Child care payments Bill 1997 and Child care payments (consequential amendments and transitional provisions) Bill 1997
October 1997
© Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia 1997
ISSN 1038-2755
View the report as a single document - (PDF 532KB)
View the report as separate downloadable parts:
Senate Community Affairs
Legislation Committee Secretariat
Mr Elton Humphery
Secretary
The Senate
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Phone: 02 6277 3515
Fax: 02 6277 5829
E-mail: community.affairs.sen@senate.aph.gov.au
Internet: https://www.aph.gov.au/senate
Membership of the committee
Members
|
Senator Sue Knowles, Chairman
|
LP, Western Australia
|
|
Senator Meg Lees, Deputy Chair
|
AD, South Australia
|
|
Senator Kay Denman
|
ALP, Tasmania
|
|
Senator Alan Eggleston
|
LP, Western Australia
|
|
Senator Michael Forshaw
|
ALP, New South Wales
|
|
Senator Karen Synon
|
LP, Victoria
|
Substitute Members
|
Senator Belinda Neal for
Senator Forshaw
for the Committee’s inquiry
|
ALP, New South Wales
|
|
Senator John Woodley for Senator Lees
for the Committee’s inquiry
|
AD, Queensland
|
Participating Members
|
Senator Eric Abetz
|
LP, Tasmania
|
|
Senator Bob Brown
|
Greens, Tasmania
|
|
Senator the Hon Bob Collins
|
ALP, Northern Territory
|
|
Senator Mal Colston
|
Ind, Queensland
|
|
Senator Barney Cooney
|
ALP, Victoria
|
|
Senator the Hon Rosemary
Crowley
|
ALP, South Australia
|
|
Senator Chris Evans
|
ALP, Western Australia
|
|
Senator the Hon John Faulkner
|
ALP, New South Wales
|
|
Senator Michael Forshaw
for the Committee’s inquiry
|
ALP, New South Wales
|
|
Senator Brenda Gibbs
|
ALP, Queensland
|
|
Senator Brian Harradine
|
Ind, Tasmania
|
|
Senator Sue Mackay
|
ALP, Tasmania
|
|
Senator Dee Margetts
|
GWA, Western Australia
|
|
Senator Shayne Murphy
|
ALP, Tasmania
|
|
Senator Kay Patterson
|
LP, Victoria
|
|
Senator the Hon Margaret
Reynolds
|
ALP, Queensland
|
|
Senator Sue West
|
ALP, New South Wales
|
|
Senator John Woodley
|
AD, Queensland
|
Report to the Senate - Child care payments Bill 1997 and Child care payments (consequential amendments and transitional provisions) Bill 1997
1. THE INQUIRY
1.1 The Child
Care Payments Bill 1997 and the Child Care Payments (Consequential Amendments
and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1997 were introduced into the House of
Representatives on 26 June 1997 and 28 August 1997 respectively. On
25 September 1997 the Senate, on the recommendation of the Selection of
Bills Committee (Report No.14 of 1997), referred the provisions of the Bills to
the Committee for report by 27 October 1997.
1.2 The Committee considered the Bills at public hearings on 2 and
3 October 1997. Details of the public hearings are referred to in Appendix 2.
The Committee received 20 submissions relating to the Bills together with
18 letters relating to the changes to Childcare Assistance, and these are
listed at Appendix 1.
2. The Bills
CHILD CARE PAYMENTS BILL 1997
2.1 The Child Care Payments Bill (the Bill) introduces new payment
arrangements for Childcare Assistance and Childcare Rebate and implements
policy changes announced in the 1997 Budget.
Payment arrangements
2.2 At the
present time, Childcare Assistance is paid to approved long day care centres by
the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) to reduce child care fees
of eligible families. Childcare Assistance payments for other services such as
family day care, occasional care and outside school hours care (OSHC) are not
covered by legislation. The Childcare Rebate is paid to families using care for
work related reasons by the Health Insurance Commission (HIC).
2.3 The Bill
provides a legislative basis for the services not previously covered by
legislation and for the payment of both child care subsides through the
Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency (Centrelink). The aim of having both
subsidies paid by one agency is ‘to streamline administration of child care
payments for families, service providers and the Government’[1] and to ‘strengthen parents’ right to
choose the care they want for their children by giving families more control
and responsibility’.[2]
2.4 In relation to Childcare Assistance the Bill provides that:
-
calculations for entitlements to be made by
Centrelink not by the service provider as was the previous case;
-
the entitlement be paid by Centrelink to the
service provider;
-
the entitlement be based on the family income
and assets, estimates of the amount of care charged by the provider, whether
they use long day care or outside school hours care, whether a third party pays
part of the fees and, in some cases, whether the care is for work related
purposes;
-
a maximum of 50 hours per week of Assistance may
be paid unless the family can demonstrate that the care is required and used
for work related reasons;
-
entitlements are paid in advance of care;
-
claims may be backdated for a maximum of 13
weeks; and
-
an assets test be introduced so that Childcare
Assistance is not available if the person’s assets exceed $406,000 unless
otherwise specified by regulation.
2.5 In relation to the Childcare Rebate, the
Bill provides that:
-
the Rebate is subject to a work test, as was the
case previously;
-
the amount payable is based on a percentage of
the family’s estimated out of pocket expenses after taking into account
Childcare Assistance payments and any contributions made by a third party;
-
a rebate of 30 per cent is payable if the
family’s income falls below the relevant Family Tax Payment cut off ($70,000
for a one child family, increasing by $3,000 for each additional child);
-
a rebate of 20 per cent is payable if the
family’s income is above the relevant Family Tax Payment cut off;
-
the Rebate be paid fortnightly in arrears by
Centrelink to the family’s nominated bank account; and
-
claims may be backdated for a maximum of 13
weeks.
