
The Budget also introduces a new Education Investment Fund (EIF)
which will incorporate the existing Higher Education Endowment Fund
(HEEF) and broaden disbursements to include vocational education
and training providers.
Total higher education expenses for 2008 09 are $6 billion, a
slight decrease from the estimated $6.3 billion for 2007 08. This
decrease is due to the one-off Building Better Universities measure
of $500 million announced in the Budget that will be allocated and
accounted for in the 2007 08 financial year.[96]
Education Investment Fund
The Education Investment Fund (EIF) is the major initiative in
the higher education budget. It will incorporate the $6 billion in
the HEEF, a Coalition Government initiative from the
2007 08 Budget, and will receive a further $5 billion from the
estimated budget surplus of $21.7 billion.[97]
Like the HEEF, the new EIF s purpose is to fund capital and
research infrastructure. However, unlike the HEEF, the EIF will be
able to make disbursements from the fund s capital as well as the
earnings. The HEEF expected to make annual disbursements of between
$300 million and $400 million from the fund s earnings.
Stakeholders had reservations that such earnings would be
sufficient to meet the shortfall in infrastructure funding which
they estimated at $1.5 billion in 2005.[98] Unlike the HEEF there will be no cap
on annual allocations from the EIF and disbursements will be
allowed from the fund s capital.[99]
The HEEF was expected to allocate the first round of funding in
2008 09. However, the government has stated there will be no
allocations from the EIF until 2009 10. The government has instead
provided $500 million in the current financial year, under the
budget measure Building Better Universities , to improve university
infrastructure. Funding will be allocated to all universities on a
formula basis and there is no commitment to further funding under
this measure beyond 2007 08.[100]
Phasing out domestic undergraduate full-fee paying places
Since 1998, universities have been able to offer full-fee paying
places to domestic students. Although the uptake of these places
was initially small, it has increased since the introduction of
income contingent FEE-HELP loans to full-fee students in 2005.
Along with this increased uptake there has been an increase in the
proportion of university income from domestic student fees. The ALP
has opposed domestic full-fee places on the grounds that university
access should be determined by merit rather than wealth, and has
promised at every election since 1998 to phase them out.
Estimates of the required commensurate increase in Commonwealth
funding to universities to compensate for the loss of full-fee
paying students have varied widely from $200 million to $700
million. In opposition the ALP estimated that universities would
forgo $325 million in revenue in the years 2009 to 2011 and
promised $355 million to provide an additional 11 000 Commonwealth
Supported Places (previously called HECS places) to replace the
full-fee paying places.[101]
This Budget fulfils the promise to phase out full-fee paying
places at public universities where such places will not be offered
from 1 January 2009. However, the government, whilst still
providing up to 11 000 new Commonwealth Supported Places, has
revised the cost of this measure down to $249 million. Other than a
promise to target areas of national priority and skills shortage
such as teaching, mathematics, science and engineering, the
government has not provided details of the places to be offered and
how they will be allocated. It seems likely that those universities
with a large number of full-fee paying students in law, commerce
and medicine will not be compensated for the loss of these places
and will need to find alternative revenue means, possibly through
an increased intake of overseas fee paying students.
Scholarships
In 2003, the Coalition Government introduced an equity-based
Commonwealth Scholarships Programme to assist students from low
socio-economic backgrounds, especially those from regional and
remote areas and Indigenous students, with costs associated with
higher education. The program currently has two key components:
Commonwealth Education Costs Scholarships (CECS) which assist
students with general education costs and Commonwealth
Accommodation Scholarships (CAS) which assist students from
regional and remote areas who have to move to attend higher
education and incur accommodation costs.
As an election commitment, under the Scholarships for a
Competitive Future initiative, the government promised to
double the number of Commonwealth Scholarships by 2012 from
44 000 to 88 000. The Budget provides $238.5 million to meet
this commitment. Two new categories of Commonwealth Scholarship
will be introduced from 2009: National Priority Scholarships and
National Accommodation Scholarships. Twenty nine thousand National
Priority Scholarships will target undergraduate students enrolling
in priority disciplines such as nursing, teaching, medicine,
dentistry, allied health, maths, science and engineering. Fifteen
thousand National Accommodation Scholarships will be available for
students relocating interstate to study a specialist course not
available near their home.[102]
Conclusion
The Budget makes a modest move to increase the Commonwealth s
proportional contribution to university revenue and ease the
contribution of students. HECS and HELP fees, together with revenue
from international students and domestic full-fee paying students,
has seen the proportion of university revenue from student fees and
charges rise to 38 per cent and Commonwealth payments as a
proportion fall to 41 per cent in 2006.[103] In opposition the government was
critical of the falling rate of public investment in Australian
tertiary education, particularly when compared with other OECD
countries.[104]
The phasing-out of full-fee places, the funding of new Commonwealth
Supported Places, the increased scholarships and the reduction in
HELP fees for mathematics and science disciplines may assist in
increasing the proportion of public investment in higher
education.
Stakeholders have generally welcomed the Budget, but are
disappointed that calls to increase the level of, and access to,
student income support have not been addressed and that there was
no commitment to increase Commonwealth funding per university
place.[105] The
$560 million to reduce HELP fees for mathematics and science
students will not increase the funding per place to universities
and goes against recommendations made in the Australian Academy of
Science s 2006 review of mathematics and statistics. These
recommendations argued that the relative funding of mathematical
sciences departments in universities is inadequate and that the
emphasis should be placed on increasing the Commonwealth grant per
place rather than reducing the student contribution.[106] Stakeholders are
looking to next year s budget for significant funding increases and
initiatives that should follow the Review into Australian Higher
Education.
Vocational Education and Training
Carol
Kempner
Social Policy Section
The Rudd Government s 2008 09 Budget, like the Coalition
Government s budgets, provides no real growth in state and
territory recurrent funding that would enable them to expand their
own vocational education and training (VET) systems. Nevertheless,
consistent with its promise that existing places will continue to
be funded under existing arrangements , it maintains the real value
of its grants to the states and territories by providing $1.3
billion under the Skilling Australia s Workforce Act
2005.[107]
The prime focus of Labor s election strategy to deal with skills
shortages was to provide funding for new training places through a
Commonwealth Government run program subsequently labelled the
Productivity Places program not through additional direct grants to
the states and territories for more training places in their
Technical and Further Education (TAFE) institutes.
The Budget does, however, flag some likely changes to
Commonwealth/State arrangements in the future, though details of
their scope and whether additional funding will be involved is not
provided. What we are told is that the Government s review of
Specific Purpose Payments (SPPs) has determined that the VET SPP
will remain as a stand-alone, and that the outcomes of the review
will directly impact on the format of future arrangements for the
sector .[108] It
may be expected that any changes will be announced when the
negotiations with the states and territories for the new
Skilling Australia s Workforce Agreement are completed
later this year.
Despite the steady-state funding for the states and territories
under the Skilling Australia s Workforce Act 2005, the
Budget opens up another potential source of funds for the states
and territories and their TAFEs. The new $11 billion Education
Investment Fund (EIF), which replaces the Coalition Government s $6
billion Higher Education Endowment Fund (HEEF), is intended to fund
capital expenditure and renewal for vocational institutions as well
as higher education institutions. It is not clear at this stage
whether this funding will be limited to public VET institutions.
Under current Commonwealth/State funding arrangements Commonwealth
funds provided for capital purposes to publicly funded VET totalled
$189.3 million in 2005.[109] Dependent on the arrangements that are put in place to
access moneys from this fund and assuming the EIF adds to the
current capital funding for public VET institutions, this could
potentially be a significant development for the renewal of TAFE
infrastructure.
The establishment of the EIF and the development of the
Productivity Places program, continues the Commonwealth Government
s preference for expanding its own programs over that of increasing
its grants to the states, a direction clearly set by the previous
Coalition Government.[110] There is, therefore, some expenditure growth in
administered programs, primarily in the areas of Australian
Apprenticeships and Workforce Skills Development (which includes
the new places created under the Productivity Places program). The
Budget provides funding of $232.6 million for an estimated
110 000 new training places ($1.9 billion over 5 years for
630 000 training places). The Budget also provides $3 million
for Skills Australia in 2008 09 ($19.6 million over five years); a
high-level board of seven experts, which is to provide independent
advice and recommendations to government about Australia s skills
needs.[111] It is
on the basis of the advice received from Skills Australia that the
Government allocates new training places directly to industry
sectors. Funding for the places will be provided to Industry Skills
Councils (ISCs) which are being strengthened and better resourced
with an additional $83.2 million over five years.[112]
However, these expenditures are being partially offset by
savings made from abolishing the Coalition Government s Australian
Skills Vouchers program which aimed to provide enabling skills
through accredited literacy/numeracy and basic education courses
and Certificate II courses. The Coalition would have provided
60 000 vouchers per year if it had won government.[113] Therefore, on
account of these and some other minor savings, growth in total VET
outlays has, to a certain extent, been contained. Growth in VET
expenditures alone will therefore not serve as a measure of whether
this program is successfully addressing skills shortages. Labor has
promoted the superiority of its new program over that of the
program it replaced, arguing that the training will be demand
driven, that is driven by industry sector needs, and that it will
deliver more training places and the higher level qualifications
that the economy requires.[114] Only time is likely to provide an assessment as
to whether the new program meets its targets in terms of training
places and skills delivered. The Government has fast-tracked
20 000 Productivity Places, but there are initial reports of a
low take-up.[115]
It is, however, likely that, as with the Work Skills Vouchers that
it replaced, the take-up rate will increase over time.[116]
Another growing area of expenditure worth noting is in the area
of VET FEE-HELP, the income contingent loan for full-fee Vocational
Diplomas, Advanced Diplomas, Graduate Certificates and Graduate
Diplomas. When introduced in the 2007 08 Budget, projected
expenditure for 2008 09 was $3.4 million. The 2008 09 Budget
estimate is for $9.6 million. One of the reasons for introducing
these loans into the VET sector was to establish parity with
students doing the same qualifications in the higher education
sector who had access to such loans. Expectations that providers
will compete to attract students who can access loans for full-fee
courses have led to concerns that limiting loans to full-fee
courses might reduce the availability of publicly funded VET
courses. The concern is that the publicly funded TAFEs, which
already offer some full-fee courses, would increasingly substitute
publicly funded courses with full-fee courses.[117] It is unclear how any
resulting increase in full-fee paying courses in publicly funded
TAFEs would be reconciled with the government s announcement in
this Budget of the phasing out of full fee paying domestic
undergraduate places at public universities. It may act as a
further catalyst for the introduction of income contingent loans
for publicly funded courses, an option that Victoria is currently
considering and that is also being considered during the
discussions for the new Skilling Australia s Workforce
Agreement.[118] However, while this idea has been gaining some
prominence it is not uncontested. One critic has said:
Given the sustained concern voiced by political
and business leaders about current workforce participation levels
and skills shortages, it seems clear that Australia needs to
establish financing and other policy settings which will increase
participation in post-school vocational education to near universal
levels. This requires measures which reduce, or at least contain,
the real costs to individuals rather than simply making it
(apparently) easier for them to bear a higher proportion of these
costs.[119]
Dr Matthew
Thomas
Social Policy Section
The housing affordability crisis
The main vehicle through which the Australian Government, along
with the state and territory governments, provides funding for
public housing is the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement (CSHA).
