Bills Digest no. 39, 2016–17
PDF version [835KB]
Michael Klapdor
Social Policy Section
18 November 2016
This Bills Digest updates an earlier
version dated 20 April 2016.
Contents
The Bills Digest at a glance
List of abbreviations
History of the Bill
Purpose of the Bill
Structure of the Bill and the Bills
Digest
Background
Early childhood education and care in
Australia
Approvals
Provider and service approvals
Approval for Child Care Benefit
Australian Government funding for early
childhood education and care
Table 1: Key components of Australian
Government child expenditure, budget estimates, $’000
Child Care Benefit
Income test and payment rates
Grandparent Child Care Benefit
Special Child Care Benefit
Child Care Rebate
Jobs, Education and Training Child
Care Fee Assistance
Funding for providers and quality
support
Jobs for Families Package
Revised Jobs for Families package
Table 2: Revised Child Care Subsidy
income test
Chart 1: Rate of Child Care Subsidy
by family income
Impact of the revised package
Table 3: Families expected to receive
a lower subsidy rate by income band, 2017–18
Table 4: ANU Centre for Social
Research and Methods modelling of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ from proposed Jobs for
Families policy—families
Committee consideration
Previous consideration
Senate Education and Employment
Committee
Senate Standing Committee for the
Scrutiny of Bills
Consideration of the 2016 Bill
Senate Education and Employment
Legislation Committee
Senate Standing Committee for the
Scrutiny of Bills
Policy position of non-government
parties/independents
Australian Labor Party
Australian Greens
Nick Xenophon Team
Position of major interest groups
Financial implications
Statement of Compatibility with Human
Rights
Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Human Rights
Key issues and provisions
Table 5: Key differences between the
2015 and 2016 versions of the Jobs for Families Package Child Care Bill
Concluding comments
Date introduced: 1
September 2016
House: House of
Representatives
Portfolio: Education
and Training
Commencement: Schedules
1 and 2 on 2 July 2018; Part 1 of Schedule 3 and Schedule 4 on the day
after Royal Assent; and Part 2 of Schedule 3 on 1 July 2017.
Links: The links to the Bill,
its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the
Bill’s home page, or through the Australian
Parliament website.
When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent,
they become Acts, which can be found at the Federal Register of Legislation
website.
All hyperlinks in this Bills Digest are correct as
at November 2016.
The Bills Digest at a glance
The Family Assistance Legislation
Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2016 (the Bill) provides
for the key legislative changes required to implement the Government’s Jobs for
Families child care reform package. The package was a key 2015–16 Budget
measure and is based on recommendations from the Productivity Commission’s
inquiry into childcare and early childhood learning. The package, when
announced, included an additional $3.5 billion in expenditure on child care
assistance over five years.
The Bill introduces:
- A new child care fee assistance payment, the Child Care Subsidy
(CCS), replacing two current payments: Child Care Benefit (CCB) and Child Care
Rebate (CCR).
- A new supplementary payment, the Additional Child Care Subsidy
(ACCS), which provides additional financial assistance for children at risk of
abuse or neglect, families experiencing temporary financial hardship, families
transitioning to work from income support, grandparent carers on income
support, and low income families in certain circumstances. The ACCS partly
replaces a number of current payments including Special Child Care Benefit,
Grandparent Child Care Benefit and the Jobs, Education and Training Child Care
Fee Assistance payment.
- An enhanced compliance framework.
The new payments are to commence from July 2018, while
aspects of the new compliance framework will be introduced from Royal Assent.
In 2014–15, the Australian and state and territory
governments spent close to $9 billion on early childhood education and care
(ECEC) with the main expenditure item being fee assistance payments provided to
parents using approved childcare services. In the September quarter of 2015,
there were 1,269,190 children and 859,380 families using approved care. The
Productivity Commission found that the current fee assistance system is
complex, creates work disincentives, is poorly targeted and was creating fiscal
pressure for government.
The new CCS payment provides a subsidy rate based on a
percentage of the actual fee or an hourly benchmark price (whichever is lower).
The benchmark price is different for each service type. The percentage covered
is determined by family income with a subsidy rate of 85 per cent of the
benchmark price or actual fee for families with incomes at or below $65,710 per
annum. This rate tapers by one percentage point for every $3,000 in income over
this threshold to 50 per cent for family incomes at $170,710. A flat subsidy
rate of 50 per cent applies for family incomes between $170,710 and $250,000
and then tapers for incomes over $250,000 until it reaches the base rate of 20
per cent of the benchmark price (for incomes at or above $340,000 per annum). Families
with incomes over $185,000 will have their CCS entitlement capped at $10,000
per child per year.
A three-part activity test determines the number of hours
that can be subsidised: 8–16 hours per fortnight of approved activities
provides up to 36 hours of CCS per fortnight; 17–48 hours provides up to 72 hours
of CCS; more than 49 hours of approved activities provides up to 100 hours of
CCS. For couple families, the partner with the lower number of hours of
activity determines the CCS entitlement. Approved activities include work,
training, study or certain other recognised activities such as volunteering, as
well as participation requirements for income support payments. Families with
incomes of up to $65,000, who do not meet the activity test, will be eligible
to receive up to 24 hours of CCS per fortnight under a separate program known
as the Child Care Safety Net.
The Child Care Safety Net will replace existing funding
programs for service providers and also includes the ACCS. The ACCS will
provide a top-up payment to the CCS for disadvantaged and vulnerable families.
The Government estimates that around 815,600 families will
receive a higher level of fee assistance under the changes compared to the
current funding model; around 140,500 families will receive around the same
level of assistance and around 183,900 families will receive a lower level of
assistance. Alternative modelling by the ANU’s Centre for Social Research and
Methods estimated 582,000 families will be better off, around 330,000 families
will be worse off and 126,000 families will receive around the same level of
subsidy.
Providers, academics and interest groups are concerned
that the activity test is too complex and will exclude many children from ECEC.
There are also concerns at the new administrative requirements for providing
assistance to children at risk of abuse and neglect. The design of the CCS
payment may also lead to a decline in the real value of assistance provided to
families over time, and significant child care fee increases will need to be
borne by families without additional assistance from government.
List of abbreviations
Abbreviation |
Definition |
ABS |
Australian Bureau of Statistics |
ACA |
Australian Childcare Alliance |
ACCS |
Additional Child Care Subsidy |
ACECQA |
Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority |
ANU |
Australian National University |
CCB |
Child Care Benefit |
CCR |
Child Care Rebate |
CCS |
Child Care Subsidy |
CPI |
Consumer Price Index |
ECA |
Early Childhood Australia |
ECEC |
Early childhood education and care |
FA Act |
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 |
FA Admin Act |
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration)
Act 1999 |
FDC |
Family day care |
GST |
Goods and Services Tax |
IHC |
In-home care |
JETCCFA |
Jobs, Education and Training Child Care Fee Assistance |
LDC |
Long day care |
National Law |
Education and Care Services National Law |
National Regulations |
Education and Care Services National Regulations |
NQF |
National Quality Framework |
OSHC |
Outside school-hours care |
PC |
Productivity Commission |
SCCB |
Special Child Care Benefit |
History of
the Bill
A version of this Bill was introduced into the 44th
Parliament on 2 December 2015.[1]
The previous Bill was not debated following its introduction in the House of
Representatives and lapsed at prorogation on 15 April 2016. While the main
provisions in the new Bill are the same as the previous version, a number of
notable changes have been made. These are discussed below.
In the 2016–17 Budget the Government announced that it
would delay the commencement of the measures by a year: from July 2017 until
July 2018.[2]
The reason given for the delay was the Senate not passing savings from the
Family Tax Benefit program that the Government has linked to funding for the
Jobs for Families Child Care Package.[3]
These savings measures have being reintroduced in the Social Services Legislation
Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill
2016.[4]
Purpose of
the Bill
The purpose of the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment
(Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2016 (the Bill) is to amend the A
New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (the FA Act),[5]
the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (the FA
Admin Act),[6]
the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999,[7]
the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Act 2013,[8]
the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986[9]
and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997[10],
to introduce the following elements of the Government’s Jobs for Families child
care package:
- a
new child care fee assistance payment, the Child Care Subsidy (CCS), replacing
two current payments: Child Care Benefit (CCB) and Child Care Rebate (CCR)
- a
new supplementary payment, the Additional Child Care Subsidy (ACCS), which
provides additional financial assistance for children at risk of abuse or
neglect, families experiencing temporary financial hardship, families
transitioning to work from income support, grandparent carers on income
support, and low income families in certain circumstances. The ACCS partly
replaces a number of current payments including Special Child Care Benefit,
Grandparent Child Care Benefit and the Jobs, Education and Training Child Care
Fee Assistance payment
- an
enhanced compliance framework.
The new payments are to commence from July 2018, while some
aspects of the new compliance framework will be introduced from Royal Assent.