2.6 The Bill also provides for the following:
-
Hardship
Childcare Assistance: this will be available to families in exceptional
circumstances who experience temporary difficulties in paying their fees and is
payable for up to 13 weeks.
-
Emergency
Childcare Assistance: this will be paid to services in respect of a child
at risk of abuse or neglect who enters care for the first time; full fees are
payable for up to four weeks once a year. The Minister may make, by
determination in writing, guidelines for implementing the provisions regarding
Emergency Childcare Assistance. The determinations are disallowable
instruments.
2.7 The
Bill also provides that where a family’s child care needs vary, special
arrangements may apply. These arrangements involve Centrelink and the family
setting a fixed period (up to 12 weeks) in which it is agreed on what is a
reasonable estimate of the care needs taking account of previous patterns where
available.
2.8 Under
the provisions of the Bill, families are responsible for notifying Centrelink
of any changes that result in a change of fees and therefore entitlements to
child care assistance. The Explanatory Memorandum stated ‘it is envisaged that
regulations will specify that adjustments which reduce entitlement will take
effect from the following payment period if the family notifies the Agency
[Centrelink] within fourteen days’.[3] If
the notification is after 14 days, adjustment will take effect from the first
day in the payment period in which the change is notified.
2.9 The
Bill also provides for the application of Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code to all offences against the Act.
2.10 The
Bill provides for Centrelink to review family entitlements annually, with some
families being reviewed at other times ‘on the basis of Centrelink’s risk
assessment’.
2.11 The
Bill provides that Childcare Assistance be paid for care provided by services
approved by DHFS for this purpose and the Rebate be paid for care provided by
registered carers. Certain requirements are to be satisfied by service
providers and carers. Some of these requirements are described in disallowable
instruments.
2.12 Decisions
in relation to approval and registration of child care services, including
decisions regarding conditions to be imposed and decisions regarding exemptions
or cancellations of approval, are reviewable by the Administrative Review
Tribunal (AAT) or internally. The general provisions in the Bill concerning
review of decisions allow for certain decisions made under the Act to be
reviewable by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the AAT or the Secretary of
the Department.
Policy changes
2.13 The Bill provides for the implementation of
measures announced in the 1997 Budget as follows:
-
School Age
Care: The Bill provides for the introduction of Childcare Assistance
provisions for school children using Outside School Hours Services. The Bill
sets a fee ceiling of $1.95 per hour to which part time loadings in family day
care may be added where applicable.
-
Non-work
related care: The Bill provides that Centrelink apply a work test to
Childcare Assistance claimants to ascertain if the 20 hour a week limit should
apply to their entitlement. The Bill defines work related activity as covering
paid employment, setting up or operating a business, studying or training and
actively seeking work. Exemptions under the Childcare
Rebate Act 1993 apply under the provisions of the Bill. Families in crisis,
children at risk of abuse or neglect and children whose parents have
disabilities are exempt from the limit.
-
New
private sector places in 1998 and 1999: Limits to new places in private
sector long day centres are introduced for 1998 and 1999. The Bill provides for
a planning procedure to allocate those places. The limit is expressed in terms
of the number of hours (equivalent to 7000 places) for which Childcare
Assistance can be claimed in these new places. Specific number of hours will be
allocated to high needs areas. Allocation guidelines will set out the process
and factors to be taken into account in identifying high need areas. The
guidelines will be a disallowable instrument.
-
Link to
immunisation: The Bill includes provisions which link eligibility for
Childcare Assistance and the Rebate to age appropriate immunisation for
children up to 7 years of age. Unless a child is fully immunised, an
immunisation provider has certified that the child had a medical
contraindication, or a written declaration of conscientious objection is
provided within 28 days, payment by Centrelink will cease.
CHILD CARE
PAYMENTS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1997
2.14 The Child Care Payments (Consequential
Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1997 complements the Child Care
Payments Bill 1997. It introduces a number of transitional arrangements
designed to ensure a smooth transfer from the existing Childcare Assistance and
Childcare Rebate schemes to the new payment arrangements set out in the Child
Care Payments Bill. In particular:
-
it ensures that children currently using the long
day care sector to provide outside school hours care for their children are not
disadvantaged by the introduction of the new school child rate of Childcare
Assistance;
-
it provides exemptions from the planning
framework for child care operators who had taken action to build or extend a
child care centre before the planning limits were announced on Budget night;
-
it provides for the repeal of the Childcare
Rebate Act; and
-
it includes a number of amendments to other Acts
which are necessary to implement the new payment arrangements.
3. ISSUES
Consultation process
and implementation of the reforms
3.1 DHFS informed the Committee that it
undertook extensive consultations with representatives of the child care
industry and with families on implementing the new child care arrangements.