This joint agreement has helped to provide public and community
housing to individuals and families in need since the late 1940s.
The current CSHA commenced in 2003 and is effective until 30 June
2008.
In recent years it has been Australian Government policy to
place a greater emphasis on Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) a
payment to support eligible renters in the private rental market
than on the CSHA. As a result, Australian Government outlays on the
CSHA have been declining in nominal and real terms since 1991 92,
while CRA funding has been increasing. For example, in 1994 95,
government expenditure for the CSHA was four per cent higher than
for CRA. Between 1994 95 and 2003 04, an increase of nine per cent
in CRA expenditure combined with a 31 per cent decrease for CSHA
resulted in CRA expenditure surpassing CSHA expenditure.[120] In 2006 07, the
Howard Government provided $2.2 billion in CRA funding, as opposed
to $970.6 million in CSHA funding.
In terms of public housing, this shift in funding emphasis has
meant that public housing stock has decreased as state and
territory public housing authorities have been squeezed for funds.
Through the CSHA, in 1996 97 the stock of public housing was around
375 000 dwellings, which was then about five per cent of
Australia s total housing stock. In subsequent years, however,
there was little or no growth in public housing stock and, as at 30
June 2007, the total number of public rental dwellings managed by
state and territory housing authorities had fallen to 339
771.[121]
A reduction in the amount of public housing stock has resulted
in a reduced capacity on the part of governments to provide
affordable housing to those most in need. Waiting lists for public
housing are increasing. As at 30 June 2007, 176 321 households
were on waiting lists for public rental housing. Of these
households, 11 700 were classified as being in greatest need .
This number represented seven per cent of all households on waiting
lists.[122]
Increasingly, the public housing that is available is being used
for emergency housing needs to assist those estimated 100 000
Australians who are homeless on any given night and those
individuals and households that are at risk of becoming homeless.
In effect, public housing is becoming welfare housing.
At the same time, rents in the private market are increasing
apace. Rents increased by an average of 12 per cent during 2006 07
and a recent major report has predicted rent rises of 50 per cent
in major cities over the next four years.[123] Because there has been an upward
shift in the distribution of private rental stock towards
higher-rent properties, higher-income households have displaced
lower-income households from more affordable housing in the private
rental market.[124] While these lower-income households may be paid
Commonwealth Rent Assistance, this assistance is capped and, once
the maximum rate (which is indexed twice each year to reflect
changes in the consumer price index) is reached, any rent increases
are borne by CRA recipients. It should also be noted that CRA is
paid at a universal rate across the country. This renders it a
blunt instrument , and one that cannot take into account variations
in rental prices across jurisdictions.
In sum, without a significant increase in the number of
affordable rental properties, the situation for renters, and
especially for those renters on low incomes, is expected to worsen
dramatically.
Budget measures
In this context, the government has announced a budget housing
package of $2.2 billion over the next four years for measures to
address housing supply pressures. These measures include:
- the National Rental Affordability Scheme, which provides $622.6
million over four years for the provision of up to 50 000
affordable rental properties across Australia. The properties are
to be made available to low to middle income earners at 20 per cent
below market price. Under the scheme, the Australian Government
will provide to investors an annual incentive of $6000 per property
for up to ten years. This is to be augmented by a state or
territory contribution (which may take the form of cash grants,
concessions on stamp duty or the provision of discounted land) of
$2000 per property over the same period.[125]
- A Place to Call Home, a strategy which will provide $150
million over five years for the delivery of up to 600 homes across
Australia for families and individuals who are homeless. The
funding provided to the states and territories may be used either
to construct or purchase new homes or to repair existing public
housing stock. The Australian Government contribution is to be
matched by the states and territories through the provision of
funding or in-kind support including the provision of land.[126]
In order to coordinate the implementation of these measures and
any other housing initiatives on a national basis, the government
has provided $3.7 million over five years to establish an Office
for Housing within the Department of Families, Housing, Community
Services and Indigenous Affairs.[127] The government has also provided
$10.2 million over five years to establish a National Housing
Supply Council. This council is to advise the government and the
Council of Australian Governments (COAG) on long-term housing and
land supply trends.[128]
The Budget has introduced changes to the framework in which
future Commonwealth housing funding is to be provided to the states
and territories. The number of specific purpose payments has been
reduced and bundled into the new affordable housing specific
purpose payment.[129] This payment is supported by the new national
affordable housing agreement. Under this agreement, the states and
territories will have greater flexibility to target resources with
the objective of improving the supply and effectiveness of
affordable housing.
Comment
It is generally agreed that supply-side responses to the current
housing affordability crisis are essential. The reason being that
focusing primarily on providing Commonwealth Rent Assistance to
supplement private rental merely stimulates demand and increases
housing rental costs. It has done nothing to increase the supply of
affordable, public housing.
As noted above, in recent years Australian governments have, on
the whole, been averse to expanding public housing. Such expansion
is, in any case, a slow and expensive process. As a result, there
is a need to strengthen financial incentives to encourage investors
to provide affordable private rental properties. The National
Rental Affordability Scheme aims to achieve this. It has, as a
result, been widely acknowledged as a significant first step in
addressing rental housing affordability.
Nevertheless, the scheme does not add to the publicly-owned
housing supply and some commentators argue that without a
sustainable public housing sector, the nation will fail to meet
future demand for secure, low-cost housing.[130] While the A Place to Call Home
strategy will provide for some increase to the overall public
housing stock, this will not be by a significant amount.
Moreover, given that it is not only the size of public housing
stock in Australia that has decreased, but also its quality
primarily because the amount of rent that can be charged
increasingly disadvantaged public housing tenants, does not meet
the direct cost of provision (that is, the market value) the states
and territories may, to a greater or lesser extent, be obliged to
dedicate A Place to Call Home funds to stock refurbishment and
replacement, rather than to increasing overall public housing
stock.
Marilyn
Harrington
Social Policy Section
The Minister s budget statement highlights the importance of the
quality of the early childhood experience for not only the
individual s future education and other life outcomes, but also the
country s future economic prosperity.[131] The importance of these early
years, particularly for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, is
well-substantiated as the result of considerable research that
continues to accumulate.[132] The Rudd Government is also concerned about the
fragmented system of child care and early childhood education.
It is in this context that the government is now implementing a
raft of election commitments designed to improve the overall
quality and access of the early childhood sector. These commitments
follow the 2007 resolution of the Council of Australian Governments
to develop an intergovernmental agreement on a national approach to
quality assurance and regulations for early childhood education and
care. [133]
The government s concern with the early childhood years has
resulted in the concentration of early childhood programs in the
education portfolio under the newly created Office of Early
Childhood Education and Child Care with its own parliamentary
secretary (Maxine McKew). Most of the early childhood budget
measures emanate from the education portfolio, but there are also
allied measures in other portfolios. These include health portfolio
budget measures, such as the health checks for four-year-old
children and the development of guidelines on healthy eating and
physical activity for use by the early childhood sector. There are
also other measures which, while not specifically early childhood,
have obvious application to the sector. The development of a
National Child Protection Framework in the Families, Housing,
Community Services and Indigenous Affairs portfolio, which is
discussed in more detail in this brief, is one example.
The Budget s early childhood measures are only the beginning of
the government s plans for the sector. As yet, the government has
not determined whether early childhood will be included in the
schools agreement or funded through a separate agreement.[134] It is also not
clear from the expenses by function and sub-function table in
Budget Paper No. 1 against which line item early childhood
expenditure is accounted for.[135]
Provision of early childhood education and child care services
are set to be transformed with the establishment of multifunctional
Early Learning and Care Centres. This measure follows from the
Prime Minister s proposal to combine maternal and child health and
welfare, child care services and preschool at the one location,
which was endorsed by the Australia 2020
Summit and the recent joint meeting of the Ministerial Council on
Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) and the
Ministerial Council for Vocational and Technical Education
(MCVTE).[136]
Early childhood education
Marilyn
Harrington
Social Policy Section
The 2008 09 Budget represents the first part of a Rudd
Government commitment to provide universal access by 2013 to
quality early childhood education for all children in the year
before formal schooling. [137] Specifically, this commitment includes access
for all Indigenous four-year-olds living in remote communities, the
development and application of national standards and an Early
Years Learning Framework. It is also supported by the provision of
additional early childhood education university places to improve
workforce standards.
In 2006 07, 248 172 children attended state and territory
government funded and/or provided preschool services in
Australia.[138]
For various reasons, not all Australian four-year-olds attend
preschool or are accounted for in the available preschool
attendance data. There is also considerable variation in the
provision of these services, variability in program structure and
inequities in access and participation.[139]
The problems which confront the sector, and which were
highlighted by a 2004 inquiry into preschool education, are
considerable.[140] These problems include access (for example, geographic
location and transport), affordability, the supply of qualified
early childhood teachers, state and territory differences in
administration, funding and curricula and the provision of
preschool services for children with special needs, particularly
children with disabilities and Indigenous children. Children of
working parents have also been described as trapped in long-day
child care. The latter is not only symptomatic of the problem of
program quality in childcare settings, but also the logistical
difficulties for working parents of combining preschool with child
care.[141] The
challenge will be to make early childhood education, which is not
compulsory, an attractive cost-effective option for all children
and their families.