Structure of the Bill and the Bills Digest
The Bill comprises four Schedules:
- Schedule
1 provides for the main amendments to family assistance law to provide for the
introduction of the CCS and ACCS to replace the current system of child care
fee assistance payments
- Schedule
2 makes consequential amendments to a number of pieces of legislation,
primarily tax law, to reflect the new child care payment system and terminology
around types of care
- Schedule
3 makes amendments to: allow determinations made by the Minister in relation to
immunisation requirements to incorporate matters set out in other written
instruments; provide for the Goods and Services Tax (GST) treatment of certain
child care services (allowing for the Minister for Education and Training to
determine that certain kinds of child care are GST-free); and provide for the
approval of child care services under family assistance law during the
transition period to the new child care payment system, and for the cessation
of enrolment advances
- Schedule
4 provides for application, transitional and savings provisions relating to the
transition from the current child care payment system to the new system. The
Schedule includes a provision giving broad powers to the Minister for Education
and Training to make rules, including the power to modify principal
legislation, ostensibly to ensure a smooth transition to the new child care
payment system.
The Bills Digest for the previous Bill provided background
to the Jobs for Families Package (including an overview of child care in
Australia) and a detailed analysis of the main provisions.[11]
This Bills Digest will describe the key differences
between the two Bills, provide details of any committee inquiries and reports,
provide updated information on the views of non-government parties or members,
and any new comments from key stakeholders. This Bills Digest will also provide
a brief description of the key changes but the previous Bills Digest should be
referred to for more detailed discussion of the relevant issues.
Background
For full background on the child care system in Australia
and Australian Government funding for child care, see the Background section of
the Bills Digest for the previous Bill.[12]
Early
childhood education and care in Australia
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) estimates that
there were 3.8 million children aged 0–12 in Australia as at June 2014.[13]
Almost half (1.8 million) received some form of child care. Nearly a quarter
(919,400) attended formal care and 1.3 million attended informal care—such as
care by grandparents or other relatives.[14]
Around 327,800 children usually attended both formal and informal child care.
Formal care is care provided by the early childhood education and care (ECEC)
sector and includes:
- long
day care (LDC)—a centre based form of ECEC catering for children aged zero to
six years
- family
day care (FDC)—a flexible form of ECEC (all-day, part-time, casual, overnight,
before/after school and school holiday care) provided in the home of carers
(referred to within the sector as educators)
- in-home
care (IHC)—a flexible form of ECEC provided to eligible children by an educator
in the family home
- outside
school hours care (OSHC)—a centre-based form of ECEC for primary school aged
children and available before and after school (7.30am–9.00am, 3.00pm–6.00pm),
during school holidays and on pupil‑free days and
- occasional
care—a flexible form of centre-based ECEC that can be accessed on a regular
basis (like LDC) or as the need arises. For example, where parents have
irregular or unpredictable work hours.[15]
The ECEC sector also includes preschool services—generally
defined as structured, play-based learning programs delivered by degree
qualified teachers to children in the year or two before they commence full
time schooling.[16]
While some LDC and OSHC services also deliver preschool programs, preschool is
defined separately from child care and different governance and funding
arrangements apply to preschool and child care services.
According to the ABS, LDC is the most attended of all
formal child care services, with 13.5 per cent of all children aged 0–12
usually attending an LDC service.[17]
Around 7.8 per cent of children attended OSHC services and 2.5 per cent
usually attended an FDC service.[18]
For younger age-groups, the percentage of children attending formal services is
much higher: 41.8 per cent of two year-olds (129,300) and 49.3 per cent of
three year-olds (146,200) usually attended LDC services as at June 2014.[19]
According to the Australian Children’s Education and Care
Quality Authority (ACECQA), there were 15,417 children’s education and care
services operating in Australia in June 2015. This number included 14,317
centre‑based services and 1,100 FDC services (FDC services generally
consist of a coordination unit administering or supporting a number of
individual educators).[20]
Approvals
Provider
and service approvals
LDC, FDC and OSHC operators require a provider approval and
a service approval issued by state or territory regulatory authorities.
Provider approvals establish that an applicant is a fit and proper person to be
involved in the provision of education and care services.[21]
While a provider approval is issued by one regulatory authority, it is
recognised nationally and a provider does not need to have a separate approval
for each jurisdiction in which it operates a service.[22]
To receive a service approval, the provider must meet certain requirements to
ensure the safety, health and wellbeing of children attending the service; that
the service will meet the education and developmental needs of children
attending the service; and that the service complies with conditions prescribed
by the Education and Care Services National Law (the National Law),[23]
the Education and Care Services National Regulations (the National Regulations)[24],
or by the regulatory authority (all of these regulatory conditions form part of
the National Quality Framework (NQF)).[25]
Approval
for Child Care Benefit
Separate from the regulatory authority approval system is
the Australian Government’s determination that a service is ‘approved’ for CCB
purposes. CCB (and CCR) can only be paid to children using ECEC services that
have met the approved care requirements under family assistance law. These
requirements relate to the suitability of the operator/provider to provide the
appropriate quality of care; their reporting and information obligations to the
government; governance arrangements; hours of operation; the attendance of
school-age children at particular services; compliance with applicable
Australian Government legislation and regulations and with applicable state and
territory regulations (including the National Law and the National
Regulations).[26]
Occasional and in-home care services can also be approved care for CCB purposes
but do not currently have to meet the NQF requirements (but are required to
meet interim standards).[27]
CCB can be paid to non-approved ‘registered care’
providers—that is, grandparents, relatives, friends, neighbours, nannies or
babysitters who are registered as carers with the Department of Human Services.[28]
Australian
Government funding for early childhood education and care
The Australian Government provides fee assistance payments
to families and direct assistance to services to improve equity of access to
child care services, encourage and support the participation of women in the
workforce and to improve the quality of ECEC in order to assist with children’s
development.[29]
State and territory governments primarily fund or provide early childhood
education (preschool) services as well as regulating ECEC services operating
within their jurisdiction. Local governments also fund and provide ECEC services
in response to community need and facilitate access to services through their
role in land use planning.[30]
In 2014–15, total Australian and state and territory
government funding on ECEC services was $8.6 billion.[31]
The Australian Government’s expenditure accounted for 83.0 per cent ($7.1
billion) of this total.[32]
The main components of the Australian Government’s funding for ECEC is fee
assistance payments, however, $356.2 million was provided to state and
territory governments in 2014–15 under the National Partnership Agreement on
Universal Access to Early Childhood Education (not included in the $7.1
billion total).
Table 1 sets out the expenditure estimates for key
components of the Australian Government’s funding for ECEC, including the new
CCS and Early Childhood Safety Net (included in the Child Care Services Support
funding):
Table 1: Key components of Australian Government child
expenditure, budget estimates, $’000
|
2015–16
Estimated actual1 |
2016–17 Budget |
2017–18 forward
estimate |
2018–19 forward
estimate |
2019–20 forward
estimate |
Child Care Benefit |
4 008 613 |
4 238 005 |
4 437 718 |
|
|
Child Care Rebate |
3 446 134 |
3 921 255 |
4 400 080 |
27 |
14 |
Child Care Services Support2 |
258 069 |
376 781 |
376 801 |
358 579 |
365 692 |
Jobs Education and Training Child Care Fee Assistance |
39 439 |
39 119 |
38 749 |
|
|
Child Care Subsidy |
|
|
|
11 056 787 |
12 192 035 |
1. Machinery of Government changes announced on 21 September
2015 saw responsibility for the main ECEC programs move from the Department of
Social Services to the Department of Education and Training. 2015–16 figures
represent the sum of the estimated actual expenditure figures reported for each
portfolio.
2. Does not include funding for the Early Years Quality Fund
Special Account. From 1 July 2017 the Early Childhood Safety Net will be
phased-in replacing most of the existing Child Care Services Support
sub-elements by 1 July 2018.
Sources: Australian Government, Portfolio
budget statements 2016–17: budget related paper no. 1.15a: Social Services
Portfolio, pp. 62–67; Australian Government, Portfolio budget statements
2016–17: budget related paper no. 1.5: Education and Training Portfolio,
pp. 25, 39.
According to the Department of Education and Training, in
the September quarter of 2015, there were 1,269,190 children and 859,380
families using approved care. An estimated 795,340 families were in receipt of
CCR.[33]
Child Care Benefit
CCB is paid to those using approved or registered care
services who meet the means test. Parents/carers using approved care services
can currently claim CCB for up to 50 hours of care per child per week (either
as a fee reduction paid directly to the child care provider or as a lump sum at
the end of the financial year). Single parents and both parents/carers in a
couple family must meet the work, training or study test for at least 15 hours
per week (or have an exemption) to be eligible for more than 24 hours of CCB
per child per week. The work, training or study test looks at whether the
parent(s)/carer(s) used child care for work-related commitments such as paid
work, looking for work, studying, training or volunteering.
CCB for registered care is paid when a claim is made to the
Department of Human Services and can be for up to 50 hours of child care per
week for a non-school-aged child. For registered care, both parents/carers or
the single parent/carer must meet the work, training or study test at some time
during the week child care is used (there is no minimum requirement and
exemptions from the test can be granted).