These consultations, conducted in 1996 and 1997, involved representatives from
national and State peak industry organisations (over 100 organisations) around
Australia. A public report on the consultations, Children’s Services Program -
Report on Public Consultations on Future Directions 1996-97, was released
earlier this year. In addition, the consultation strategy also included focus
groups and a phone survey of families in receipt of Childcare Assistance and
the Childcare Rebate. The aim of the focus groups and the phone survey was to
gauge attitudes to the delivery and usage of the two child care payments.[4]
3.2 Some groups agreed that the consultation
process had been adequate. For example, the Australian Federation of Child Care
Associations (AFCCA) commended the Government on its ‘commitment to consult as
broadly as possible with service providers, peak bodies and families’ and noted
that ‘although the outcomes may not have met all our concerns and the needs of
all stakeholders...the quality of the decisions made are linked to a genuine
process of negotiation’.[5]
3.3 Other organisations, however, claimed
that the consultation process with stakeholders had been inadequate.[6] The Australian Confederation of Child
Care (ACCC) stated that ‘what underlies some of our concerns...is that there is
not adequate information coming through to us because part of our role is to
educate and inform our constituency’.[7]
ACCC further argued that ‘it is a question of the quality [of the
consultations] and it is a question of whether it was a genuine consultative
process or something else’.[8]
3.4 DHFS, as noted above, argued that the
consultation process had been extensive. A representative of the Department
further stated that many organisations ‘are not denying that we have had a
consultation process, but they have been saying, “We don’t believe you’re
listening”. So unless you are getting the outcomes that the people that you are
consulting with specifically want, they are going to be uncomfortable with what
I will call a consultation process.’[9]
3.5 Several organisations indicated that the
timeframe for the implementation of the changes to child care arrangements,
scheduled to be introduced on 1 January 1998, allowed insufficient time for
both parents and the services involved to be fully informed of the details of
the proposed changes.[10] A number of
organisations noted that the problems arise from centres being closed and
families being on holidays in January.[11]
Several groups suggested that the implementation date should be delayed until 1
April 1998.[12] AFCCA argued that this
would allow more time for the notification of services and families with regard
to changes to the Childcare Assistance and Childcare Rebate payments. The
Federation also noted that it would assist in services’ planning arrangements,
especially in the upgrading of software packages and training staff in their
application.[13]
3.6 DHFS indicated that for the Department
the implementation date of 1 January 1998 would be able to be met but that it
would be ‘tight’.[14] The Department
acknowledged that the outside school hours care sector may have some
difficulties in meeting the implementation date - ‘that sector has had
quite a different...funding system in previous years; they have not had a system
that was directly related to the income of families, where fees had to be
adjusted in a variable way to the range of families using their services’.[15]
3.7 Centrelink informed the Committee that
while the implementation date would be ‘very tight’ it had a comprehensive
strategy in place for implementing the reforms involving additional staffing
for the teleservice facility, an extensive training program for staff, a
comprehensive publicity program and a range of consultations with industry at
the local level.[16]
3.8 The
Committee believes that to ensure a smooth transition to the new childcare
arrangements that the commencement date for the reforms should be delayed until
no earlier than 1 April 1998.
Use of disallowable
instruments
3.9 Some comments were made during the
inquiry on the reliance on Ministerial discretion through the use of
Disallowable Instruments.[17]
Organisations commented that the Bill lacked sufficient ‘detail’ and much of
this ‘detail’ would only be available in the form of Disallowable Instruments.
ACCC claimed that ‘we don’t know how the Bill will impact on providers or
families because the Bill does not contain sufficient detail’.[18] The Confederation noted that ‘we are a
little concerned that you need to have that sort of detail at the design stage
of the Act. It is not enough...to be provided with further information at some
stage down the track...even if that is in the form of a disallowable
instrument.’[19]
3.10 DHFS noted, however, that the use of
Disallowable Instruments was not unusual and that the current Child Care Act 1972 and Childcare Rebate
Act provide for instruments to be created for the administration of the
program.[20] DHFS argued that most of
the proposed instruments under the new Bill ‘merely replicate and replace
existing instruments which were made under the current legislation. These
proposed instruments serve the same purpose as the existing instruments. The
addition of new policy elements, however, has required the creation of some new
instruments’.[21]
3.11 DHFS noted that the new arrangements will
lead to greater transparency and accountability. The Department stated that the
Bill has the effect of laying before Parliament a range of rules and guidelines
in the child care area that have previously been made by the Minister in the
form of administrative guidelines - ‘by placing these requirements in legislation, the
rules and guidelines affecting child care will be more accessible and amenable
to Parliamentary scrutiny’.[22]
3.12 Several groups, including the National
Family Day Care Council of Australia (NFDCCA) and ACCC, noted that they had
not, as yet, seen the draft instruments.[23]
AFCCA stated that ‘while it seems possible that guidelines in these areas are
unlikely to bring unforseen changes to the direction of the legislation it is
concerning that such details have not been finalised at this stage’.[24]
3.13 The
Department advised the Committee that seven of the 27 instruments have been
drafted and the remaining 20 are still being drafted by the Office of
Legislative Drafting ‘and they will all be released as exposure drafts as soon
as they are cleared by the Minister for release’.[25] The Committee notes the Department’s
assurance that the exposure drafts will be made available for comment by the
industry and the broader community prior to being signed by the Minister and
tabled in Parliament.[26]
Childcare Assistance
limit for non-work related care
3.14 In the second reading speech, the Minister
stated that:
The Bill introduces a 20 hour limit on
access to Childcare Assistance for each child in care for non work related
purposes. This measure ensures Commonwealth funds are more effectively targeted
to the primary purpose of the program, that is, work related care.[27]
3.15 DHFS indicated that there was widespread
community support for the measure. Quantitative research undertaken for the
Department of 650 families showed that 75 per cent of families surveyed
approved of the introduction of a non-work related care limit, with 71 per
cent indicating that up to 20 hours was reasonable.[28] Several groups, including NFDCCA and
the National Association of Community Based Children’s Services (NACBCS), also
indicated their support for the measure.[29]
The Department indicated that as a result of this measure, an additional 17,000
children will be able to access subsidised care.[30]
3.16 Some groups, including ACCC and AFCCA,
claimed that the 20 hour limit would impact adversely on low income families in
particular, as these families, who have been accessing higher levels of
non-work related care, will be forced to reduce their hours of care. It was
argued that this would also impact on the developmental needs of these
children.[31]
3.17 DHFS stated, however, that the proposed
limit on access for non-work related care is consistent with the average number
of hours paid by families using non-work related care ie. 21 hours per week.