Dale Daniels
Social Policy Section
The Budget includes a number of changes to the Child Care
Benefit (CCB) and the Child Care Tax Rebate (CCTR).
The headline measure is the fulfilment of the election promise
to increase the CCTR from 30 per cent to 50 per cent of
out-of-pocket child care expenses for approved child care. The
maximum payment per child will therefore increase from $4354 to
$7500 (indexed) per annum. This is partially offset by the
abolition of the minimum rate of CCB for approved care for higher
income families.
The CCTR was introduced in 2005 to address child care
affordability concerns and head off pressure for full tax
deductibility for child care fees. It has often been criticised for
favouring higher income families. However, the CCTR has escaped the
new sudden death income tests that have been introduced for Family
Tax Benefit Part B, the Baby Bonus and the Dependent Spouse Rebate.
Its status as a refund of expenses incurred and its role in
encouraging female workforce participation have saved it from being
treated as undesirable middle class welfare.
The Budget also introduces quarterly payments for the CCTR. The
timing of claims for the CCTR has been a long-running problem.
Initially, it could only be claimed in the tax return for the year
following the year in which the child care was used. So the delay
between paying for care and receiving the CCTR could be as long as
18 months to two years. From the 2006 07 Budget, this was changed
so that CCTR could be claimed from Centrelink at the end of the
year in which the child care was used. However, both of these
arrangements resulted in long delays between paying for child care
and receiving CCTR. This delay can be a work disincentive for
primary carers in low income families in particular. Both parties
addressed this issue during the election campaign last year. The
Coalition promised to pay the CCTR fortnightly while the ALP opted
for quarterly payments.
These measures will increase the cost of assistance by $1.4
billion over four years. The CCTR changes are worth $1.6 billion
and the CCB savings total $222.2 million.
There is also an increase in funding for the Jobs, Education and
Training child care fee assistance (JETCCFA). An additional $23.9
million over four years will provide extra assistance with approved
child care for sole parents studying for up to two years.
Fees for TAFE students studying for Diplomas and Advanced
Diplomas in children s services courses will have their fees
removed from 2009 at the cost of $60.3 million over four years.
This is part of a broader package to foster an increase in the
skilled early childhood workforce. The child care workforce has for
many years suffered from a skilled staff shortage. This is partly
due to a shortage of appropriately trained people, but also due to
the low pay rates on offer. Many child care workers are paid not
much more than the minimum wage.
Child care provision and quality of
care
A government election commitment to open 260 new child care
centres has also been addressed with $114.5 million for 38 new
child care centres in areas of child care shortage to be
operational by 2010. Six of these will be early intervention
centres for children with autism. The remaining centres are to be
delivered as part of an agreement with the states and
territories.
A further measure involves the development of improved national
quality standards for child care.
National Child Protection Framework
Janet
Phillips
Social Policy Section
Child protection and support services aimed at preventing child
abuse and helping children and families affected by child abuse are
essentially a state and territory responsibility. The Commonwealth
currently plays a relatively small direct role in child abuse
prevention through the funding of the National Child Protection
Clearinghouse, the collection of data and a few specific programs.
In recent years, there has been a trend towards a more systematic
and national approach with respect to child abuse issues and, as a
consequence, the Commonwealth has moved towards becoming more
involved in the area of child abuse prevention and child abuse
monitoring.
On 30 January 2008, the Coalition of Organisations Committed to
the Safety and Wellbeing of Australia s Children (formed in
November 2007) met with the Minister for Families, Housing,
Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, to
discuss the possible development of a National Child Protection
Framework. At this meeting the Coalition was advised that a
consultation process would commence between the government and
relevant stakeholders. Recently, a discussion paper was circulated
by the government to several NGOs and other stakeholders, inviting
comments on a child protection framework.
In the 2008 09 Budget, the government confirmed it will commit
to developing a National Child Protection Framework. The government
has allocated funding of $2.6 million to establish the framework in
consultation with all levels of government, child protection
workers and community stakeholders.
It is likely that the new framework will focus on preventing
child abuse through early intervention, better coordination of
services and improved (nationally consistent) protection data
reporting across jurisdictions at present all the states and
territories differ in their data collection methodology, making it
difficult to compare data across jurisdictions.[142]
Peter Yeend
Social Policy Section
The changes to the Baby Bonus announced in the Budget are
intended to:
- Limit the Baby Bonus to families with an adjusted taxable
income[143] of
$75 000 or less in the 6 months after the birth of a baby.
This is the equivalent of an adjusted taxable income of
$150 000 a year or less and
- Pay the Baby Bonus in 13 fortnightly instalments, rather than
as a lump sum.
These changes are to take effect from 1 January
2009.[144]
The budget papers indicate that the Baby Bonus
will be increased from $4258 to $5000 from 1 July 2008. This change
was provided for by the previous government in the amending act
that introduced the original one-off $3000 Baby Bonus payment from
1 July 2004.[145]
That Act provided for the Baby Bonus amount to be $3000 from 1 July
2004, an increase to $4000 from 1 July 2006 and a further increase
to $5000 from 1 July 2008. The Act also provided for twice-yearly
indexation of the Baby Bonus to movements in the Consumer Price
Index (CPI). Consequently, the Baby Bonus is currently $4258.
Income testing of the Baby Bonus is estimated to
cost $22.6 million in additional administrative expenses and will
lead to savings of $377.2 million in reduced payments. This will
realise net savings of $354.5 million over the next four
years.[146]
In 2006 07, the Baby Bonus was paid in respect of
291 876 children, including 315 adopted children.[147] While the budget
papers do not directly indicate how many families are expected no
longer to be eligible for the Baby Bonus from 1 January 2009, they
give an estimate of the numbers of children and families to be paid
the Baby Bonus in 2008 09. This is 285 000 children from
281 000 families. This figure includes 330 adopted
children.[148]
Jenny Macklin, the Minister for Families, Housing, Community
Services and Indigenous Affairs, has indicated that some
16 000 high income parents will no longer be able to access
the Baby Bonus.[149]
Since its introduction from 1 July 2004, the Baby
Bonus has not been subject to any means test. This contrasts with
the Maternity Allowance that it replaced from 1 July 2004, which
required the claimant to otherwise qualify for Family Tax Benefit
Part A (FTB-A), which is income tested. In 2008, a family with one
child aged from birth to 17 years can have an annual adjusted
taxable income of up to $97 845 and still receive some FTB-A.
So, compared to FTB-A, the proposed income test of $150 000
for the Baby Bonus is generous.
The Baby Bonus budget initiative proposes to use
adjusted taxable income as a means test. This makes administrative
sense, as adjusted taxable income is also used as the means test
for the Family Tax Benefit Part A and Part B and the Child Care
Benefit. It is also the same test that is used in other government
assistance access matters, such as for the Commonwealth Seniors
Health Card and is the income test applied under the Child Support
Scheme arrangements.
However, there are a number of other legitimate
ways by which taxable income can be reduced, for example, by way of
company or trust arrangements. So the use of adjusted taxable
income might not in some cases provide for a proper test of a
person s or family s means and need for support. This, in part, is
reflected in the proposed adjustments to the measurement of income
for government support purposes, also announced in this Budget and
discussed in a later section of this brief. These proposed changes
feature in respect of salary sacrifices to superannuation, net
losses from investment and reportable fringe benefits. [150]
Better targeting and delivery of Family Tax Benefit
The proposed change to the Family Tax Benefit Part B (FTB-B)
income testing arrangements announced in the Budget limits access
to FTB-B to families where the primary income earner has annual
adjusted taxable income[151] of $150 000 or less.[152]
FTB-B Origins and current arrangements
FTB-B was introduced, along with the two other main Commonwealth
family income supplement payments (Family Tax Benefit Part A and
Child Care Benefit), with the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the
A New Tax System (ANTS) arrangements that commenced from July
2000.[153]
FTB-B replaced a number of payments and income tax rebates for
sole parents and single income couple families. The payments and
assistance replaced were Guardian Allowance, Basic Parenting
Payment, Family Tax Payment Part B, Family Tax Assistance Part B,
Sole Parent Rebate and Dependent Spouse Rebate (with Children).
As with the payments and tax measures it replaced, the current
FTB-B tests only one income in a family the income of the lowest
income earner. Where a claimant is a sole parent, there is an
automatic entitlement to the full rate of the FTB-B, regardless of
income. For partnered families, while there is no eligibility limit
on the income of the primary earner, the amount payable under the
FTB-B income test is based on the income of the lower earner. The
rate payable is dependent on the actual income of the lower earner.
On an income of up to $4380 the full rate is paid. Payments are
reduced by 20 cents for each dollar of income above that amount. In
certain circumstances, the lower earner can earn up to $22 302
and still be eligible for some FTB-B. This resembles the old
Dependant Spouse Rebate, which was available to a person with a
partner with low income, regardless of the amount of that person s
own taxable income.
Are millionaire families receiving FTB-B?
Answers to questions on notice in Senate Budget Estimates have
demonstrated that under the current FTB-B income test, some
families with substantially high incomes can access the FTB-B. As
the table below shows, access to FTB-B for partnered families with
high incomes, where this income is received by one of the partners,
has been in place since the FTB-B was introduced on 1 July
2000.
Adjusted Taxable income of customers entitled to Family
Tax Benefit Part B 2004 05
Source: Senate Supplementary Estimates, 2006 07.
[154]
The proposed FTB-B income test change
The proposed changes to the FTB-B income test are intended to
limit eligibility to families where the main income earner has
income of not more than $150 000.
Therefore, in the case of sole parents, where they have income
of more than $150 000 there will be no access to FTB-B. Where
sole parents have incomes of $150 000 or less they will
qualify for the full payment.