Eligibility for CCB requires parents/carers have their child
up to date with the age-appropriate immunisation schedule (or an approved catch
up schedule).[34]
Income test and payment rates
For those using approved care, the maximum CCB rate is
payable to those families with an adjusted taxable income under $44,457 or to
families on income support.[35]
Family income over this amount reduces the maximum CCB rate and families with
income above the income limit will not receive any CCB. The income limit for
one child in care is currently $154,697. The income limit for two children is
$160,308. For three children it is $181,024 (+$34,237 for each child after the
third).[36]
The current maximum CCB rates are:
- for
approved care: up to $4.24 per hour for a non-school child ($212.00 for a 50
hour week)
- for
registered care: $0.708 per hour, up to $35.40 per week.[37]
Rates for school children are 85 per cent of the
non-school child rates.
The calculation of CCB entitlements is complex with
different rate adjustment factors taking account of the number of children a
family has attending ECEC services, the type of service attended, the hours
attended, whether the children are school or non-school children, the family’s
adjusted taxable income, the standard hourly rate payable and the hours of care
the family is eligible to receive CCB for (under the work, training or study
test).[38]
Grandparent Child Care Benefit
Grandparent Child Care Benefit is a component of CCB payable
to grandparents who are the primary carers of their grandchildren, meet the
other CCB eligibility requirements and receive an income support payment.
Grandparent Child Care Benefit covers the full cost of the
total fee charged for CCB eligible hours, up to 50 hours per child per week. It
is paid directly to ECEC services.[39]
Special Child Care Benefit
Special Child Care Benefit (SCCB) is another component of
CCB. SCCB provides extra assistance with the costs of child care for families
and children in special circumstances, covering up to the full cost of child
care for a certain period of time or providing additional hours of care on top
of the usual CCB entitlement. There are two types of SCCB—one which is intended
to help children at risk of abuse or neglect, and another intended to help
families who are experiencing financial hardship in exceptional circumstances.
The SCCB rate is not a set amount and will usually cover the
entire cost of the fees for the particular ECEC service. The general rules for
CCB eligibility and attendance at child care apply. However, where a parent or
carer is not eligible for CCB (for example, where they have not lodged an
application form) and an approved child care service has concern for a child in
regards to abuse or neglect, the child care service can itself apply to be
eligible to receive SCCB on behalf of the child.[40]
SCCB is generally payable for periods of up to 13 weeks.
Only the Department of Human Services can approve SCCB for periods longer than
13 weeks.
Child Care Rebate
CCR is a separate payment from CCB and assists families with
their out-of-pocket costs for approved child care (but not registered care).
Out-of-pocket costs are total fees minus CCB. CCR covers 50 per cent of
out-of-pocket costs up to a maximum of $7,500 per financial year per child
(this amount is usually indexed to CPI but indexation has been paused since
2011–12).[41]
To be eligible for CCR an individual must be eligible for
CCB. Parents/carers can still be eligible for CCR even if receiving no CCB
because of a high income because CCR is not means tested. That is,
parents/carers must meet all the eligibility criteria for CCB except for the
income test (the requirements relating to the care relationship with the child,
residency, the work, training or study test, and immunisation).
CCR does have an activity test (both parents/carers or
single parents/carers must work, study or train at some time during the week in
which child care is used), however, there is no minimum number of hours for
such activities.
CCR is paid either fortnightly, to families or directly to
ECEC service, or as an annual lump sum to the family.
Jobs, Education and Training Child Care Fee Assistance
The Jobs, Education and Training Child Care Fee Assistance
(JETCCFA) program helps certain income support recipients (primarily payments
for the unemployed such as Newstart Allowance, Parenting Payment and Youth
Allowance (Other)) who are undertaking work, study or training, with the costs
of child care by covering most of the gap between the total childcare fee and
the amount CCB will cover.[42]
Parents and carers need to make a contribution of one dollar per hour per child
in ECEC and JETCCFA will cover the remaining fee cost (after CCB has been
deducted) for eligible hours up to $8.28 per hour per child.[43]
Any remaining costs over the JETCCFA cap have to be met by the parent (with 50
per cent of any remaining out-of-pocket costs covered by CCR). The number of
eligible hours depends on the activity being undertaken by parents: those
undertaking an approved activity as part of the Job Plan or Participation Plan
attached to their income support payment can receive up to 24 hours of JETCCFA
assistance per week per child; those undertaking a study or training activity
can receive up to 36 hours per week per child.[44]
Eligibility for the JECTCCFA program is for a limited
time—jobseekers are only eligible for up to 20 days while other categories of
recipients (students or participants in a labour market program) may be
eligible for 26–104 weeks of JETCCFA.
Funding for providers and quality support
Apart from fee subsidies, the Australian Government provides
funding for ECEC services directly via the Child Care Services Support
Programme. This program includes:
- the
Community Support Programme which provides funding for the establishment or
maintenance of ECEC services in areas where the services might not otherwise be
viable or able to meet the requirements of the community (particularly
communities in disadvantaged, regional and remote areas)
- the
Budget Based Funded Programme which contributes towards the operational costs
of just over 300 ECEC services in approved locations, primarily regional,
remote and Indigenous communities and
- the
Inclusion and Professional Support Programme which funds services to provide
the ECEC sector with professional development, advice, access to additional
resources and inclusion support for services and educators.[45]
Jobs for
Families Package
The Jobs for Families Child Care Package was announced as
the Government’s response to the Productivity Commission’s (PC’s) report on
child care and early childhood learning.
Soon after winning government (on 22 November 2013), then
Treasurer, Joe Hockey, requested the PC undertake an inquiry into ‘Child Care
and Early Childhood Learning’ to report by the end of October 2014.[46]
The PC released an issues paper on 5 December 2013 and a draft report on 22
July 2014. The final report was provided to the Government on 31 October 2014
and published on 20 February 2015.[47]
Details of the report’s findings and recommendations are set out in the Bills
Digest for the previous Bill.[48]
Just prior to the 2015–16 Budget, the Abbott Government
announced its response to the PC’s report: the Jobs for Families child care
package.[49]
The centrepiece of the package is the Child Care Subsidy (CCS) which is to
replace CCB, CCR and JETCCFA. Key features of the CCS as announced were:
- a
subsidy based on a percentage of an hourly benchmark price or the actual fee,
whichever is lower, with the benchmark to be set by Government and
differentiating between service type (LDC, FDC, OSHC and in-home care). The
benchmark price, known as the hourly fee cap, is based on the projected average
price for 2017–18, plus 17.5 per cent for LDC and OSHC and plus 5.75 per cent
for FDC.[50]
The hourly fee caps will be:
-
LDC:
$11.55 per hour
- OSHC:
$10.10 per hour
-
FDC:
$10.70 per hour
- In-home
care: $7.00
- a
subsidy rate of 85 per cent of the benchmark price or actual fee for families
with incomes at or below $65,000 per annum, tapering by one percentage point
for every $3,000 in income over this threshold to 50 per cent for family
incomes at or above $170,000
- families
with incomes over $185,000 will have their CCS entitlement capped at $10,000
per child per year
- hours of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) to be
subsidised based on the hours parents/carers spend undertaking approved
activities in a fortnight:
-
8–16
hours = up to 36 hours of CCS
- 17–48
hours = up to 72 hours of CCS
-
49
hours and above = up to 100 hours of CCS
- for couple families, the partner with the lower number of hours
of activity determines the CCS entitlement
- approved
activities will include work, training, study or certain other recognised
activities such as volunteering as well as participation requirements for
income support payments (such as Newstart Allowance, Parenting Payment and
Youth Allowance (Other))
- families
with incomes of up to $65,000, who do not meet the activity test, will be
eligible to receive up to 24 hours of CCS per fortnight under a separate
program known as the Child Care Safety Net
- the
Child Care Safety Net will replace the existing Inclusion and Professional
Support Programme, the Community Support Programme and the Budget Based Funded
Programme and will include the Additional Child Care Subsidy (ACCS), a new
Inclusion Support Programme and the Community Child Care Fund:
-
the
ACCS will provide additional assistance, on top of the CCS, to disadvantaged or
vulnerable families
- the
Inclusion Support Programme will assist services with staff training and
equipment to support children with special needs
-
the
Community Child Care Fund will provide grants to child care services to improve
access in disadvantaged areas, areas of high demand but low availability, and
to improve affordability for low income families in areas where fees are
greater than the CCS benchmark.[51]
CCS for in-home care is to be trialled via a pilot scheme,
the Nanny Pilot Programme, which will support up to 10,000 children in families
who find it difficult to access mainstream child care services.[52]
The pilot commenced at the beginning of 2016 and will run for two years.
Providers were selected from a field of applicants with nannies only required
to hold a working with children check and first aid qualification (as well as
residency requirements).[53]
Under the Budget measures, an additional $3.2 billion over
five years was to be provided for the introduction of the CCS, and additional
funding of $327.7 million over four years was to be provided for the Child Care
Safety Net.[54]
The additional funding for the CCS includes $246 million over two years for the
nanny pilot program.