The average family using long day care for respite or developmental reasons
uses 14 hours per week.[32] The Bill
also provides that children at risk of neglect or abuse, families in crisis,
and children of parents with a disability will be able to access more than 20
hours of Childcare Assistance a week.[33]
3.18 The Department also advised that the
Australian Early Childhood Association - the peak national body
responsible for early childhood in Australia - indicated that a two-day
limit was appropriate for non-work related care, and that two eight-hour days
was reasonable for child development purposes.[34]
3.19 Some groups commented on the possible
impact on service providers. The AFCCA stated that the restriction of non-work
related care to 20 hours will impact differently on particular states and
regions depending on the services’ level of reliance on work-related care. Some
groups argued that services in Queensland and some areas of Western Australia
in particular would be adversely affected by the proposed changes, with
possible centre closures and job losses in the child care industry.[35]
3.20 DHFS,
addressing the issue of the viability of certain centres, stated that some
services which currently have a high vacancy rate and rely on families using
significant periods of non-work related care may experience viability problems - ‘the
extent of the impact on individual services will depend on the usage patterns
on non-working families and local supply’.[36]
3.21 The Department added that:
The current unplanned system has not
required investors to demonstrate need to be eligible for Childcare Assistance
funding and this has resulted in pockets of over-supply across Australia.
Increasing competition and vacancy rates have exacerbated viability problems
for many services in these areas. The new planning system will direct services
to areas of high work related need and minimise potential for future
over-supply.[37]
Reform
of school age care
3.22 The Bill introduces new Childcare
Assistance provisions for school age children which are consistent across all
child care sectors. A fee ceiling of $1.95 an hour will apply, to which part
time loadings in family day care may be added, where applicable. The same Childcare
Assistance rate will apply whether a school age child is in a centre, Family
Day Care or an OSHC service. This addresses the current serious disparities in
financial assistance for the care of school aged children. To fund the new
system, all current funding for operational grants and Childcare Assistance for
OSHC and other services will be redirected into the new school age funding
system.[38] DHFS stated that new reforms
will significantly improve affordability for over 70,000 low and middle income families
using OSHC services.[39]
3.23 The National Out of School Hours Services
Association (NOSHSA) claimed that the removal of operational subsidy would lead
to increased fees and the closure of some services.[40] DHFS stated that while fees are
expected to rise in OSHC services as a result of the removal of the operational
grant, the improved Childcare Assistance system will mean that most low and
middle income families in OSHC services will be better off. In addition, the
Government has ensured that the new arrangements do not affect the 35,000
school age children currently using centres and Family Day Care who receive
assistance at the higher long day care rate. These children will retain their
current benefits while they continue to use these services.[41]
3.24 Several organisations claimed that the
reduction in the hourly rebateable fee from $2.30 to $1.95 for out of school
hours care in long day centres will lead to an increase in fees and affect the
viability of some centres, especially in those States that provide high levels
of this type of service.[42]
3.25 DHFS
stated that ‘increased utilisation’ is expected in most services under the new
Childcare Assistance system. The Department pointed to research that indicated
that poor utilisation of services is largely due to the lack of affordability
of care, particularly for low income families, which is addressed in the
current reforms -
‘findings showed that access to reasonable rates of Childcare Assistance
improved affordability for families and subsequent service utilisation, leading
to improved service viability’.[43] For
services in rural and remote areas facing problems associated with low
utilisation, ongoing funding of $15.7 million over four years for OSHC
will be provided to services where no alternative services are available to
ensure that families in these communities retain access to care.[44]
Definition of
sessional care
3.26 Some organisations argued that the
definition of sessional care needed to be clarified. NACBCS noted that a
session of care in each State and Territory and across service types is
currently defined differently - ‘we were concerned that the legislation mentions that
it would be left to the Minister to define from time to time a session of care.
We felt that the legislation needed to define it’.[45] ACCC and NACBCS expressed some
concerns that the definition of a session of care may move towards a certain
number of hours of care.[46] NACBCS
argued that ‘we are concerned about a move towards considering hours for child
care because, once you start looking at hours and you start charging people for only the hours they use, you begin
to threaten the viability and the sustainability of the whole service’.[47]
3.27 The
Department, responding to these concerns, stated that different definitions of
sessional care ‘will not be a problem under the Act. Every service provider
defines whatever sessions they are currently offering to families. They can
differ from service to service, not only from State to State...The reason why
that information is required is simply to allow Centrelink to do the
calculation...it is entirely discretionary on the services as to how they
define their sessions, and it is purely for payment and monitoring of payment
[by Centrelink]’.[48]
Penalty provisions
3.28 The Bill provides for penalties of
imprisonment up to a period of 2 years where a person has been convicted
of fraud, making untrue statements, making a false representation or obtaining
a benefit under false pretences in respect of a child care payment. However,
the Bill prevents a person being imprisoned for receiving a child care payment
because of an ‘act, failure or omission’ of theirs. In submissions and
evidence, concern was raised about the penalty provisions of the Bill. For
example, AFCCA stated:
Going to prison for not letting Centrelink
or any agency know certain information, given that these people are people who
obviously have children between the ages of nought and five, seems totally
unreasonable and I can hardly believe that that would be a measure that any
government would want to put in place.[49]
3.29 NACBCS also stated:
We do strongly condemn any moves by
government to imprison parents for failure to notify regarding information...we
think the department should be developing mechanisms to avoid this situation
and setting up structures so that there are ways that people can easily give
information. We certainly do not think that it should be considered a criminal
offence punishable by imprisonment. That is totally unacceptable.[50]
3.30 In
response to these concerns, the DHFS stated to the Committee that the
Attorney-General’s Department had advised that any person found guilty of fraud
or misrepresentation in relation to any government
payment can be fined or imprisoned under the Crimes Act and that the Bill was
bringing child care subsidies into line with all other government benefits. The
Department also noted that under the provisions of the Bill, if a person is
convicted of an offence in relation to child care payments, the court may order
that the payments be recovered and if a person does not repay that money they
cannot be imprisoned. Further, the Bill makes provision for the recovery of
over payments as distinct from fraud.[51]
Impact on service
providers
3.31 In
the second reading speech, the Minister stated that the initiatives proposed
assist small business ‘by reducing the amount of administrative paper work
required from service providers to claim Childcare Assistance’.[52]
3.32 Representatives
of providers of both long day care and out of school hours services raised
concerns about the impact of the changes on these services.