In the case of partnered families, where the main income earner
has income of more than $150 000, there will be no access to
FTB-B. Where the main income earner receives $150 000 or less,
the rate of the payment will still be calculated on the basis of
the earnings of the lower earner. Therefore, the limits that have
applied to the income of the lower earner in a two parent family
under the income test that was put in place by the Coalition
Government in July 2000, will continue to apply.
How many families will be affected?
The government has indicated that the revised
income testing for FTB-B will affect around 40 000 high income
families.[155]
Costs and savings
Extra funding is to be provided to Centrelink to
undertake the additional income testing. This is $0.5 million in
2007 08 and it is anticipated there will be savings thereafter from
Centrelink of $0.1 million in 2008 09, $1.4 million in 2009 10,
$1.7 million in 2010 11 and $2.1 million in 2011 12 as fewer
families receive FTB-B.[156] The proposal is anticipated to realise net savings of
$543.8 million over 5 years.[157]
Comment
The proposed $150 000 income limit for the
main income earner for FTB-B access is unusual in comparison to
other income tests in the welfare system. This is because there is
a sudden death cut-off . Those primary earners with an income up to
$150 000 qualify; those with an income of over $150 000
do not qualify.
While the changes will, to a certain extent,
means test the payment, the mechanism is crude. Unlike the income
test for the FTB-A where the income of both parents in dual parent
families is counted, the test for FTB-B will still not be based on
total family income.
Therefore, while the main income earner may only
earn up to the new limit of $150 000 for a family to qualify,
the rate at which the payment is made in a dual parent family will
still be calculated on the earnings of lower earner. The upper
limits to these earnings will continue to apply. This will mean
that if the lower earner earns more than $22 302, the family
will not receive any FTB-B, regardless of whether the main earner,
earns $40 000 or $150 000.
The following examples demonstrate the
limitations of this form of means testing. A sole parent will
attract the full benefit if they earn up to $150 000. Dual
parent families can attract some benefit even where their combined
income is $172 300, if for example the main income earner were
to earn $150 000 and the lower earner less than $22 302.
However, in the case of a dual parent family where one earns
$80 000 and the other $50 000, the family would not
receive a FTB-B payment, even though the parents combined income is
less than $150 000.
It is likely that some allowance for the
secondary income has been maintained so as not to create a
disincentive for secondary income earners to participate in
employment. However, the changes do nothing to address the
criticisms that were made of the Coalition Government s Family Tax
Benefit (FTB) regime, that in the case of two parent families, it
favoured those with children and traditional gender-based divisions
of labour. For example families where the income contribution ratio
was 80:20 received a higher benefit that those families where the
income contribution was 50 per cent each. It has therefore been
argued that providing the maximum rate to those families where the
primary earner contributes a much larger percentage of the income
than the secondary earner formalises the notion of primary and
secondary earner [and] within its structure underwrites weak labour
force attachment by women with children and effectively entrenches
the status of mothers as secondary earners and primary carers
.[158]
Means-testing of government support expanded definitions of
income
Background
The government announced changes in the Budget to
the income definitions it uses to measure access to some assistance
programs. These changes refer to the use of taxable income to
arrive at a level of income. The changes will modify the taxable
income of claimants to add back amounts to their net taxable
income. The amounts to be added back are amounts salary sacrificed
into superannuation, net losses from investments and reportable
fringe benefits.[159] This initiative has parallels with the proposed Budget
amendments to the income test for the Commonwealth Seniors Health
Card in which the income test is to be modified to add back in
gross amounts received from a taxed superannuation source and also
amounts salary sacrificed into superannuation.[160]
Use of adjusted taxable income
The government uses adjusted taxable income[161] in several forums to determine
access to assistance and also to determine a level of income for a
claimant. The test is used for the three main family assistance
payments Family Tax Benefits Part A and Part B and the Child Care
Benefit. The test is also used for the measurement of payer and
payee parents incomes for the Child Support Scheme maintenance
formula calculations. The income assessments for the Commonwealth
Seniors Health Card, which can be provided to retired aged persons
not on a government income support payment, with annual incomes
below $50 000 (single) or $80 000 (partnered combined),
also uses the adjusted taxable income test (it is proposed that
this test will also be modified).[162]
The reason for adjusting taxable incomes of
claimants by adding back negatively geared property losses, foreign
income and employer provided fringe benefits, is because allowable
tax deductions may not result in an appropriate indicator or real
income or means. The changes proposed in the Budget to
expand/modify the adjustments indicate that there is recognition
that the use of this test needs further refinement.
There are advantages both to government and to
claimants in using adjusted taxable income as an income measure.
Firstly, the most recent tax assessment can be used and this
removes the need for a separate income measurement and assessment.
This results in a reduced cost to government. There are also
savings for claimants from not having to provide documents and
evidence necessary for a separate income test. The only readily
available alternative to using adjusted taxable income is to use
the income test applied for pension and allowance income support
payments under the Social Security Act 1991 (SSA). This
test is tighter and does not permit as many of the tax deductions
allowed under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to reduce income, thereby
achieving better targeting. However, the use of the SSA to measure
and test income is administratively more expensive, as it often
requires an extra and separate measurement and assessment of
income.
Certain salary sacrificed contributions to superannuation
This budget proposal involves adding back in the amounts salary
sacrificed into superannuation which are currently taken out of
gross salary income before tax liability is assessed.
Estimated savings
The measure is estimated to save $6.7 million in 2008 09, $156.8
million in 2009 2010, $135.8 million in 2010 2011 and $145.5
million in 2011 2012. This is a total of $430.2 million over four
years.[163] Close
to two thirds of these substantial savings will be realised in the
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
portfolio. These savings therefore would mainly refer to the
adjusted taxable income tests that are applied to Family Tax
Benefit Part A and Part B and to the Child Care Benefit, being the
nominally lower income targeted family assistance programs. There
would also be further but less significant savings to this
portfolio associated with its application to the Commonwealth
Seniors Health Card.
Net losses from investments
This budget proposal is intended to expand the adjustments made
to calculations of adjusted taxable income to include losses from
investments, and where appropriate, to include negatively geared
property losses. In many cases, negatively geared property losses
are already included in the calculation of adjusted taxable income
in the welfare payments area, but not so much in the taxation
area.
Estimated savings
The estimated savings to be achieved over four years for this
proposal is $38 million. There is an administrative cost to
government in the taxation portfolio area of $10.8 million over
four years associated with the extra administrative task of
counting these sorts of losses and adding them back on to taxable
income amounts.[164]
Reportable fringe benefits
This proposal is to add back in reportable fringe benefits in
the calculation of taxable income when calculating access to the
dependency tax offset, the seniors Australian tax offset and the
pensioner tax offset.[165] Currently, the counting of taxable income to determine
access to these tax offsets does not adjust for reportable fringe
benefits. The adjusted taxable income test applied for welfare
payment purposes does already adjust for employer provided fringe
benefits.
Estimated savings
The savings to government revenue are estimated to be $18.5
million over four years in the taxation area.[166]
Comment
The proposals to make adjustments for the calculations of
taxable income and adjusted taxable income for both welfare and tax
purposes raise the issue of the appropriateness of using taxable
income as a base to determine access to government assistance. As
there are many legitimate ways taxable income can be reduced or
offset, it is problematic to use it as a true reflection of the
need for support in some cases. In addition, taxable income, or
even adjusted taxable income, arbitrarily disadvantages those in
employee pay-as-you-go tax arrangements, as their opportunities to
reduce their taxable income is less than others in self-employed,
company, or family trust tax arrangements.
Disability support
Janet
Phillips
Social Policy Section
With negotiations currently in progress for a new Commonwealth
State Territory Disability Agreement (CSTDA), there is very little
that this Budget could commit to disability funding other than
redirecting and redistributing existing funds to the CSTDA.
The CSTDA provides the national framework for the delivery,
funding and development of specialist disability services for
people with disabilities. The Commonwealth s main areas of
responsibility in this area include most disability related
payments and allowances and the provision of employment services
for people with disabilities along with some generic services and
support (such as rehabilitation and various health programs). The
states and territories are responsible for most other areas of
support including accommodation, community access services and
respite as well as disability related support in schools. Some
areas are shared between the Commonwealth and the states such as
health funding and the Home and Community Care Program (HACC).
Until a new agreement is negotiated, most of the ongoing issues
for the disability sector, such as unmet need for disability
accommodation, must wait. However, recent government announcements,
for example, that there will be a new National Disability and
Mental Health Employment Strategy, a National Disability Strategy
and a Disability Investment Inquiry, have raised hopes that the new
CSTDA will include significant additional funding to honour
government commitments and to address stakeholder concerns of unmet
need.[167]
Disability related initiatives in this Budget include:
- Confirmation that the government will honour an election
commitment to develop a National Disability Strategy, although
there was no additional funding allocated in the Budget. This
commitment will be met within the existing resources of the
Department $7.7 million over four years from 1 July 2009.[168]
- A range of measures to support carers, including $100 million
for supported accommodation for people with a disability with older
carers. This will allow some ageing carers to plan for alternative
accommodation arrangements for their children.[169] See the carer section of this
review for details on the carer bonus and carer payments.
- $25.7 million over four years for disability employment support
through the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool (BSWAT) program.
Access to BSWAT, which was due to expire in June 2008, is provided
by the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service (CRS), allowing
businesses to calculate wages for supported employees. Further
disability employment support measures will emerge once the
National Mental Health and Disability Employment Strategy is
finalised.[170]
- On 3 October 2007, the Coalition Government announced details
of its Helping children with autism package, delivering
$190.7 million in funding over five years. In this Budget, the
government has announced funding for six autism-specific child care
centres as part of this package.[171]
Dale Daniels
Social Policy Section
Carer Payment eligibility for those caring for children with
disabilities
In March 2007, the Carer Payment (child) Review Taskforce headed
by Anthony Blunn was set up by the Howard Government to examine how
effective carer payment was as a safety net for carers of children
with a profound disability or severe medical condition.[172] The taskforce
reported on 8 February to the Rudd Government and this budget
measure is the Government s response.
The taskforce took the view that:
... the objective of Carer Payment (child) is
to enable carers to provide the care and attention required by
children diagnosed with severe disability or medical conditions.