Revised Jobs for Families package
In December 2015, the Government announced that it had
revised the package following consultation with parents and stakeholders and
following difficulties in passing savings measures from the Family Tax Benefit
program in the Parliament.[55]
Under the revised package, the percentage of the benchmark price covered by the
CCS would be set at 50 per cent of the benchmark price for families on incomes
between $170,000 and $250,000 per annum but would then continue to taper for
families on incomes over $250,000 until it reached the base rate of 20 per cent
of the benchmark price (for incomes at or above $340,000 per annum).[56]
The revised income test is set out in Table 2 and illustrated in Chart 1:
Table 2: Revised Child Care Subsidy income test
Family income*
|
Subsidy rate – percentage of actual fee or benchmark price,
whichever is lower
|
Up to $65,710
|
85 per cent
|
More than $65,710 to below $170,710
|
Tapering from 85 to 50 per cent
|
$170,710 to below $250,000
|
50 per cent
|
$250,000 to below $340,000
|
Tapering from 50 to 20 per cent
|
$340,000 or more
|
20 per cent
|
* Due to the delayed commencement of the package, these
thresholds will be indexed according to movements in the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) for implementation on 1 July 2018 (so will be slightly higher).
Source: Department of Education and Training (DET), Overview: Jobs for Families
child care package, DET, Canberra, 3 May 2016.
Chart 1: Rate of Child Care Subsidy by family income
Source: Parliamentary Library estimates.
The changes to the income test contributed to a reduction
in the estimated expenditure on the CCS. In the Portfolio Budget Statements
released in May 2015, the CCS was expected to cost $21.02 billion in its first
two years, but in the Portfolio Additional Estimates released in February 2016,
the estimated expenditure in the first two years was expected to be $19.87
billion, a reduction of around $1.15 billion.[57]
On 29 November 2015 the Government also announced that
grandparent carers (those who have care of their grandchildren for more than 65
per cent of the time) would be made exempt from the CCS activity test and thus
eligible for up to 100 hours of subsidised care per fortnight.[58]
Grandparent carers in receipt of income support (such as the Age Pension) would
be eligible for a rate of up to 120 per cent of the CCS benchmark price.
The Regulation Impact Statement accompanying the Bill
confirmed that the Government’s preferred option is to retain the activity test
exemptions for CCB as the activity test exemptions for the CCS but would add an
additional exemption for families whose child is attending a preschool program
in an LDC centre (for the period of the preschool program).[59]
Impact of the revised package
The Department of Education and Training’s submission to the
Senate inquiry into the previous Bill outlined the estimated impact of the
revised package on families. The department used administrative data from the
Legislative Out-years Customisable Model of Child Care (LOCMOCC) as at the Mid-Year
Economic and Fiscal Outlook 2015 to estimate that around 815,700 families
will receive a higher level of fee assistance under the changes compared to the
current funding model; around 140,500 families will receive around the same
level of assistance and around 183,900 families will receive a lower level of
assistance.[60]
Of the 250,000 families earning $65,710 or less per year
(the lower income threshold):
- around
104,100 will be better off (will receive a greater level of assistance than
under the current system)
- around
81,000 will experience no change in the level of support
- around
52,100 will be worse off, primarily because of the impact of the activity test
and
- around
12,800 families are on income support and have not reported their income and
the department was unable to determine the impact of the changes on them.[61]
Of the 653,900 families with income between $65,710 and
$170,710:
- around
565,400 will better off
- around
32,800 will experience no change and
- around
55,700 will be worse off, either because they do not meet the activity test
requirements or are paying child care fees in excess of the hourly fee cap.[62]
Of the 178,500 families with income between $170,710 and
$250,000:
- around
142,400 families will be better off
- around
19,500 will experience no change and
- around
16,600 families will be worse off, primarily as a result of paying child care
fee in excess of the hourly fee cap.[63]
Of the 70,500 families with income over $250,000:
- around
3,800 families will be better off
- around
7,200 will experience no change and
- around
59,500 families will be worse off.[64]
The Minister for Education and Training has stated
families earning between $65,000 and $170,000 will ‘be around $30 a week better
off as a result of the child care reforms’.[65]
In an Answer to a Question on Notice from the 2015–16
Senate Additional Estimates hearings, the Department provided a breakdown of
those who would receive a lower subsidy rate under the changes, by reason
(these figures do not include 30,500 families who are likely to be ineligible
for subsidy under the changes)—set out in Table 3.
Table 3:
Families expected to receive a lower subsidy rate by income band, 2017–18
Reason for potential decrease in subsidy
|
Families by
income band
|
Less than
$65,710
|
$65,710 to less
than $170,710
|
$170,711 to
less than $250,000
|
$250,000 or more
|
Activity test
|
28,000
|
7,600
|
500
|
900
|
Hitting fee cap
|
6,200
|
10,500
|
13,700
|
16,100
|
Both activity test and fee cap
|
1,200
|
1,000
|
200
|
600
|
Other reason
|
16,800
|
7,000
|
1,600
|
18,300
|
Reduction in subsidy level
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
23,200
|
Total families receiving lower subsidy
|
52,100
|
26,100
|
16,000
|
59,200
|
Notes: Estimates based on Legislative Out-years Customisable
Model of Child Care (LOCMOCC) as at the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook
2015. Totals may not match due to rounding. Families may receive less
subsidy under CCS due to other reasons which cannot be separately identified.
Source: Senate Education and Employment Committee, Answer to
Question on Notice, Education and Training Portfolio, Additional Budget
Estimates 2015–16, Question
SQ16-000142.
The Minister stated that ‘some 240,000 Australian families
are estimated to increase their workforce participation and involvement as a
result of the reforms’.[66]
This figure is based on the results of an online survey conducted by ORIMA
Research of approximately 2,000 people where 24 per cent indicated they would
be willing to work more as a result of the measures (as proposed in the
Budget).[67]
This 24 per cent figure was applied to 2011 census data on the number of
families using child care to give the estimate of 240,000 families who would
increase their participation involvement as a result of the reforms.[68]
The department has not released the research report this data is taken from,
and a redacted version of two pages from the report released under Freedom of
Information provided no further information.[69]
The estimated impact on workforce participation derived
from this survey is of limited use as it based on respondents indicating a
willingness to work more and does not quantify the amount of additional labour
market activity. The PC provided a detailed model for assessing the labour
force impact of its proposed model (estimating that the changes would result in
increased workforce participation equivalent to an additional 16,000 full-time
equivalent workers).[70]
PricewaterhouseCoopers conducted an economic impact analysis of the CCS as
proposed in the 2015 Budget (for childcare provider Goodstart Early Learning)
and found that by 2050, an additional 29,000 full-time equivalent workers will
have joined the workforce as a result of the payment model (with around half of
this impact derived from existing workers increasing their hours).[71]
Early Childhood Australia also commissioned distributional
modelling of the proposed reforms from the Australian National University’s
(ANU) Centre for Social Research and Methods.[72]
This modelling was based primarily on unit record data from the Australian
Bureau of Statistics’ Survey of Income and Housing 2013–14 with prices and
parameters adjusted to analyse the impact in 2017–18. The modelling found that
an estimated 582,000 families will be better off under the package compared to
the current fee assistance arrangements, around 330,000 families will be worse
off and 126,000 families will receive around the same level of subsidy as they
currently do. The detailed impact is set out in this table from the report:
Table 4: ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods
modelling of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ from proposed Jobs for Families
policy—families
Notes: this model projects around ten per cent fewer families
using child care by 2017–18 than projected by the Department of Education and
Training (possible reflecting different data sources). Around 6,600 families
are impacted by both the activity test and hourly price cap—all families in
this group are counted towards the activity test. All families in receipt of
income support payments, except for Parenting Payment (Single) and partnered
families with children aged under six are assumed to have passed the activity
test due to job search requirements attached to those payments.
Source: B Phillips, Distributional
modelling of proposed childcare reforms in Australia, ANU Centre for
Social Research and Methods, Canberra, March 2016, p. 7.
The ANU’s modelling projects a much larger group of ‘losers’
as a result of the reforms than the Department of Education and Training has
projected. Of the estimated 330,000 worse off, around 149,000 are affected by
the proposed activity test.[73]
The report notes that the main driver of the difference between its estimates
of those worse off and those of the department is a much lower activity test
impact estimated by the department.[74]
The report notes the administrative data used for the department’s estimates
has only limited information on the hours worked by parents compared to that
offered by the ABS Survey.[75]
The administrative data is advantaged by having data on the full population of
families using approved childcare (including adjusted taxable income) compared
to a limited survey sample of 1,100 income units using formal child care
offered by the ABS Survey.