3.33 The
ACCC stated that they believed that there would be unemployment within the
child care sector as a result of the imposition of the 20 hour per week limit
on non-work related care. The ACCC also stated that there could be social costs
as children who may be better off in child care are no longer able to access
the service.[53]
3.34 NFDCCA
indicated that it was concerned that there would be changes to the ‘current
variation and flexibility possible within Family Day Care to accommodate the
new system’. Further, NFDCCA indicated that there could be fee increases.[54]
3.35 Under the provisions of the Bill, the
operational subsidy will no longer be paid to out of school hours services but
would come within the Childcare Assistance framework. In evidence, NOSHSA
stated that ‘the out of school hours services sector are totally overwhelmed by
the framework within which these changes have been set’.[55] The Queensland Child Care Coalition
(QCCC) asserted that ‘outside school hours care is in chaos in relation to the
implementation of Centrelink and the change to the fee relief system’.[56] NOSHA also indicated that the sector
was facing a loss of income and increased fees as a result of abolition of the
operational subsidy. NOSHSA indicated that 200 to 300 services across Australia
may suffer ‘quite substantial viability problems as a result’.[57]
3.36 DHFS,
addressing the issue of the viability of certain centres stated that some
services which currently have a high vacancy rate and rely on families using
significant periods of non-work related care may experience viability problems - ‘the
extent of the impact on individual services will depend on the usage patterns
on non-working families and local supply’.[58]
3.37 NOSHSA
also indicated that the implementation of Childcare Assistance would result in
an increase in administration time and costs. It noted for example that after
hours services have flexible patterns of attendance and as a result a centre in
Blacktown, NSW, with 60 places had enrolments of 107 because of the usage
pattern. As well, NOSHSA stated that ‘computerised records are virtually
non-existent in out of school hours services and indications are that the only
alternative would be a large increase in administration time’, with Queensland
services indicating that administration time would be quadrupled for the first
year of implementation.[59] NOSHSA and
QCCC also noted that providers would not only have to undertake their
administration but also aid parents in filling out the required forms.[60]
3.38 NOSHSA
stated that problems would also arise in the out of school hours sector because
these services were primarily managed by parent bodies and it would take time
for the information about the changes to be assessed and appropriate management
structures to be put in place.[61]
3.39 DHFS
indicated that in the last budget, the Government provided funding of $3,000
per service to assist these services to develop new business plans and identify
new administrative arrangements so they could implement the new system. The
Government also provided capital funding to assist services make changes to
their computer and other administrative systems.[62]
3.40 NOSHSA
also raised concerns that standards of quality may decrease, for example lower
staff-child ratios and insufficient equipment, in order to keep fees low.[63]
3.41 In relation to concerns about viability of
services the Department responded:
I think it is a misunderstanding of what
the minister and the government want looked at in this charging practices
review. This is a general concern of government. It was a concern of the
previous government when they were seeking figures...that something like 30 per
cent of all hours of child care assistance that are paid for are not paid for
hours where the child actually attends. So there was a concern that there was a
mismatch...between attendance and hours subsidised by government.[64]
Impact
on families
3.42 In
the second reading speech, the Minister stated that the new arrangements ‘strengthen
parents’ right to choose the care they want for their children by giving
families more control and responsibility. The value of child care subsidies
will be more readily apparent.’ The Minister also stated that the measure in
the Bill to limit the provision of new places to 7,000 per year over the next
two years will ensure that ‘all new long day care centre places are located in
areas where demand for work related care is highest’.[65] As a result, significant inequities
for families in accessing care will be overcome.[66]
3.43 The Department submitted that the transfer
of payments to Centrelink would improve convenience for families. Families
would now only deal with one agency rather than two (DSS and the HIC) as was
the case under the old system. The Department also noted:
The consolidation of all payments and
employment services in Centrelink provides enormous potential for families to
access the full range of services and support offered by Government. Access to
programs will no longer be dependant on family understanding of the bureaucracy
or what organisation the family should contact. Centrelink staff will handle
the full range of advice on Government programs.[67]
3.44 Evidence
was submitted that the proposed changes will result in a more complicated
process for parents. For example, it was noted that the initial data collection
document was 30 pages long and that it ‘will turn many families away’ and the
inaccessibility of Centrelink offices for rural families.[68] The Department stated that the data collection
document would not be 30 pages long. It would be considerably more brief. AFCCA
also noted that the new requirements with regard to parental responsibilities
regarding notification and record keeping introduce a new level of
accountability and responsibility.[69]
3.45 NFDCCA
drew the Committee’s attention to the cost impact on families of the provision
of care for school-aged children on weekends or for irregular hours. The
Council gave the example of children of shift workers who may be in care in a
private home from 3.00 am. The Council noted that this care is classified
as before and after school care, but it suggested that it could come under the
classification of long day care and so be eligible for a higher level of child
care assistance.[70]
3.46 It
was also noted that some families may have difficulty in estimating their care
needs and families may be unable to budget for these variations.[71] Further, for those parents who have
child care needs there will be a difficulty in maintaining constant contact
with Centrelink in order to have their correct childcare assistance entitlement
applied.[72]
3.47 The
Department noted in its submission that in 30 per cent of cases families had
variable care needs and that in these cases ‘[Centrelink] will come to an
agreement with the family about how best to calculate and provide Childcare
Assistance. It is acknowledged that this process will place an added
responsibility on the family.’[73] The
Department went on to state that there were a number of payment options available
including payment based on a regular pattern of care for example where a parent
worked shift work. Families also had the option of paying the full costs of
their child care at the time of use and claiming back payment from Centrelink.