For a carer to qualify for Carer Payment (child), the care provided
must be significantly more than the care required by a child of
comparable age who does not have severe disability. The need for
care must be continuous and the provision of care must be constant.
The caring load must be such that carers are unable to support
themselves through substantial workforce participation.[173]
The taskforce concluded that:
... the payment is not an effective safety net
in capturing all carers of children with severe disability or
medical conditions who require access to income support.[174]
This budget measure provides for a new assessment process based
on the care required by the child rather than the specifics of the
child s condition or behaviour.[175] This provides a considerable relaxation of the
eligibility criteria that were previously quite restrictive. The
new criteria will see greatly expanded access to Carer Payment for
those caring for children. The extent of this expansion can be
gauged from the expected increase in the numbers eligible. In June
2007, there were 3570 Carer Payment (child) recipients. The Budget
provides for funding for this payment to continue beyond the
original cut off date of 30 June 2008.[176]
Bonus payments for carers
The Budget contains a one-off lump sum bonus payment to carers
who are already in receipt of the Carer Payment and the Carer
Allowance. The bonus is in recognition of their contribution to
caring for people with disabilities. Carer Payment recipients will
receive $1000 and recipients of Carer Allowance will receive $600
for each eligible person in their care. Those in receipt of both
payments on 13 May 2008 will receive both lump sum payments.
One-off cash payments for carers have become a regular feature
of recent budgets. Starting in 2004 05 they have been provided each
year. Recent controversy over the suggestion that these bonuses
were likely to be scrapped showed the sensitivities around the
issue of assistance for carers and the political capital to be
gained by supporting them.[177] However, this Budget makes no move towards
providing legislative arrangements that would provide for them on
an ongoing basis. Carers Australia argues that assistance for
carers in Australia is inadequate. It was stunned that the
government had not acted to make the bonus payments permanent, with
CEO Joan Hughes concluding in her press release This government
likes to talk about supporting working families. Carers do work
they just aren t paid for it .[178]
While not a bonus payment, a precedent for building lump sum
payments into the social security system was established with the
Child Disability Assistance payment. The Howard Government
introduced the Child Disability Assistance payment, a lump sum
payment, to provide additional support for carers of children with
a disability. It provides an annual $1000 lump sum for people
receiving Carer Allowance for children each July. The Rudd
Government has not yet followed this precedent with the carer bonus
payments announced in this Budget.
On 14 May 2008, Jenny Macklin, the Minister for Families,
Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, asked the House
Standing Committee on Family, Community, Housing and Youth to
inquire into and report on better support for carers.[179] This inquiry may
produce further reforms for carers in the future.
Dr Matthew Thomas
and Peter Yeend
Social Policy Section
Introduction
The Job Network has provided employment placement assistance to
unemployed job seekers in receipt of Australian Government income
support payments for over a decade. When the Job Network was
introduced by the Coalition Government in 1998, unemployment was
around double its current rate, and this was reflected in the
system s original design.
Australia has enjoyed strong economic growth for the past 17
years and unemployment is at its lowest level in around 30 years.
In this context, job seekers with minimal barriers to employment
tend to find work readily, with little or no assistance from
Australia s main employment service provider, the Job Network. An
increasing proportion of the Job Network s clients are now
long-term unemployed and people with significant barriers to
employment; that is, those people who have been left behind . At
the same time, the nation is experiencing widespread skilled
workforce shortages. What is now required is an employment services
system that is able to assist job seekers with significant labour
market disadvantage to gain the skills required by themselves,
employers and the nation as a whole.
In recognition of the Job Network s no longer being appropriate
for current requirements, the government has developed a proposed
major reconfiguration of this system. A broad outline of the
proposed changes is presented in a fact sheet that was included in
the 2008 09 budget press releases for the Education, Employment and
Workplace Relations portfolio.[180] Subsequently, the government has released a
discussion paper that solicits views on the future framework for
employment services in Australia and how best to implement
it.[181]
Australia-wide consultation sessions on the proposed new model of
employment assistance commenced on 19 May 2008. Following
consultation on the proposed new model and its implementation, the
government envisages that the new system will commence on 1 July
2009.
The proposed new model of employment assistance aims to better
cater to the needs of disadvantaged job seekers and the skills
needs of employers. At the same time, it seeks to address a number
of limitations identified in the Job Network. These limitations
include the system s fragmented and complex nature, inflexibility
where it comes to dealing with the needs of different job seekers,
failure to target resources at the most disadvantaged job seekers,
lack of emphasis on skills development and training, ineffective
and counter-productive compliance regime and excessive
administration, which is hampering the flexibility and scope for
innovation required by Job Network providers.[182]
The main features of the proposed new model are:
- a revised contact arrangement that allocates job seekers to one
of four different assistance streams, based on their assessed level
of disadvantage
- a new Employment Pathway Fund that will, unlike its predecessor
Job Seeker Account, be available to provide assistance to the most
disadvantaged of job seekers
- the opening of employment assistance services to people
currently on the Participation Support Program waiting list, who
did not previously have access to mainstream employment assistance
services
- 238 000 training places that focus on the development of
skills in areas of workforce shortage
- a $41 million Innovation Fund to enable employment services
providers to develop projects in partnership with training and
community organisations and the private sector for the most
significantly disadvantaged job seekers and
- the establishment of an external reference group that will
assist in the development of a new performance management system
appropriate to the changed nature of the system.
The following comments identify some perceived merits of the
proposed new model and flag various issues and points of
concern.
Funding
The government proposes to spend $3.7 billion over three years
from 1 July 2009 on revised employment assistance services.[183] This funding may
not, in fact, amount to an increase in spending by the government
on employment services for unemployed job seekers over the amount
that would otherwise have been spent on the Job Network
arrangements. Forward estimates for the Job Network in the 2007 08
Budget were $1.16 billion in 2006 07 and $1.21 billion in 2007
08.[184]
It is also not clear precisely to whom employment assistance
services are to be provided: are they to be made available to all
unemployed people or only to those who are in receipt of income
support?
Jobseeker streaming and the Job Seeker Classification
Instrument
Unemployed jobseekers are to be streamed into four different
pathways based on their assessed level of disadvantage. Stream one
is to be reserved for those jobseekers who are the most job ready
and thus in a position to be assisted with job search skills, the
preparation of a resume, skills assessment and training. The other
three streams are to be employed for those jobseekers whose pathway
to employment will be protracted as a result of their need for
assistance in overcoming personal and vocational barriers before
moving into employment.
The streaming decisions are to be made using the current, but
revised, Job Seeker Classification Instrument (JSCI) and, where
necessary, a Job Capacity Assessment (JCA). The JSCI is currently
used for streaming new entrants into the Job Network. It is mainly
used to identify the most disadvantaged of new job seekers, who are
to be provided with Intensive Assistance immediately. Other job
seekers usually have to spend three or six months on income support
before gaining access to Intensive Assistance.
The JSCI is essentially a computer-driven assessment tool, which
compiles a picture of the job seeker based on their responses to
questions about their work and education history and attainments.
The JSCI has been criticised in the past for its being too blunt an
instrument for effective screening. A review of the JSCI s
effectiveness, appropriateness and efficiency is currently being
undertaken.[185]
A review of JCA processes is also underway.[186]
Accurate streaming will be vital if the new model is to prove
successful. If jobseekers are directed to an inappropriate stream,
then this could be wasteful not only in terms of time and potential
job opportunities lost, but also in terms of training and other
assistance not provided. While there is a certain amount of
flexibility where it comes to movement between streams (unlike the
rigid continuum of present arrangements), this movement is still
determined by individual need as measured by the JSCI or, where
appropriate, JCA.[187] Thus, much will depend on the quality of these
assessment tools.
Compliance
Under the proposed new model, the jobseeker compliance
requirements are largely the same as the requirements that were
instituted under the Welfare to Work arrangements from 1 July 2006.
Non-payment periods will apply for the number of days of
non-compliance; and the sanction of an eight-week non-payment
period applies in the case of a third instance of job seeker
non-compliance. There is a slight watering down of this sanction
under the proposed new arrangements; it is to be applied on a
discretionary basis by employment service providers in instances of
wilful non-compliance. There will also be the option for jobseekers
to not have an eight week non-payment period applied where they are
undertaking intensive activities. Needless to say, all job seekers
are likely to take this option.
Employment Pathway Plans
Under the proposed new model, all job seekers are required to
work with their employment services provider on the development of
an Employment Pathway Plan (EPP). This plan is similar to the
Preparing for Work Agreement that is used under current Job Network
arrangements. Employment service providers will need to be
sufficiently resourced for the preparation of these plans in order
for them to prove effective in identifying and meeting the needs of
job seekers.
Training places
An additional 238 000 training places are to be made available
under the proposed new model, at a cost of over $880 million over
five years. This is a welcome initiative, as it is generally
acknowledged that the Job Network, as it stands, fails to provide
sufficient support for job seeker training. That the additional
training places are to focus on areas of skills shortage is also a
positive innovation, as this both increases the likelihood that
quality, sustainable employment outcomes will be secured for job
seekers and ensures that tax payers dollars are well spent.
However, it should be noted that if the training places are to
succeed in realising these objectives they will not only need to
address the needs of employers, but also need to be clearly linked
with jobs. Support may also need to be provided for disadvantaged
job seekers who are placed in these positions.
Performance management
The proposed establishment by the Department of Education,
Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) of an external reference
group to assist in the development of a robust performance
management system for the new model of employment assistance is
essential, especially given the changed emphasis of the new model.
It is to be hoped that external involvement in assessment of the
new model s performance will be extended in the future through
making publicly available, in a timely fashion, the maximum amount
of performance data. At present, external assessments of the Job
Network are seriously limited, partly as a result of the
commercial-in-confidence provisions that apply to Job Network
provider operations.
Employment Pathway fund
The government s decision to replace the Job Seeker Account
(JSA) with a more flexible and accessible Employment Pathway fund
is a welcome revision. That the fund will be available for use for
the most disadvantaged of job seekers including those on the
Personal Support Program (PSP) waiting list who were previously
quarantined from mainstream services is a particularly constructive
change. The revised fund has the potential to encourage employment
service providers to invest in disadvantaged job seekers in a way
that has not been encouraged under existing Job Network
arrangements.