Committee consideration
Previous
consideration
Senate Education and Employment Committee
The previous Bill was referred to the Senate Education and
Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 March 2016. On 17
March 2016, the Senate granted an extension of time for reporting until
4 April 2016 and the Committee tabled its report on that date. Details
of the inquiry are on the Committee’s
website.[76]
The Committee recommended the previous Bill be passed
without amendment.[77]
While noting the concerns of some interest groups particularly in regards to
the activity test, the Committee found that the provisions of the previous Bill
would ‘target taxpayer support to encourage workforce participation while
providing the safety net for those families on lower income’.[78]
The Committee report stated that ‘the activity test provisions of the Bill are
a fair and equitable way to ensure that the Child Care Subsidy is targeted at
best at the families who will need and use it most’.[79]
Both Labor Senators and Greens Senators issued dissenting
reports recommending amendments to the previous Bill.[80]
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
The Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee considered the previous
Bill in Alert Digest 1 of 2016.[81]
The Alert Digest raised concerns that subsection
27A(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 would not
apply to deemed refusals for either an application for a determination of risk
of serious abuse or neglect or for an application for a determination of
temporary financial hardship (at proposed subsections 85CE(4) and 85CH(5)
of the FA Act, at item 40 of Schedule 1 of both versions
of the Bill).[82]
Subsection 27A(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act
requires a notice of decision and review rights to be given to any person whose
interests are affected by the decision.[83]
The Scrutiny of Bills Committee stated that the Explanatory Memorandum for the
previous Bill did not provide a justification and sought the Minister’s advice
for the rationale for the proposed approach. The explanation provided in the
Explanatory Memorandum is that the deemed refusal provisions are not intended
to be relied upon and have only been included in the unlikely event that the Secretary
does not meet requirements to clarify the status of an application within 28
days.[84]
The Committee also raised concerns with the ‘Henry VIII’
clause (at proposed section 199G of the FA Admin Act, at
item 202 of Schedule 1 to the previous Bill and item 205 of Schedule 1
of the current Bill) and the power to make transitional rules (at Schedule
4, item 12 of both versions of the Bill). Henry VIII clauses are
those that enable delegated or subordinate legislation to override the
operation of legislation which has been passed by the Parliament. The Scrutiny
of Bills Committee raises concerns in regards to such clauses when the
rationale for their use is not provided or is insufficient as ‘such clauses may
subvert the appropriate relationship between the Parliament and the Executive
branch of government’.[85]
In this instance, the Committee sought advice from the Minister as to whether
these clauses could be drafted to ensure the provisions are only used
beneficially (as is their stated intent in the Explanatory Memorandum).[86]
The Committee also sought advice from the Minister regarding
strict liability offences, stating that the Committee expects ‘a detailed
justification of each instance of the application of strict liability’.[87]
The Committee stated that these provisions may be considered to trespass unduly
on personal rights and liberties.[88]
Consideration
of the 2016 Bill
Senate
Education and Employment Legislation Committee
The current Bill was referred to the Senate Education and
Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 October 2016,
together with the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments
Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2016 (which contains the
Family Tax Benefit savings measures that have been linked with the additional
expenditure on the Jobs for Families Child Care Package). The Committee tabled
its report on that date. Details of the inquiry are on the Committee’s
website.[89]
The Committee recommended both Bills be passed without
amendment. The report noted the concerns from some interest groups (outlined in
the ‘Position of major interest groups’ section below), particularly in regards
to the activity test and a perceived prioritisation of workforce participation
objectives over children’s needs. The report stated that ‘the committee is not
persuaded that a focus on workforce participation has come at the expense of
the needs of children, and is of the view that the Bill can achieve both’.[90]
The Committee also found that the Bill would ‘result in a fairer system, where
low income families receive more help and subsidies to high income families
fall’.[91]
Both the Australian Labor Party (Labor) and the Australian
Greens (Greens) issued dissenting reports. The Nick Xenophon Team also issued
additional comments on the report. These are discussed in the ‘Policy position
of non-government parties/independents’ section below.
Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
commented on the Bill in Alert Digest 7 of 2016.[92]
The Committee noted that it had previously commented on the measures as
presented in the previous Bill and restated those comments with some
modifications. The Committee had received correspondence from the Minister for
Education and Training in March 2016 in response to the issues raised in Alert
Digest 1 of 2016.
The Minister addressed the issue of certain deemed refusals
(under proposed subsections 85CE(4) and 85CH(5), at item 40 of Schedule
1 in both versions of the Bill) being exempt from the requirements under
subsection 27A(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
(AAT Act) to give a notice of decision and review rights to any
person whose interests are affected by the decision, stating:
Subsection 27A(1) of the AAT Act provides that a
person who makes a reviewable decision must take reasonable steps to give to an
affected person a written notice of the decision and of their review rights. It
would not be appropriate to require the Secretary to give a decision notice
advising of review rights in relation to deemed refusals under subsections
85CE(4) and 85CH(5), because deemed refusals only come into effect in
circumstances where the Secretary, (or his or her delegate), has failed to
personally make a decision: in other words, no actual decision was made by an
officer. Accordingly, proposed subsections 85CE(4) and 85CH(5) simply reflect
that it would be inappropriate to oblige the Secretary to notify of the act of
not making an active decision. As such, the exemption from the notification
requirement merely reflects the practical reality that any deemed refusals are
likely to occur without the Secretary’s actual and active knowledge.[93]
The Minister’s justification here is that while a
determination has been made that means a child is not deemed to be at risk or a
family in temporary financial hardship, the decision was ‘not made personally’
and is not an ‘active decision’.
While such deemed refusals are expected to be rare, it is
unclear how applicants will become aware that the application has been refused
other than by contacting the department to ask about the progress of their
application. They would also need to ask about their review rights.
The Committee had no further comments to make in relation
to these provisions in light of the information provided by the Minister and
its inclusion in the Explanatory Memorandum to the current Bill.[94]
In regards to the concerns the Committee had raised
regarding the Henry VIII clause at proposed section 199G of the FA
Admin Act and its suggestion that the clause be redrafted so that it could
only be used for beneficial purposes, the Minister responded:
Although it may be possible to include limiting words to
ensure the provisions are only used beneficially, amendments of this nature
could be equivocal and possibly confusing due to difficulties in defining what
a ‘benefit’ is in the context of lifting obligations relating to backdated
approvals. I note that any rules made in accordance with section 199G will be
subject to further parliamentary scrutiny through the disallowance process for
legislative instruments, which means that Parliament will be able to disallow
any rules that are considered non-beneficial or otherwise unfair.[95]
The Committee did not accept that this was a compelling
justification for broadening the scope of delegated powers to override the
operation of the primary legislation:
While the committee notes that the intention is for
modifications to be beneficial, the suggestion that limiting words ‘could be
equivocal and possibly confusing’ is not a compelling justification for
broadening the scope of delegated powers.
The committee draws the breadth and nature of this power
to the attention of Senators and, noting that any rules made in accordance with
section 199G will be subject to disallowance, leaves the question of whether
the proposed approach is appropriate to the consideration of the Senate as a
whole.[96]
In relation to the Committee’s concerns regarding the
Henry VIII clause at item 12 of Schedule 4 (the transitional
rules), the Minister argued in his letter to the Committee that the power was
justified given it would only operate for a limited period of two years and the
rules would be subject to disallowance by the Parliament.[97]
The Committee noted the justification provided and left
the question whether the scope of this delegation of legislative power is
appropriate to the Senate as a whole to consider.[98]
In regards to the Committee’s request for a detailed
justification of each application of strict liability, the Minister had
responded with a rationale for various strict liability offences and included
further information on these provisions in the Explanatory Memorandum for the
Bill (additional to that provided in the Explanatory Memorandum for the
previous Bill).
The Committee found that these explanations appeared to be
consistent with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement
Notices and Enforcement Powers (the Guide).[99]
However, it found that the ability to impose penalties above 60 penalties units
is not.[100]
The Committee noted that the Minister had advised that these higher penalties
were considered appropriate in order to promote compliance with family
assistance law but stated:
... it remains the case that in order to be consistent with the
principles outlined in the Guide ... strict liability offences should be applied
only where the penalty does not include imprisonment and the fine does not
exceed 60 penalty units for an individual.[101]
The Committee left the question of whether this approach
is appropriate to the Senate as a whole to consider. It also drew attention to
the provisions as ‘they may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights
and liberties’.[102]
The Committee also commented on new provisions (items 1
and 2 of Schedule 3) not contained in the previous Bill.[103]
These items allow for a determination made by the Minister in relation to
immunisation requirements for certain payments to adopt or incorporate matters
set out in another written instrument. Without this authorisation, subsection
14(2) of the Legislation Act 2003 would prevent this approach.[104]
The Explanatory Memorandum explains that this is ‘intended to ensure that
future versions of the instruments that set out vaccination and immunisation
details and schedules (including the Australian Immunisation Handbook)
can continue to be meaningfully referred to’.[105]
The Committee acknowledged the comprehensive justification for the provisions
in the Explanatory Memorandum and did not make any further comment on the measures.[106]
Policy
position of non-government parties/independents
Australian
Labor Party
Labor Senators issued a dissenting report to the Senate
Education and Employment Committee’s report on the Bill.[107]
Labor Senators stated that the issues identified in their dissenting report to
the inquiry into the previous Bill remained. These included concerns over the
impact of the activity test, the impact on Budget Based Funded Indigenous and
Mobile services, and the limited information available on delegated legislation
to be made under the Bill and on the Government’s proposed Community Child Care
Fund.[108]
Labor Senators also raised a new concern over the delay in providing additional
funding for ECEC (as a result of the delayed commencement of the package).[109]
Labor Senators also rejected the Government’s proposal to
link savings from the Family Tax Benefit program with any additional funding
for ECEC:
The link between the Jobs for Families Bill and the Social
Services Bill has been artificially devised for political purposes and is not
supported by Labor. Investment in early education should not be held hostage to
Family Tax Benefit cuts. This is robbing Peter to pay Paul: taking money from
low income families to give to other families through child care assistance.[110]
Labor Senators stated that they are concerned that too
many families would be worse off under the Jobs for Families child care package
and called on the Government to amend the Bill to ‘improve the balance between
children’s early education and parent’s workforce participation’.[111]
Recommendations from the Labor Senators include:
- continuing
to provide all children with access to two days early education a week and for
any changes to current activity tests to be trialled before introduction
- an
immediate increase in assistance for families to cover the period prior to the
Jobs for Families package commencing in July 2018
- not
making additional funding for ECEC conditional on cuts to Family Tax Benefit
expenditure.[112]
The Dissenting Report did not include a recommendation
that the Bill be opposed, only that the Bill containing the Family Tax Benefit
savings be rejected.