The Department stated that ‘it is expected that this approach will be used by
families with highly unpredictable use of child care’.
3.48 In
other evidence it was stated that because of fee rises, parents - particularly women - may be forced to leave
paid work because quality child care is too expensive and that families would
be forced to use unregulated home-based care because of rising fees for
centre-based care.[74] The Committee
believes that this scenario is not borne out by the facts. The Committee
Chairman cited an example of a woman with an income of $31,000 who decided to
give up her job because she was paying $20 a week extra for child care. After
taking into account the child care costs, tax and Medicare, the woman was
$8-9,000 out of pocket as a result of her decision to give up her job.[75] The Chairman also drew attention to
ABS statistics which indicate that between October 1996 and July 1997 the
labour force participation rates for women have remained steady.[76]
Approval process
3.49 The Committee received evidence in relation
to the approval process for child care service providers which raised a number
of concerns. NOSHSA stated:
...regarding the eligibility rules: these
rules should be set if the government is to appear fair and proper in its
delivery of child-care assistance to services. Government policy must be
transparent and not open to manipulation. We feel that, by leaving that section
open, we are placing our services at risk.[77]
3.50 ACCC stated that the Bill was unclear on
how the Minister may determine other conditions on the approval of a service to
be eligible as an approved service.[78]
NACBCS stated that it:
...believes that the quality standards
must be implemented for all service types on a compulsory basis...The
government needs to be confident that its subsidies are used to assist parents
to pay for good quality care. NACBCS supports the removal of access to public
funds for poor quality services. Within that...we could not find throughout the
legislation the link between child-care assistance or the cash rebate to
accreditation of the long day care centres. We would like to see that link
included in the legislation. [79]
3.51 The
ACCC also raised concerns about the lack of information available about the
approval process, noting that the service needs to apply using the approved
form and to supply information required by the form. ACCC stated that
‘“Information” is defined, but the definition does not tell you anything
useful, and neither has anyone else!’[80]
3.52 On the use of disallowable instruments in
relation to approvals, NACBCS stated:
Clauses 185 to 188 are all about
eligibility of long day care, family day care, occasional care and outside
school hours services to be approved as those types of services. Again, they
are really fundamental and should be within this bill. They should not be
subordinate, they should not be guidelines.[81]
3.53 In
response to these concerns about the need for approval, the Department stated
that the main reason for the reapproval process was that all of the agreements
that were previously signed were signed to make payments under the Child Care
Act. These agreements will lapse with the repeal of those provisions of the
Child Care Act under the transitional and consequential amendments made in
conjunction with the Bill. New agreements will then be signed to authorise
payment under that new Act ‘and also to ensure that appeal rights and so forth
that are covered by the new Act are available to all services’. Further, other
services such as family day care and out of hours school services have never
been under legislation and will be required to sign agreements for the first
time.[82]
3.54 The
Department also noted that the rules ‘to be set out in a Disallowable
Instrument, will substantially mirror existing requirements with a minor
difference’.[83] It was stated that
there was one new clause that they will be required to meet and that ‘has
always been in place with family day care and other service types but it was
not in the previous agreement under the Child Care Act, and that is that the
person signing the agreement has to fall within a category of a fit and proper
person and have no relevant convictions’. The Department added that ‘it is the
minister’s, the government’s and our intention that all existing services will
be approved’.[84] Further, all existing
services will be deemed to be approved for a limited period under the
Transitional Act to ensure that no service loses access to Childcare Assistance
due to failure to return forms or postal problems.
3.55 The Department stated that services will
have to apply for allocated hours as ‘the government has to be sure that no
existing service that is out there that is already approved, actually expands
in those two years [1998 and 1999] - expands in its
number of places - without telling us’. Services will be
approved for the number of places applied for on their application form but
will not be able to expand unless they are in a high needs area and are
allocated places out of the 7,000 new places made available by the Government.[85]
4. recommendation
4.1 The
Committee reports to the Senate that it has considered the Child Care Payments
Bill 1997 and the Child Care Payments (Consequential Amendments and
Transitional Provisions) Bill 1997 and recommends
that the Bills proceed but that the implementation date for the reforms be
delayed until no earlier than 1 April 1998.
Senator Sue Knowles
Chairman
October 1997
Addendum to the Majority Report
from Senator John Woodley Australian
Democrats
The Australian Democrats support the
majority report of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee into the Child Care Payments Bill 1997 and the Child Care Payments (Consequential
Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1997. We do, however, wish to make the following
additional comments.
Implementation
of the Reforms
Evidence given to the Committee
clearly indicated that the major and most widespread concern over the reforms
contained in these bills was the proposed date for their implementation.
As a result of this Committee hearing,
the Government has now said that that it will delay the implementation of these
reforms until 27 April 1998. This is a
positive outcome and we are pleased that this Committee hearing, which was set
up at the Democrats' suggestion, provided such an effective forum for parents
and child care services to make their concerns known to the Government.
The Democrats urge the Government to
ensure that they follow through on this announcement and ensure that the implementation of the
reforms contained in these bills is delayed.
Disallowable
Instruments
We accept the concerns expressed by
the various witnesses to the committee regarding the reliance on Ministerial
discretion through the use of Disallowable Instruments. However, we also acknowledge Departmental
claims that the use of Disallowable Instruments is not unusual.
The Democrats urge the Government to
ensure that all 27 of the Disallowable Instruments which are currently in the
process of being drafted are released as exposure drafts for comment by the
industry as soon as they are completed.