Innovation fund
The Innovation Fund is a similarly positive change. This fund
should enable employment service providers the scope to develop in
cooperation with other services, both public and private, original
enterprises that provide support and training for significantly
disadvantaged job seekers. The Brotherhood of St Laurence has
recently had some success with such projects.[188] While the fund itself is
certainly a step in the right direction, it should be noted that
$41 million over three years is not a significant amount of
funding. The same could be said of the proposed employment
brokerage program which seeks to develop job seekers skills in the
areas of greatest workforce need and the $6 million allocated for
this plan.
Administration and red tape
Generally speaking, the proposed
model s focus on reducing red tape and the administrative demands
placed on employment service providers, freeing them up to focus on
meeting the needs of job seekers and employers, will be welcomed.
The proposal to combine the contracts for major employment programs
should save a significant amount of time and resources. While it
remains to be seen whether or not red tape will reappear in other
areas under the new model s arrangements, it should be noted that
it is better that where additional requirements are placed upon
employment service providers this should be in areas that really
count, such as the assessment of job seekers for streaming
purposes.
Summary
On the face of it, and in the
absence of further detail, the proposed new model of employment
assistance represents a significant improvement over current
arrangements and is necessary to meet the changed needs. The new
model should provide substantially more flexibility and options for
employment service providers. It should also encourage the
investment of significantly more time and resources in
disadvantaged job seekers. Much of the success or otherwise of
Australia s future employment services will depend on the skills of
providers, their knowledge of local employment markets and whether
the proposed new measures are sufficiently well-resourced.
John Gardiner-
Garden
Social Policy Section
There is a new rhetoric in the area of Indigenous affairs. Key
words are New Partnership and Closing the Gap . These terms were
used in the communiqu from
the Council of Australian Government s meeting on 20 December
2007, where there was a commitment to:
- clarifying the roles and responsibilities of different levels
of governments
- closing the life expectancy gap within a generation
- halving the gap in mortality rates for Indigenous children
under five within a decade, and
- halving the gap in reading, writing and numeracy achievements
within a decade.[189]
The words were used again in Prime Minister Rudd
s National
Apology speech on 13 February 2008:
Our challenge for the future is to embrace a
new partnership between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
The core of this partnership for the future is closing the gap
between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians on life
expectancy, educational achievement and employment
opportunities.[190]
They were used again in the
Closing the Gaps, Indigenous Health Equality Summit, Statement
of Intent which the Commwealth signed on 20 March 2008,
and they have been used throughout the government s Indigenous
affairs related 2008 Budget statements and media releases.[191]
The language used is different from that of the previous
government and the present government has broken with the previous
government on such matters as an apology, narrowing of the Northern
Territory permit system and ending all remote Northern Territory
Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP). Despite this, the
programs and level of funding supported in the recent budget are
not very different from those of the previous government. Indeed,
for each of the last few years each of the Budget Portfolio
Statements (PBS) has included, unless not relevant, Australian
Government Indigenous Expenditure (AGIE). The total of the 2007
Budget PBS AGIE figures for 2007 08 (that is, before the Northern
Territory Intervention) was $3.2 billion. The total of the 2008
Budget PBS AGIE figures for 2007 08 (that is, post both the Howard
Government s Northern Territory Intervention commitments and the
Rudd Government s post-election but pre-budget commitments) is
$3.85 billion. The total of the 2008 Budget PBS AGIE figures for
2008 09 is $3.86 billion.
It is also the case that this Budget continues the previous
government s focus on improving the situation in the Northern
Territory a focus some argue is inappropriate when the needs in
Aboriginal Australia are so widespread. The degree to which the
present Budget s commitments might be judged as appropriate to a
new partnership and closing the gap may be judged in the context of
the nationwide shortfall in the area of Indigenous housing having
been estimated as $3.5 billion and in health as between $350 and
$500 million per annum.[192]
The government has totalled its new and redirected funding
following the 2007 election as $580 million and indigenous relevant
2008 09 Budget Measures as $425.3 million giving a total of $1.2
billion with the period covered by individual commitments varying
from one to five years. A full break down with forward estimates
can be found in the Whole
of Government section of Budget Paper No.2, and in the
2008 2009
Indigenous Budget at a Glance.[193] The commitments included the
following: [194]
With respect the Northern Territory (NT) a
total of $666.1 million, consisting of:
$168
million for employment and pre-employment services including $75.4
million over two years to
enhance employment services such as those offered to people
previously on Remote Area Exemptions and those offered by Community
Employment Brokers and $5.8 million to
enhance Centrelink Agent services
With respect to Australia as a
whole a total of $554 million, consisting of:
- $160 million over five years for the Land and Sea Country
Indigenous Partnership includes $90 million to train and employ 300
additional
Indigenous rangers, $50 million to support the management of
the
Indigenous Protected Areas and $10 million to support
indigenous land manager s engagement with
emissions trading markets
- $56 million over four years for an
expansion of literacy and numeracy programs
- $122.7 million to improve specific health services including
$90.3 million over five years for
child and maternal health services[198]
- $49.3 million to expand Indigenous drug and alcohol serviced
including $9.5 for
youth alcohol diversionary activities
- $33.5 million to address drivers of chronic disease and build a
stronger Indigenous health workforce including $19 million over
three years to a National Indigenous Health Workforce Training Plan
to encourage and support more Indigenous people taking up careers
as health professionals
- $10 million over three years for travelling
indigenous mother s accommodation
- $15.7 million for Bringing them Home counsellors and Link Up
service
- $16.6 million over four years for additional early childhood
and parenting services. These will be offered in child care centres
and play group settings and involve assisting families in meeting
the health, education and nurturing needs of young children
- $41.6 million for Cape York Welfare Reform Trial
- $29 million for additional infrastructure in the Anangu
Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara lands and the Kimberley
- $7.6 million for the National Arts and Craft Industry Support
Programme, which directs funding to Indigenous Arts Centres and
advocacy organisations
- $5.5 million for additional funding for native title
claims
- $6.1 million to continue the
Australian Public Services Indigenous Employment Strategy.
The new government appears to not have had enough time to
promise more than discussions with stakeholders on such matters as
how to form a new national indigenous representative body, how to
accommodate the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the
Indigenous People, how to frame a new Indigenous Economic
Development Strategy, how to reform the CDEP and where to go later
this year (after the promised 12 month review) with the Northern
Territory Emergency Intervention.
The Immigration Program
Adrienne
Millbank
Social Policy Section
The immigration program is an ongoing program, and it is
normally announced prior to the Budget. For the first time, the
announcement of the annual program numbers has occurred within the
context of the release of the Budget. The clearly stated objective
of the 2008 09 permanent immigration program is to help ease
Australia s skills shortage and help fight inflation .[199] Reflecting this
priority concern of the Rudd Government, the immigration
(non-humanitarian) program is the largest ever, with the largest
skilled component. The planning level is for 190 300 places
133 500 skilled (independent and employer-sponsored) and
56 500 family reunion. The humanitarian program has been set
at 13 500 places. The 2007 08 program was set at up to
158 800 places 108 500 skilled and 50 000 family.
The 2007 08 humanitarian program was set at 13 000 places.
For the first time the impact of the migration program on the
Budget direct costs and benefits is being reported.[200] Because the program
is currently heavily balanced in favour of skilled migration it has
a positive impact: taxes paid by migrants outweigh the costs of
settlement services, welfare, health care and education. The
Minister s budget press release advises that the increase of
31 000 skilled, 6500 family and 500 refugee places in 2008 09
will, over four 4 years, cost an additional $1.4 billion and bring
in revenues of $2.9 billion, resulting in a net benefit to the
Commonwealth of $1.9 billion, and extra GST payments to the states
and territories of $1 billion.[201]
These estimates appear to be based on as yet unpublished
research conducted by the consultancy firm Access Economics. Access
Economics was commissioned by the Howard Government to examine the
impact of the migration program on the Federal Budget, following
the government s success after 1996 in reorienting the program
towards skills, and thus its economic and labour market
objectives.[202]
The 1995 96 migration (non-humanitarian) program outcome comprised
24 100 skilled stream migrants compared with 56 700
family stream migrants. The 1995 96 humanitarian program comprised
16 250 refugee, humanitarian and special assistance category
migrants.
Issues:
- Rising levels of temporary migrant workers are foreseen. There
are currently around 500 000 temporary entrants with work
rights in Australia (mainly 457 visa holders, students and working
holiday-makers).
- House prices are a key driver of inflation. Large increases in
migrant numbers will add to housing demand pressures.
- While there are sufficient skilled applicants in the pipeline
for 2008 09, it is not clear whether a permanent skilled migration
target in the order of 133 500 places will be achievable in
future years. There is increasing international competition for
skilled migrants.
- A recent study has found only a minority of recently arrived
skilled migrants from non-English speaking countries, especially
from the rapidly growing overseas student component, are finding
employment consistent with their professional qualifications,
because of their inadequate English skills.[203]
- The Minister has indicated that low-skilled and unskilled entry
is being considered for future years.[204] Large-scale intakes of non-English
speaking, low-skilled migrants poses risks for social cohesion,
especially should levels of unemployment rise.
Other immigration measures in the Budget include giving effect
to the ALP s election commitments to extend the Adult Migrant
English Program (AMEP) and to end the Coalition Government s
Temporary Protection Visa (TPV) regime.
Harriet
Spinks
Social Policy Section
The Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP) provides basic English
language tuition to eligible adult migrants and humanitarian
entrants to assist them to settle in Australia. The 2008 09 Budget
commits $49.2 million for the extension and enhancement of the
AMEP.[205] This
appears intended to address the concern expressed by the Australian
Labor Party in 2007 that many new arrivals were completing the
course without achieving an adequate level of English and that the
program was not meeting clients needs.[206]
Funding for the AMEP has increased steadily in recent years, and
concerns that it is under funded, and that tuition entitlements are
not meeting clients needs, are not borne out by research into the
program s performance. An Australian National Audit Office (ANAO)
audit report found in 2001 that the primary issue of concern within
the AMEP has not been that of unmet demand by the client target
group, it has rather been that of encouraging eligible clients to
take up and complete their tuition entitlement.[207] Client satisfaction surveys
commissioned by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship
(DIAC) indicate a high level of satisfaction amongst AMEP clients.