Australian
Greens
The Greens stated in their dissenting report that while
supporting the aims of the Bill, the Greens were concerned that ‘the measures
included in this Bill as currently drafted will not achieve these aims, and
will in fact result in a number of families being unable to access childcare or
receive reduced access to subsidised care’.[113]
The Greens were particularly concerned with the impact of the proposed activity
test and also on the closure of the Budget Based Funding program under the Jobs
for Families Package (a component of the package but not the Bill).
The Greens made a number of recommendations including
changes to the activity test so that families with 0–8 hours of activity would
be eligible for two days of subsidised care.[114]
Nick
Xenophon Team
The Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) issued additional comments to
the Senate Education and Employment Committee’s report on the Bill and raised a
number of concerns in relation to the impact of the activity test on ECEC
providers and workers and the Department of Education and Training’s
consultation procedures.[115]
NXT also sought clarification from the Department regarding ongoing funding for
in-home care services.[116]
Position of
major interest groups
The positions of major interest groups were canvassed in
detail in the Bills Digest for the previous Bill and the concerns raised by
these groups previously have not changed.
In relation to the 2016 Bill, three peak bodies (Early
Childhood Australia, Australian Childcare Alliance and the Early Learning and
Care Council of Australia) joined with the largest child care provider,
Goodstart Early Learning, to issue a joint submission to the Senate Education
and Employment Committee’s inquiry into the Bill.[117]
The four organisations reiterated their support for the broad thrust of the
Jobs for Families Package and their continued concern over the impact of the
activity test.[118]
The joint submission held that the base CCS entitlement for low income families
who do not meet the activity test should be increased from 12 hours per week to
15 hours per week. The submission also proposed raising the income threshold
for this base entitlement from $65,710 to $100,000 arguing that 56 per cent
children considered developmentally vulnerable under the Australian Early
Development Census are from the least advantaged 40 per cent of families.[119]
The submission also identified some potential areas for savings to cover the
cost of their proposed changes and identified areas for further discussion. The
submission also argued that the additional funding for the Jobs for Families
Package should be decoupled from the proposed Family Tax Benefit savings
measures.[120]
Financial
implications
The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill states that the
Child Care Subsidy and Additional Child Care Subsidy will cost $23.37 billion
over two years from 2018–19.[121]
As illustrated in Table 1 (above), most of this funding
will be redirected from existing ECEC programs. The Explanatory Memorandum for
the Bill states that an additional $3 billion in additional expenditure will be
provided to support the implementation of the Jobs for Families Child Care
Package.[122]
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary
Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the Bill’s
compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the
international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The Government
considers that the Bill is compatible.[123]
Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights listed the
Bill in its seventh report of 2016 as not raising human rights concerns.[124]
In regards to the previous Bill, the Committee stated in its
33rd report of the 44th Parliament that the Bill reintroduced measures
previously considered by the Committee, and that the Bill ‘continues
arrangements in relation to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab,
No Pay) Bill 2015 which the committee previously considered’.[125]
While the immunisation requirements introduced under the No Jab, No Pay Bill
are continued under the new child care payment arrangements, this is a
relatively minor part of the proposed changes.
The Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights lists a
number of human rights treaties that the Bill engages with but the Committee appears
to have determined that any human rights limitations are permissible.
Key issues
and provisions
The key issues and provisions are discussed in detail in
the Bills Digest for the previous Bill.[126]
This section will only highlight significant differences between the two
versions of the Bill.
The Department of Education and Training provided a full
list of differences between the Bill and the previous Bill, and the reasons for
the change, in Attachment 2 to its submission to the Senate Education and
Employment Committee’s inquiry into the Bill.[127]
Table 5 sets out key changes between the two versions of
the Bill. Other changes primarily relate to date changes (due to the delayed
commencement of the Bill) and corrections or amendments in response to drafting
errors in the previous Bill.
Table 5:
Key differences between the 2015 and 2016 versions of the Jobs for Families
Package Child Care Bill
Key changes or
new provisions
|
Explanation
|
Additional Child Care Subsidy (ACCS) (at risk) has been
renamed ACCS (child wellbeing) and all relevant references throughout the
Bill have been amended.
|
The Department of Education and Training explained that
this change was in response to feedback from the ECEC sector that the ‘at
risk’ name could deter families from accessing the additional support ACCS
provides, ‘which is at odds with the policy intent’.[128]
|
The lower income threshold, CCS hourly rate caps and CCS
annual cap will be adjusted upon commencement to reflect CPI movements (by item
5 of Schedule 4)
|
Certain amounts in the previous Bill were to be adjusted
once a year on 1 July in line with CPI movements. Due to the commencement of
the CCS being delayed for a year, until 2 July 2018, the amounts
set out in the Bill for the lower income threshold, CCS hourly rate caps and
CCS annual cap will be lower than initially intended for 2 July 2018. The new
provision provides for indexation of these amounts to occur on 1 July 2018,
despite the amounts not existing until commencement of the CCS on 2 July
2018. This will mean that each of these amounts and each of the income test
thresholds will be slightly higher than outlined above. All of the higher income
test thresholds will be increased as a result of the indexation of the lower
income threshold as they are set as whole dollar amounts above the lower
income threshold.
|
Proposed subsections 85BA(2) and 85CA(3) of the FA Act
(inserted by item 40 of Schedule 1) will give a new rule-making
power to the Minister so that children older than 13 years can be eligible
for CCS or ACCS.
|
The previous Bill limited eligibility to the CCS and ACCS
to children 13 years and under who do not attend secondary school. The new
power will enable the Minister for Education and Training to determine
circumstances in which children over the age of 13 and/or attending secondary
school may be eligible for CCS or ACCS. The Department of Education and
Training explained that this was in response to concerns from stakeholders
about the impact of this age limit on older children with disability and
their families, who may need to access child care services, such as outside
school hours care.[129]
|
Proposed section 85EE of the FA Act (inserted by item
40 of Schedule 1 to the Bill) has been changed to reduce the
period a person can be temporarily overseas and receive CCS or ACCS (the
portability period) from 56 weeks to six weeks.
|
The previous Bill allowed for temporary overseas absences
of up to 56 weeks, similar to the portability rules for Family Tax Benefit
(FTB) and CCB at the time. The FTB and CCB portability rules have since been
reduced to six weeks and the 2016 Bill has reduced the period for the CCS and
ACCS to six weeks. The portability rules for FTB and CCB were changed via the
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Measures) Act 2015.[130]
|
Proposed clause 12 of Schedule 2 of the FA Act
(inserted by item 41 of Schedule 1 to the Bill) has additional
subclauses setting out that ‘associated activities’, as prescribed by the
Minister’s rules, will also be taken to be ‘recognised activities’ under the
activity test, including taking leave or a break; and provide for the rules
to set out ways of working out the number of hours to be counted towards a
recognised activity and a maximum limit on the number of hours that can be
counted towards an activity.
|
This change will allow the Minister to create rules that
define or expand upon the list of activities listed in the Bill, to clarify what
kinds of activities constitute the recognised activities listed at proposed
subclause 12(2) of Schedule 2 to the FA Act and to limit the number of
hours which can be counted in respect of a particular activity. The
Department of Education and Training stated that these changes give better
effect to the policy intent of the rule-making powers.[131]
The Department suggested that the time-limits could be applied so as to
specify that hours spent volunteering could only be applied to the first step
of the activity test.[132]
This would mean that certain types of activity would only be eligible for a
set maximum amount of CCS hours, regardless of the total number of hours
spent in that activity.
|
Proposed clause 3AA of Schedule 3 of the FA Act (inserted
by item 45 of Schedule 1 to the Bill) provides a method for
working out adjusted taxable income for a member of a couple during CCS
fortnights, particularly where the person’s partner was not their partner for
the whole year.
|
This new clause provides for the proportion of a partner’s
income that is equivalent to the proportion of the financial year that the
partner was in a couple relationship with the CCS claimant to be included in
the income test. As CCS is to be worked out on a fortnightly basis, it
appears this provision has been included to allow for couple rates to be
calculated based on the fortnights a couple was together in a relationship.