Prison Terms
The Democrats have concern about the
provision of harsh penalties of imprisonment where a person has been convicted
of fraud, making untrue statements, making a false representation or obtaining
a benefit under false pretences in respect of a child care payment. While we are comforted to some extent to see
that the Bill prevents a person being imprisoned for receiving a child care
payment simply because of an act of failure or omission, the Democrats do
question the appropriateness of using prison penalties to punish offences
relating to child care payments.
Childcare Assistance Limit for Non-work
Related Care
The Democrats urge the Government to
closely monitor and consider the effect limiting Childcare Assistance for
non-work related care will have on the viability of centres in regions
depending on a large proportion of non-work related care. We particularly urge the Government to
carefully consider the effect this measure will have on the viability of
centres in Queensland and some areas of Western Australia.
Out of School Hours Care
The Democrats are very concerned at
the Government's decision to withdraw operational subsidies for Out of School
Hours Care. However, because the
withdrawal of operational subsidies for Out of School Hours Care is not
something which is subject to legislation, the Democrats can only call on the
Minister to closely monitor, and re-consider if necessary, the effect this
decision has on the viability of these important services.
Reform
of School Age Care
The Democrats accept statements made
by the Department that the need for higher fees because of the proposed
reduction in the hourly rebateable fee from $2.30 to $1.95 for out of school
hours care in long day centres will be offset to a large extent by increased
utilisation of this service. However, we
urge the Minister to closely monitor, and re-consider if necessary, the effect
this decision has on the level of fees parents have to pay for school age care
in long day care centres.
Senator John Woodley
(AD, Queensland)
DISSENTING REPORT BY THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY
Child
Care Payments Bill 1997
Child Care Payments (Consequential
Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1997
Introduction
The Labor
Opposition dissents from Chairperson's report on the Child Care Payments Bill
1997 and Child Care Payments (Consequential Amendments and Transitional
Provisions) Bill 1997.
The Federal
Government's changes to the childcare sector over two budgets have caused fee
increases, centre closures, job losses and a decrease in the quality of care.
The Federal Government has cut $820 million from child care over two budgets.
The Child Care
Payment bills introduce the Coalition’s 1997 budget measures for child care and
propose massive changes to the way childcare services operate and parents apply
for assistance. These bills will continue the process of fee increases, the use
of unlicensed care, the closure of services and the reduction of women's
ability to work. The Federal Government's initial attempts to implement this
legislation by 1 January 1998 would have caused chaos in the industry.
The Government has
failed to acknowledge the widespread community concern over its changes to
child care, and this Committee has restricted consultation by working to
unrealistic deadlines, calling only a few of the many organisations with an
interest as witnesses, and by not providing opportunities for parents to
address the Committee.
As stated by the
Queensland Child Care Coalition, "The pre-election promise that all
parents have fair and equitable access to affordable, flexible and high quality
options regardless of whether they choose to participate in the paid work force
or care for their children at home is simply not being met."[86]
Measures
The Child Care
Payments Bill introduces a number of measures including immunisation as a
criteria for childcare assistance and the childcare rebate. It also legislates
a 20 hour limit for non-work related care and a 50 hour limit on work related
care. The Bill proposes that the Minister will allocate childcare hours to
regions yet to be specified and will limit places to 7,000 in 1998 and 1999.
Immunisation
The Opposition
supports national immunisation objectives. There are, however, concerns about
tying the eligibility for Government assistance to programs such as
immunisation. Unfortunately, making immunisation a criteria for childcare
assistance and the childcare rebate will only disadvantage those who are
already the least likely to get their children immunised. Families who cannot
afford to get their children immunised, do not understand the requirements, or
find the lengthy and complicated application process intimidating will not get
assistance with child care. Child care will not be a financial option for these
families without Government assistance.
There have been
recorded shortages of vaccines including the Triple Antigen vaccine for
Tetanus, Whooping Cough and Diphtheria. It is important that families are not
unfairly disadvantaged because of vaccine shortages out of their control. The
Government should exempt people who find themselves in this situation.
Planning
Provisions
The legislation
puts in place a number of planning provisions including: the limitation of
hours used and places available, the regional allocation of hours, and approval
practices for centres accessing childcare assistance or the childcare rebate.
With the
implementation of the Child Care Payments Bill the Government will have the
structure in place for the Government to limit childcare places in the future.
There is no guarantee in the bill that existing services will receive approval
to continue with the same number of places and the planning process makes no
provision for work based child care.
The Government will
allocate hours to regions but hasn't specified what those regions are, how it
will decide which regions will get what hours, or what provision will be made
to increase hours and places where demand has not been met.
The Bill has no
recourse to parliament for the Minister's determination for regional allocation
of childcare hours, allowing regional allocation to go unscrutinised. It is
imperative that the Minister's
determination of the regional allocation of new childcare assistance hours is
disallowable.
The Government also
has not addressed the concerns of some sections of the community, such as the
Queensland Nurses Union, who say there are still not, nor will there be with
the implementation of this legislation, appropriate childcare services for
shift workers.[87]
The Government's
decision to limit hours of care to 50 per week "...will disadvantage women
in regional areas and will lead to parents paying full fees for any care over
50 hours. Parents living in fringe metropolitan areas will also be disadvantaged
if a significant proportion of their child care hours are used for travel to
and from work."[88]
Organisations are
deeply concerned about future planning arrangements. The arrangements for
allocation of hours in this bill cease December 1999. The lack of certainty is
causing anxiety in the industry.
Emergency Childcare Assistance
Emergency Childcare
Assistance is only available for one four week period in twelve months. Labor
is of the strong opinion that this is not appropriate when considering children
at risk. This limit is unfair to children who are facing serious crisis or
potential abuse and need emergency childcare, and the limit needs to be
abolished. The Australian Federation of Child Care Associations said in the
Community Affairs Committee public hearing on the Bill, that the
"...provision could be harsh for the people who most desperately need
it."[89]
Outside
School Hours
This Bill threatens
the continued operation of outside school hours care by removal of the
operational subsidy.