Yet evidence presented by DIAC to a Supplementary Budget Estimates
hearing in October 2006 indicated that few clients complete the
hours of tuition for which they are eligible. This was not,
however, because the program does not meet their needs reasons
included gaining employment, family commitments, and moving,
through Job Network, to other Commonwealth funded English language
programs, such as the Language Literacy and Numeracy program
managed by the Department of Education, Science and Training.
The new funding comprises $40 million for an Employment Pathways
Program and $9.2 million for Traineeships in English and Work
Readiness. The detail of these programs is not made clear in the
Budget announcement. What does seem clear, however, is that the
programs represent a move towards using the AMEP as a pathway to
employment for new arrivals, rather than simply an on-arrival
settlement program aimed at assisting migrants and humanitarian
entrants to settle into Australian society more generally.
Temporary Protection Visas
Adrienne
Millbank
Social Policy Section
The government is providing $4.2 million over five years to make
legal and administrative changes and cover extra Centrelink and
settlement services costs involved in abolishing Temporary
Protection Visas (TPVs). The Minister s press release describes the
TPV regime as one of the worst aspects of the Howard Government s
punitive treatment of refugees .[208]
Under the TPV regime unauthorised entrants, mainly boat people,
who were determined to be refugees under the terms of the 1951 UN
Refugee Convention, were, as a disincentive, only given temporary
visas. Neither permanent residence nor special services are
required under the terms of the 1951 Refugee Convention. These TPV
holders were not able to sponsor family members into Australia, and
did not have access to the special settlement services available
for permanent humanitarian migrants, including free English
language tuition and assisted accommodation.
There are currently about 1000 TPV holders in Australia, down
from over 9000 in 2002 03. There have been few boat arrivals since
2001, and the former government was progressively granting
permanent visas, after reassessing protection claims. TPV holders
were also able to apply for any other sort of resident visa. The
measure will grant all TPV holders, provided they meet security and
character requirements, permanent protection visas without the need
to have further claims assessed. Australia s direction on this
issue would appear not to be in tune with policies in other
comparable countries. In the UK, for example, all asylum seekers
determined to need protection are initially accorded only five-year
resident visas.
Issue:
- The Opposition s spokesman has expressed concern that providing
refugees with permanent visas, regardless of their mode of arrival,
will send a clear message to people smugglers that Australia s
borders are open for business .[209]
Dr Rhonda
Jolly
Social Policy Section
Cyber Safety
Recognition of the power and reach
of the Internet and its largely unregulated nature have
increasingly concerned governments across the world. In particular,
attention has focused on the protection of children from internet
predators and material that is obscene or portrays excessive
violence and/or racial vilification. In late 2007, in an attempt to
deal with this situation, the previous government announced the
introduction of an internet filtering scheme which initially was
primarily to rely on free internet software filters to block
unwanted material for individual computers.
During the election campaign, Labor
argued that the Howard Government s plans would not provide
adequate cyber safety for children.[210] While it acknowledged the merit of
protecting children, it argued that the personal computer filtering
program was ineffective and that existing blacklisting of sites was
inadequate. It promised therefore to improve internet filtering by
introducing filtering by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) who
would be required to filter out prohibited content identified by
the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).
The government s Cyber-safety Plan provides $125.8 million over
four years to deliver on this election commitment. Funding for the
plan has been provided from savings of $160 million gained from the
government s cancellation of the previous government s internet
safety initiative.
The Cyber-safety Plan involves a number of aspects, including
instituting an education program and specific research projects
relating to cyber safety and the establishment of a dedicated
website for children. An existing consultative group will be
expanded to provide advice to the government on cyber safety issues
and a new group will be set up to assist the government to
formulate age-appropriate measures to protect children.[211] Following the
Budget, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital
Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, announced the new composition of
this consultative group.[212]
Indicative of the government s commitment to cyber safety and in
keeping with its comments during the election that this issue
transcends party politics, the government also intends to set up a
Joint Parliamentary Standing Committee to investigate and report on
cyber safety.[213]
The measure will also provide funding for ACMA to develop a
comprehensive blacklist of inappropriate sites. Funding will be
provided under the measure to the Australian Federal Police and to
the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the
investigation and prosecution of incidents of child sexual
exploitation.
A significant amount of the funding under this measure has been
allocated in 2009‑10 to ISPs, who will receive a one-off
subsidy towards the costs of installing ISP level filters.[214]
This budget measure will be welcomed by groups such as
Childwise, whose Chief Executive Officer in January 2008 called on
all Australians to support the government s mandatory ISP filtering
initiative noting that:
It may not be a perfect system but at least it
will block access to thousands of child pornographic sites, reduce
the demand and protect many hundreds of thousands of children from
being exploited in [the] insidious global child sex trade.[215]
The imperfection point needs to be stressed continually to
parents, but to date the various cyber safety schemes mostly
highlight their possible benefits and not their shortcomings.
Whatever the system adopted to filter the Net, whatever the
composition or extent of blacklists of unacceptable sites, it is
highly unlikely that they will be exhaustive, given the
ever-evolving and changing nature of the Net.
Labor s election proposal to address cyber safety also attracted
criticism. Prior to the Budget it was argued that it would be
ineffective in blocking content and that it would be likely to
increase costs and to slow broadband speeds.[216] This comment has resurfaced
with the announcement of this budget measure. The Electronic
Frontiers Australia (EFA) lobby group arguing from this
perspective, has commented that in a time when the government is
cutting some services to fight inflation, it is bewildering that
millions of dollars have been committed to this program before
feasibility trials have reached a conclusion on the effectiveness
of the proposed plan.[217]
While there is clear support for policy that attempts to keep
the Internet safe for children, the questions raised by critics of
this particular policy should not be overlooked by the government
in refining the measure. One of the most important of these is
emphasised by one commentator who notes that a disturbing
implication of ISP filtering is that it creates the potential for
governments and security agencies to add to website blacklists
without public discussion or comment .[218] This measure has been on the
government s agenda for some time, yet there has been no attempt to
provide details of how a blacklist will be compiled, its extent or
whether the list can be challenged. Making this information public
as a priority, as the government has in other instances, may
possibly have allayed some concerns about the measure.
Perceptions are that censorship of this type can only occur in
repressive regimes, but it nevertheless remains that this measure
should be subject to scrutiny in its development to ensure that the
right balance of freedom of access and protective restriction is
achieved.
Transition to digital radio and television
Like most developed nations Australia has begun the process of
converting television and radio broadcasting from analogue service
to digital. Both digital television and radio will deliver
substantial benefits for consumers, which include better quality
sound and pictures, interactive features and greater listening and
viewing choices. The conversion will also free up valuable spectrum
resources.
Progress towards digital conversion has been made since the
early 1990s. Digital television services have been transmitting
since 2001 and digital radio trials have been conducted since 2003.
In 2006 the previous government introduced a formal plan for a
final switchover from analogue services to digital for
television.
The government rejected much of this plan and resolved to
abolish Digital Australia, the organisation set up to assist in the
digital transition process. In March 2008 it announced its own
million digital transition strategy to complete the switchover to
digital-only broadcasting by December 2013.
This budget measure provides $37.9
million funding for the switchover strategy. A government Digital
Television Switchover Taskforce funded under the measure will
coordinate and oversee the transition from analogue to digital
television. The Taskforce is to work with stakeholders, including
the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) which is
to undertake technical projects and assessment of transmission and
reception throughout Australia. It will also cooperate with an
Industry Advisory Group set up to develop a detailed switchover
timetable and reliable information for consumers about the purchase
of digital equipment. A Digital Tracker will be implemented in 2008
09 to assess public perceptions of the digital transition,
including public awareness and intention by households to convert
and actual conversion rates.
Some critics have harshly labelled parts of this measure as
shifting deck chairs on the Titanic. The new Digital Television
Switchover Taskforce, for example, is seen as simply a name change
for the previous government s Digital Australia.[219] Similarly, critics have
concluded that the funding allocated to this measure will not be
sufficient to ensure a smooth transition to digital. One makes the
point that:
[United Kingdom] taxpayers are in the process
of spending $2 billion to assist the conversion of television from
analogue to digital in the end the Government will just have to
fork out to buy some people a free TV because they can t afford it,
and their sets will go black just as the fireworks are starting on
New Year s Eve 2013, which would be a serious bummer. And as the
date looms there will have to be a lot more money spent on
advertising the switch-over than is currently being budgeted.
Industry sources suggest the total cost will be more like $200
million than $37.9 million.[220]
In contrast to the digital television funding measure, the
government expects that funding savings will be achieved under its
digital radio measure. These will be achieved by amending the
Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the BSA) to extend the
legislated timetable which requires commercial broadcasters to
commence digital radio broadcasting on 1 January 2009. An extension
will be sought for a six-month period. This amendment is not
intended to prevent commercial, community or national broadcasters
from commencing digital radio earlier, subject to necessary
regulatory approvals being in place.
Some commentators have suggested, however, that this seemingly
uncomplicated move to extend the introduction of digital radio may
prompt broadcasters to lobby for more changes to the BSA than is
anticipated in this measure. Community radio may, for example, seek
changes which will allow it to own digital radio
infrastructure.
Despite such comments and concerns that the funding allocated
for digital conversion will need to be supplemented in a number of
budgets to come, these measures largely represent a positive step
towards full digital implementation.
John Gardiner-
Garden
Social Policy Section
The 2008 Budget included large commitments in three different
areas of the arts.