This is different from other family assistance payments where rates are
calculated on an annual basis divided into a daily rate. For these payments, where
circumstances change during the year such as a person entering a couple
relationship, a different rate is calculated based on the relevant period
where the circumstances are changed (a new annual rate is calculated and a new
daily rate determined).
The Department of Education and Training’s submission to
the Senate Education and Employment Committee’s inquiry into the Bill notes
this new clause but only explains a related change at item 114 of Schedule
1 (relating to reconciliation provisions).[133]
It is unclear why CCS needs to make use of this new formula
for the income test rather than the existing family assistance provisions but
it appears that the Government would rather all aspects of the rate
calculation process be tied to the CCS fortnight structure.
A separate issue with this new clause is that it makes
reference to a ‘TFN determination person’ without a definition of this term.
A TFN determination person is not defined in the FA Act and is only
defined in the FA Admin Act (at section 3).
|
Proposed subsection 194E(d) of the FA Admin Act
(inserted by item 205 of Schedule 1) (which relates to one of the
factors the Secretary should have regard to in assessing whether someone is a
‘fit and proper’ person to be a provider or person responsible for the
day-to-day running of an approved child care service) has been reworded.
|
In the previous Bill, the proposed subsection stated the
Secretary should have regard to: ‘any conviction of a relevant person for an
offence against a law of the Commonwealth or a State or Territory’.
In the Bill, the proposed subsection reads: ‘subject to
Part VIIC of the Crimes Act 1914, any conviction, or finding of
guilt, against a relevant person for an offence against a law of the
Commonwealth or a State or Territory, including (without limitation) an
offence against children, or relating to dishonesty or violence’. The revised
paragraph will cover people who have been found guilty of an offence in
circumstances where a conviction has not been recorded.
The Department of Education and Training states that this
change was made to reflect the current eligibility determination.[134]
|
Concluding comments
The Bill proposes the most significant changes to child
care fee assistance arrangements in more than 15 years, aimed at making the
system simpler and more sustainable, while improving affordability for families
and increasing work participation incentives. Arguably, the system will remain
complicated, but the income test and method for calculating payment rates is
simpler than under the current system. Most families are expected to see
increased levels of assistance. However, there will be around 200,000–300,000
families worse off under the proposed arrangements.
Overall, the proposed system is an improvement on the
existing system and comes with a sizeable amount of additional investment in
ECEC. However, the design of the activity test continues to be controversial,
and issues with indexation and administrative arrangements for providing
assistance to children at risk of abuse or neglect (raised in the Bills Digest
for the previous Bill) persist. Some issues may arise or be resolved in yet to
be seen subordinate legislation and key components of the Jobs for Families
Package (the Child Care Safety Net) are yet to be detailed. With more than a
million children attending formal ECEC services, the impact of this package,
both the known and unknown components, will be massive. Success will depend
upon explaining the choices that have been made, addressing controversial
issues and careful implementation.
Members, Senators and Parliamentary staff can obtain
further information from the Parliamentary Library on (02) 6277 2500.
[1]. Parliament
of Australia, ‘Family
Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill
2015 homepage’, Australian Parliament website.
[2]. Australian
Government, Budget
measures: budget paper no. 2: 2016–17, p. 78.
[3]. Ibid.
[4]. Parliament
of Australia, ‘Social
Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and
Participation Measures) Bill 2016 homepage’, Australian Parliament website.
[5]. A New Tax System (Family
Assistance) Act 1999.
[6]. A New Tax System (Family
Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999.
[7]. A New Tax System (Goods
and Services Tax) Act 1999.
[8]. Early Years Quality Fund
Special Account Act 2013.
[9]. Fringe Benefits Tax
Assessment Act 1986.
[10]. Income Tax Assessment
Act 1997.
[11]. M
Klapdor, Family
Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill
2015, Bills digest, 110, 2015–16, Parliamentary Library, Canberra,
2016.
[12]. Ibid.,
pp. 7–22.
[13]. Australian
Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Childhood education
and care, Australia, June 2014, cat. no. 4402.0, ABS, Canberra, 2015.
[14]. Ibid.
[15]. M
Sheppard, Child
care in Australia: a quick guide, Research paper series, 2014–15,
Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2015; Australian Government, ‘What are my
child care and early learning options’, mychild.gov.au website, last
updated 25 January 2016.
[16]. Steering
Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision, Report
on government services 2016: v. B: child care, education and training,
Productivity Commission, Canberra, 2016, p. 3.2, accessed 15 March 2016.
[17]. ABS,
Childhood education and care, Australia, June 2014, op. cit.
[18]. Ibid.
[19]. Ibid.
[20]. Australian
Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA), NQF
snapshot: a quarterly report from the Australian Children’s Education and Care
Quality Authority, Quarterly report, 2, 2016, ACECQA, Sydney,
August 2016, p. 5.
[21]. ACECQA,
National
Quality Framework: provider approval, Information sheet, ACECQA, July
2014.
[22]. Ibid.
[23]. The
Victorian Parliament passed the Education
and Care Services National Law Act 2010 (Vic) and other
jurisdictions adopted that law through an application Act or passed
corresponding legislation in 2010, 2011 or 2012. ACECQA, ‘National law’, ACECQA website.
[24]. Education
and Care Services National Regulations (NSW).
[25]. ACECQA,
National
Quality Framework: service approval, Information sheet, ACECQA, p. 1.
[26]. Productivity
Commission (PC), Childcare
and early childhood learning, Inquiry report, 73, PC, 31 October 2014,
p. 78.
[27]. Ibid.
[28]. Australian
Government, ‘What is
registered child care?’, mychild.gov.au website, last updated 22 January
2016.
[29]. PC,
Childcare and early childhood learning, op. cit., p. 110.
[30]. Ibid.,
p. 113.
[31]. Steering
Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision, Report on
government services 2016, op. cit., p. 3.5.
[32]. Ibid.
[33]. Department
of Education and Training (DET), Early childhood and child
care in summary: September quarter 2015, DET, Canberra, 2016, p. 2.
[34]. As
of 1 January 2016, exemptions from these requirements only apply where a
general practitioner has certified that vaccination would be medically
contraindicated or a child has natural immunity; where the child is a
participant in a registered vaccine study; where a vaccine is temporarily
unavailable; where the child has been vaccinated overseas; or the Department of
Education and Training has determined that the child meets immunisation
requirements (in line with decision making principles set out in a legislative
instrument). These requirements were recently changed to remove exemptions for
conscientious objectors. M Klapdor, Social
Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015, Bills
digest, 36, 2015–16, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2015.
[35]. Adjusted
taxable income is the sum of taxable income, adjusted fringe benefits, target
foreign income, total net investment loss, tax free pensions and reportable
superannuation contributions minus any child maintenance expenditure.
Department of Social Services (DSS), ‘1.1.A.20
Adjusted taxable income (ATI)’, Family assistance guide, version 1.190, DSS website,
last reviewed 11 May 2015; Department of Human Services (DHS), ‘Child
Care Benefit’, DHS website, last updated 14 November 2016.
[36]. DHS,
‘Child Care Benefit’, op. cit.
[37]. Ibid.
[38]. DSS,
‘3.5.2.10
CCB overall rate calculation – approved care’, Family assistance guide,
version 1.190, DSS website, last reviewed 20 September 2016.
[39]. DHS,
‘Child Care Benefit’, op. cit.
[40]. DSS,
‘2.6.7 Special
Child Care Benefit (SCCB) – eligibility criteria’, Family assistance
guide, version 1.190, DSS website, last reviewed 20 September 2016.
[41]. DSS,
‘3.8.1 CCR
limit calculations – general provisions’, Family assistance guide,
version 1.190, DSS website, last reviewed 1 July 2016.
[42]. DHS,
‘Jobs,
Education and Training Child Care Fee Assistance’, DHS website, page last
updated 6 October 2016.
[43]. Teenage
parents completing secondary education (or equivalent study) pay a contribution
of $0.10 per hour per child. Ibid.
[44]. Ibid.
[45]. Sheppard,
Child care in Australia: a quick guide, op. cit., p. 4; DET, ‘Child
Care Services Support Programme’, DET website, last modified
21 June 2016; DET, ‘Budget Based
Funded Programme’, DET website, last modified on 21 June 2016.
[46]. PC,
Childcare and early childhood learning, op. cit., pp. iv–vi.
[47]. PC,
‘Childcare
and early childhood learning’, PC website.
[48]. Klapdor,
Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care
Package) Bill 2015, op. cit., pp. 15–17.
[49]. T
Abbott (Prime Minister) and S Morrison (Minister for Social Services), Jobs
for Families child care package delivers choice for families, media
release, 10 May 2015.