The first area of major commitment is film. In February and
March 2008 the Government followed up on its election commitment to
give the National Film and Sound Archive its own statutory base, by
introducing and passing the National Film and Sound Archive Bill
2008.[221] At the
same time it followed up on the previous government s commitment to
amalgamate the Australian Film Commission, the Film Finance
Corporation and the Film Australia Commission and introduce a new
film financing arrangement, by introducing and passing the Screen
Australia Bill 2008.[222]
In this Budget it was announced that the National Film and Sound
Archive will receive $105.2 million over four years, including
$25.2 million in 2008 09. Screen Australia is to start operating
from July 1 and will receive almost $103 million in 2008 09. The
total funding is less than the total amount provided for the bodies
that are being amalgamated in the 2007 08 Budget. However, the
legislation has introduced a new 40 per cent producer rebate for
qualifying productions which might make the industry a little less
reliant on direct funding. Peter Garrett, the Minister for
Environment, Heritage and the Arts, declared that the commitments
will provide the screen industry with certainty and confidence and
are a critical step in ensuring a sustainable and successful local
industry .[223]
The second area is that of resale royalty rights for Australia s
visual artists. The introduction of a scheme to realise such rights
has been called for by many reports, been sketched out in two
Private Members Bills introduced by Federal Labor MPs (Kate Lundy
in 2003 and Bob McMullan in 2005) and has been part of recent ALP
policy .[224] The
Access Economics report,
Evaluating the Impact of an Australian Resale Royalty on Eligible
Visual Artists, October 2004, did not, however, express full
confidence that a scheme would actually deliver the increase in the
visual artists net income.[225] Minister Garrett announced that the scheme will
bring Australia into line with similar resale royalty arrangements
operating in the United Kingdom and Europe , but the Access
Economics report had found some of these arrangements are
unnecessarily complex and not always benefiting those
intended.[226]
The Minister promised, however, that the scheme would reflect the
particular characteristics of the Australian art market and
maximise the benefits to artists . He anticipated that an open
tender process would be conducted in the second half of 2008 to
select an organisation to set up the collecting agency.[227]
The third major area of new commitments was that of increasing
youth participation in the arts. To this end, over the next four
years, the Australia Council will receive $6.6 million to increase
opportunities for young and emerging artists, and $5.2 million to
fund professional artists residencies in schools and universities.
The Minister has said that these measures would expand the
opportunities for young people to experience the arts and create
new opportunities for the next generation of artists .[228] The money follows,
however, a period in which the Australia Council was obliged to
make $2.0 million in operational savings to satisfy a 2 per cent
efficiency dividend. The Budget, moreover, did not support the more
robust strengthening of arts education in schools which had been
called for in the November 2005 report of the
National Review of School Music Education[229], in the August 2006
workshop convened following that report, in the ALP s
2004 and 2007 election policy documents, and in the Towards a
Creative Australia sessions at the recent the 2020 Summit.
The above sum of just over $1 million a year for the artist in
residencies program does not compare favourably with the 332
million committed in November last year by the U.K. government to
support a national commitment to better music education in schools.
The latter included money for free music tuition for every primary
school child for at least a year, children s choirs, orchestras and
other ensembles, banks of new musical instruments, a programme to
put singing back into the classroom, projects to involve children
in deprived areas in music (based on highly successful Venezuelan
project, El Sistema) and for extending the partnership work that
has made the Music Manifesto initiative a success.[230]
Beyond the above three major areas of
announcement, the 2008 Budget also provided for the following:
- $7.6 million (already announced in February) over four years to
support the already existing National Arts and Crafts Industry
Support Program through which funding is directed to Indigenous art
centres and advocacy organisations
- $11.8 million over four years for the Regional Arts Fund
Program to support sustainable cultural development in regional and
remote Australia. This represented a slight fall on previous year s
commitments, but the Budget also committed $10 million over four
years for a not unrelated program to be called
Creative Communities[231] promised during the 2007 Election as a response to the
Australia Council's
Community Partnerships Scoping Study Report 2006[232].
- $2.4 million over four years to support contemporary Australian
music though the
Australian Music Radio Airplay Project (AMRAP) a program which
commenced operation in 2000 with $1.5 million in federal funding
provided to the Community Broadcasting Foundation.[233]
The 2008 Budget offered no support for improved access for
artists to social security (the so-called ArtStart program) which
Peter Garrett as Shadow Minister for the Arts flagged in a paper
entitled
New Directions for the Arts in September 2007 and which was
part of the Australian Labor Party s 2007 election policy.[234] The promise was to
harmonise Australia Council, Centrelink and the Australian Tax
Office rules and determine the most equitable way to treat earnings
and royalty payments for artists currently receiving welfare.
It is also noteworthy that collecting agencies such as the
National Library and National Museum received effective funding
cuts. The National Library s budgeted income for 2008 09 ($71.3
million) is only $1.3 million more than estimated actual income for
2007 08 because detracting from a projected (mostly interest)
revenue increase of $2 million, is a $0.6 million efficiency
dividend. Similarly, the National Museum of Australia s budgeted
income for 2008 09 of $45.6 million is $1.6 million less than the
estimated actual of $47.2 million for 2007 08. This is not only
because of some one-off funding received during 2007 08, but also
because the efficiency dividend, in the absence of any funding
increase, will reduce revenue from the government by $0.5m.
Dr Rhonda
Jolly
Social Policy Section
Prior to the Budget, the government withdrew $25 million funding
support to the Australian Rugby Union for redevelopment of
Ballymore Oval and $10 million in funding support for Rugby League
s centenary celebrations.[235]
The Budget also rescinded a number of other proposed sporting
measures including the Fishing Hall of Fame and the establishment
of a National Training Centre for Aerial Skiing. It has reduced
funding for an advertising and information campaign on illicit
drugs in sport considering that this has been addressed through
existing drug campaigns.
There is, however, a considerable amount of funding for sporting
programs and infrastructure in this Budget.
A balance appears to have been struck between funding for elite
sports, sporting events and promoting grass roots participation.
Funding has been provided, for example, for the upgrade of a number
of sporting venues such as the Campbelltown Sports Stadium ($8
million over two years) and the Penrith Valley Sports Hub ($5
million in 2008 09). While these venues are used for elite sporting
competition, as the government notes, improvements to these grounds
will also facilitate greater use by community and other sporting
groups.
The government has also provided $20.8 million to a diverse
range of smaller community sports projects. It notes that providing
this budget funding delivers on a number of election commitments
and the development of accessible community facilities is part of
its strategy to increase participation in sport.
A local sporting champions measure will receive $6.4 million
over four years. This measure will provide grants to junior
athletes to participate in sporting events that require them to
travel more than 250 kilometres to compete. The program is intended
particularly to assist young people from rural and remote areas
participate.
Funding of $16 million over two years will be provided to the
Football Federation of Australia for a number of purposes such as
support to establish a football facilities fund to deliver grants
to local football clubs and to provide support for coaching and
other referee programs. It is interesting to contrast this with
Netball Australia which will only receive $2.4 million over three
years. This funding is intended to assist in the establishment of a
new national netball league, an Indigenous netball strategy and a
junior participation program. Both netball and football (soccer)
are amongst Australia s most popular sports, so it could be argued
that such budget incongruities perhaps reflect the lobbying
abilities of the sports promoters and not the actual needs of the
particular sports.[236]
Two specific measures have been funded to assist participation
in sports by people with a disability. The Australian Paralympic
Committee will receive $22.8 million over five years and Special
Olympics Australia has been given $1.2 million over four years.
Funding of $2.3 million over four years has been provided to assist
RecLink to expand sport and cultural programs for homeless people
and people suffering from drug and alcohol abuse and mental
illness.
The government has provided extra funding ($7.6 million over
five years) to the Australian Sports Commission (AIS) so that,
unlike other agencies which will be affected by a two per cent
efficiency dividend imposed in the Budget, the AIS will continue a
similar level of grants funding to various sporting
organisations.[237]
The government will contribute to the staging of international
events with contributions of $8.5 million towards the World Masters
Games in Sydney in 2009 and $8.6 million to assist Western
Australia to stage the 2011 World Sailing Championships.
Another interesting incongruity is that while funding for some
elite sports has been rejected, other sports have been well served
by the Budget. Funding was cut for a Rugby League Hall of Fame in
the League s centenary year, yet $6.5 million was provided to
expand cricket s Bradman Museum. Funding for the development of
Ballymore Oval was also cut, but $17.5 million was provided for the
redevelopment of the Cricket Australia Centre of Excellence in
Brisbane.
An amount of funding ($4.4 million) will be provided to the
Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority in 2008 09 for education
programs and its drug testing regime. This will facilitate
compliance with the World Anti Doping Code. The government has
announced that funding for these purposes will be reassessed
following a review of cost recovery by the anti-doping
authority.
There has been little comment on the Budget sports measures,
probably because significant cuts had been previously announced.
Another reason that sport funding in the Budget most probably does
not elicit much comment is that in general, Australians support
funding for both grass roots and elite sports. Yet another reason
may be that as funding arrangements for most sports are assessed
and administered by the AIS, funding of individual sports is to
some extent divorced from the Budget process if funding for that
sport s national body is seen to be adequate. One commentator does,
however, argue that funding for sport could be provided by
corporate sponsors rather than government and that the savings
should then be transferred to other areas.[238] Such a view devalues the
contribution sport and physical activity make to the overall health
and well being of society; a reality which all governments in
Australia continue to acknowledge.[239]
[29]. Productivity
Commission, Cost recovery by Government agencies, Report
no.15, AusInfo, Canberra, 2001, p. 175.
[30]. Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Government
Cost Recovery Guidelines, Canberra, 2005, p. 5,
http://www.finance.gov.au/finframework/docs/Cost_Recovery_Guidelines.pdf,
accessed on 14 May 2008.
[86]. For more information see the
Investigating the Feasibility of Flexible Funding for Students
with Disability website,
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/programmes_funding/programme_categories/
special_needs_disadvantage/flexible_funding_students_with_disability.htm,
accessed on 15 May 2008.
[145].
Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (More Help for Families
Increased Payments) Act 2004,
http://www.fedlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/
0/D55B6ED42CDBFD5ECA25720A00253C1D/$file/
FamilyAssLegAmendMoreHelpFamOneoffPay2004.pdf , accessed on 21
May 2008.
[223] P. Garrett (Minister for the
Environment, Heritage and the Arts),
Securing the future for Australian screen industry, media
release, 13 May 2008,
http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/garrett/2008/pubs/budmr20080513g.pdf,
accessed on 15 May 2008.