[50]. The
Department of Social Services stated that the caps were determined by
increasing the fees for LDC, FDC and OSHC in the department’s model from
2013–14 values to 2017–18 values using the Department of Finance’s agreed
growth parameters; removing the top five per cent of fees for each service
type; then determining the average fee for each service type; then increasing
this average by 17.5 per cent for LDC and OSHC and by 5.75 per cent for FDC.
Senate Community Affairs Committee, Answers to Questions on Notice, Social
Services Portfolio, Budget Estimates 2015–16, June 2015, Question
SQ15-000466.
[51]. Abbott
and Morrison, Jobs for Families child care package delivers choice for
families, op. cit.; Australian Government, Families
Package: Budget 2015–16; Australian Government, ‘Part 2:
expense measures’, Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2015–16, p.
155.
[52]. Under
the pilot program, eligible families would receive a percentage of a benchmark
hourly price of $10.00 per hour per child. Families with income under $60,000
per annum receive 85 per cent of this benchmark, decreasing to a base rate of
50 per cent of the benchmark for families earning between $165,000 and
$250,000. Families with incomes over $250,000 per annum are ineligible for the
program. DET, ‘Nanny
Pilot Programme—frequently asked questions’, DET website, last modified 19
July 2016. Initially, the benchmark price was set at $7.00 but this was later
increased to $10.00 from 1 July 2016. DET, Interim
Home Based Carer Subsidy Programme (Nanny Pilot Programme): programme
guidelines, DET, Canberra, May 2016, pp. 12, 36.
[53]. Ibid.
[54]. Australian
Government, ‘Part 2:
expense measures’, Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2015–16, p.
154–155; Abbott and Morrison, Jobs for Families child care package delivers
choice for families, op. cit.
[55]. S
Birmingham (Minister for Education and Training) and C Porter (Minister for
Social Services), Family
tax reform to better support Australian children, joint media release,
2 December 2015. For background on the Family Tax Benefit measures see M
Klapdor, Social
Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and
Participation Measures) Bill 2015, Bills digest, 50, 2015–16,
Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 18 November 2015; M Klapdor, Social
Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and
Participation Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2015, Bills digest, 65,
Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 19 January 2016.
[56]. S
Birmingham (Minister for Education and Training) and C Porter (Minister for
Social Services), Joint
press conference: child care reforms, joint media release, 2 December
2015.
[57]. Australian
Government, Portfolio
budget statements 2015–16: budget related paper no. 1.15A: Social Services
Portfolio, p. 111; Australian Government, Portfolio additional estimates
statements 2015–16: Education and Training Portfolio, p. 35.
[58]. S
Birmingham (Minister for Education and Training), New
child care system embraces primary carer grandparents, media release,
29 November 2015.
[59]. DET,
Regulation
impact statement—Jobs for Families Child Care Package, November 2015, p.
61.
[60]. DET,
Submission,
no. 30, to Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care
Package) Bill 2015, January 2016, pp, 24, 29.
[61]. Ibid.,
p. 24.
[62]. Ibid.,
p. 24.
[63]. Ibid.,
p. 24.
[64]. Ibid.,
p. 25.
[65]. Birmingham
and Porter, Joint press conference: child care reforms, op. cit.
[66]. Ibid.
[67]. Senate
Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Official
committee Hansard, 5 June 2015, pp. 13–15.
[68]. Ibid.
[69]. DSS,
‘FOI
Decision 14/15-196 Document 1’, DSS website.
[70]. PC,
Modelling
the effects of childcare policy changes: technical supplement to the final
report: childcare and early childhood learning, PC, Canberra, October
2014; PC, Childcare and early childhood learning, op. cit., p. 670.
[71]. PricewaterhouseCoopers
Australia, Economic
impacts of the proposed child care subsidy, Final report,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, February 2016, p. ii.
[72]. B
Phillips, Distributional
modelling of proposed childcare reforms in Australia, ANU Centre for
Social Research and Methods, Canberra, March 2016.
[73]. Ibid.
[74]. Ibid.,
p. 9.
[75]. Ibid.,
p. 10.
[76]. Senate
Education and Employment Legislation Committee, ‘Family Assistance
Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2015’,
Inquiry homepage.
[77]. Senate
Education and Employment Legislation Committee,
Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package)
Bill 2015 [Provisions], The Senate, Canberra, April 2016, p. vii.
[78]. Ibid.,
p. 19.
[79]. Ibid.,
p. 19.
[80]. Labor
Senators, Dissenting
report, Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment Legislation, Inquiry
into the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care
Package) Bill 2015, The Senate, Canberra, 4 April 2016, p. 32; Australian
Greens Senators, Dissenting
report, Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment Legislation, Inquiry
into the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care
Package) Bill 2015, The Senate, Canberra, 4 April 2016, p. 35.
[81]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Alert
digest, 1, 2016, The Senate, 3 February 2016, p. 19.
[82]. Ibid.,
p. 20.
[83]. Administrative
Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.
[84]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs
for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2015, pp. 20–21.
[85]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Alert digest, 1, 2016, op.
cit., p. 9.
[86]. Ibid.,
p. 20.
[87]. Ibid.,
p. 21.
[88]. Ibid.,
p. 21.
[89]. Senate
Education and Employment Committee, ‘Family Assistance
Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2016, and the
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and
Participation Measures) Bill 2016’, Inquiry homepage.
[90]. Senate
Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care
Package) Bill 2016 [Provisions] and the Social Services Legislation Amendment
(Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2016
[Provisions], The Senate, Canberra, October 2016, p. 23.
[91]. Ibid.
[92]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Alert
digest, 7, 2016, The Senate, 12 October 2016.
[93]. Ibid.,
pp. 61–62.
[94]. Ibid.,
p. 62.
[95]. Ibid.,
p. 63.
[96]. Ibid.,
p. 64
[97]. Ibid.,
p. 65.
[98]. Ibid.,
p. 65.
[99]. Attorney-General’s
Department (AGD), A
guide to framing Commonwealth offences, infringement notices and enforcement
powers, AGD, Canberra, September 2011.
[100]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Alert digest, 7, 2016, op.
cit., p. 68.
[101]. Ibid.
[102]. Ibid.
[103]. Ibid.,
p. 69.
[104]. Legislation Act
2003.
[105]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families
Child Care Package) Bill 2016, p. 92.
[106]. Ibid.,
p. 70.
[107]. Labor
Senators, Dissenting
report, Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment Legislation, Inquiry
into the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care
Package) Bill 2016 [Provisions] and Social Services Legislation Amendment
(Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2016
[Provisions], The Senate, Canberra, October 2016, p. 31.
[108]. Ibid.,
pp. 32–35
[109]. Ibid.,
pp. 31–32
[110]. Ibid.,
p. 37.
[111]. Ibid.,
p. 39.
[112]. Ibid.,
p. 40.
[113]. Australian
Greens, Dissenting
report, Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment Legislation, Inquiry
into the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care
Package) Bill 2016 Provisions and Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family
Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2016 [Provisions],
The Senate, Canberra, October 2016, p. 41.
[114]. Ibid.,
p. 42.
[115]. Nick
Xenophon Team, Additional
comments, Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment
Legislation, Inquiry into the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs
for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2016 [Provisions] and Social Services
Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation
Measures) Bill 2016 [Provisions], The Senate, Canberra, October 2016, pp.
51–56.
[116]. Ibid.,
p. 51.
[117]. Early
Childhood Australia, Australian Childcare Alliance, Early Learning and Care
Council of Australia and Goodstart Early Learning, Submission,
no. 14, to Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care
Package) Bill 2016 and Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments
Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2016, 22 September 2016.
[118]. Ibid.,
pp. 1–2
[119]. Ibid.,
p. 3.
[120]. Ibid.,
pp. 5–6.
[121]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child
Care Package) Bill 2016, op. cit., p. 4.
[122]. Ibid.
[123]. The
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at page 6 of the
Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill. Ibid., p. 6.
[124]. Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report
7 of 2016, 11 October 2016, p. 99.
[125]. Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Thirty-third
report of the 44th Parliament, 2 February 2016, p. 3.
[126]. Klapdor,
Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care
Package) Bill 2015, op. cit., pp. 29–45.
[127]. DET,
Attachment
2, Submission, no. 13, to Senate Education and Employment Legislation
Committee, Inquiry into the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs
for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2016, and the Social Services Legislation
Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill
2016, 2016.
[128]. DET,
Submission,
no. 13, to Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care
Package) Bill 2016, and the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family
Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2016, 23
September 2016, p. 2.
[129]. Ibid.
[130]. Social Services
Legislation Amendment (Family Measures) Act 2015. For further
information see, D Daniels, Social
Services Legislation Amendment (Family Measures) Bill 2015, Bills
digest, 84, 2015–16, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2016.
[131]. DET,
Attachment
B, Submission no. 13, to Senate Education and Employment Legislation
Committee, Inquiry into the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs
for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2016, and the Social Services Legislation
Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill
2016, 2016, p. 1.
[132]. Ibid.
[133]. Ibid.
[134]. Ibid.,
p. 2.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament. They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official status of the Bill.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Enquiry Point for referral.