Many centres will
close without this subsidy. Small centres and those in rural and regional areas
are most at risk. Services and the number of qualified staff will be reduced.
The Queensland Child Care Coalition also reports that fees will increases
without the operational subsidy.[90]
Disturbingly, the
Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers union reports that the
removal of the operational subsidy for out of hours school care will see an
increase of children at home, 'latch key' kids, without supervision.[91]
It will only be a matter
of time before the Federal Government moves to abolish the only remaining
operational subsidy, the subsidy being paid to family day care. The Government
announced the cut in the last budget but has since changed its mind.
Penalties
Some childcare
groups expressed concern at the harsh penalties contained in the Bill,
including six months imprisonment for not providing information on request.
"Going to prison for not letting Centrelink or any agency know certain
information, given that these people are people who obviously have children
between the ages of nought and five, seems totally unreasonable..."[92] Labor urges a change in such
penalties.
Consultation
The Federal
Government's changes to child care have been characterised by a lack of
consultation. Childcare services have been left feeling confused about the
results of the Child Care Payments Bill and the changes the Government plans to
make to the payment system.
The Government
rushed hearings of this Committee, and limited witnesses to peak national
organisations, which prevented the full range of groups concerned about changes
to childcare payments appearing before the Committee. The Child Care Centres
Association of Victoria, for example, complained about not being represented at
the Committee hearings. [93]
Most importantly, the time frame and restrictions stopped parents from
being able to comment.
The Department of
Health and Family Services considers it has consulted adequately. It claims to
have consulted with over 100 childcare organisations.[94] Despite this, few organisations
consider they have been adequately consulted with.
Conducting
information seminars for legislation which is supposed to be implemented within
a matter of months for details that haven't been finalised is not adequate. The
Victorian Family Day Care Association, for example, stated in its submission, "That
the implications of the Bill have not been fully explained and we keep
receiving information in a sporadic manner which makes us consider that perhaps
the implications are being worked out as we go along. This makes proper
consultation impossible and dissatisfaction inevitable."[95]
Childcare
organisations have an understandable fear that the Government's long-term
agenda is currently not being articulated and cannot be ascertained from the
Bill. The Australian Confederation of Child Care said at the public hearings
that they "...fear that there is a lot more going to happen that the
stated objectives, particularly when it comes to the rearranging of the payment
mechanisms and the legislative framework."[96]
Implementation
The Australian
Confederation of Child Care states in its submission that the Bill has major
deficiencies and says that if changes to the system are not designed properly
it will only result in further inefficiencies.[97]
There are 27 pieces
of subordinate legislation and the Department said in public hearings that only
seven had been drafted at this stage. The subordinate legislation contains
definitions and regulations which, depending on the contents, could have a large
impact on the industry and parents. For example, the exemptions for people
using more than 50 hours a week of care or if a child is at risk are contained
in subordinate legislation.
All childcare
bodies who appeared as witnesses said they had not been provided with copies of
subordinate legislation and were told it was unavailable.
The Australian
Confederation of Child Care notes that some terms, "...fundamental to the
whole system...", have not been defined, such as "other childcare
assistance hours" allocated under the "guidelines" and a
"qualifying session of care".[98]
The Federal
Government has buckled to the pressure of childcare organisations and moved the
implementation date from 1 January 1998 to after Easter next year. The initial
implementation date would have caused widespread chaos because many services
reduce hours or close over December and January. Many organisations feel they
have little understanding of the Government's proposal for the industry and a
January implementation date would have given them no chance to understand their
obligations.
Some organisations,
including the National Out of School Hours Services Association, believe an
implementation date of 1 January 1999 would be more realistic, and would
implement the Bill at the same time the Government plans to introduce the new
smart card payments system which will also entail massive change.[99] "There are a lot of problems
associated with parent management attempting to restructure their services in
this quick space of time and trying to get parents informed."[100] The National Out of School Hours
Association also says that the Federal Government is expecting services to
restructure and enter a new marketplace completely different from how they
currently operate. This needs time.[101]
Fee
Increases
Most of the
submissions talked about fee increases resulting from last year's budget
changes. The National Association of Community based Children's Services
completed a survey called Cost versus
Quality which found fees have increased by up to $18 per week per child.[102] The National Out of School Hours
Services Association said at the public hearings that, "The sector is
facing a loss of income and increased fees as a result of the loss of
operational subsidy and an increase in administration time and costs relating
to the implementation of childcare assistance."[103]
The Government
claims that the payment of childcare assistance to centres will make up for
operational subsidies but NOSHSA says services are getting child care
assistance but also losing $14.50 per place in operational subsidy meaning fees
would rise.[104] Organisations also
reported that the changes contained in the Child Care Payments legislation
would result in further fee increases.
NOSHSA said in the
Committee's public hearings that it has estimated that in one centre,
administration time will quadruple, "...resulting in an extra 11 hours and
15 minutes in wages per week, which will be equal to an extra $169.20 in added
costs for implementation."[105]
South Gippsland Family Day Care pointed out that the impact of fee increases
and a decrease in flexibility on parents and services in regional areas where
many parents need flexibility and are on low incomes, will be considerable.[106]
Family Day Care
organisations, such as the Victorian Family Day Care Association, were most
concerned about changes to the fee structure which means parents will only get
$2.30 per hour rather than the current $3.05 an hour.[107] This could mean a difference of up
to $40 per week per child.
The Australian
Confederation of Child Care was also concerned about the differences in the
rebateable fee between long day care and family day care.[108]
There seems to be no policy justification for providing long day care a
rebate of $2.30 for a pre-school aged child and family day care $3.05. The
National Family Day Care Council says the cost impact of reducing fees from
$2.30 for preschool children to $1.95 for those of school age will be
considerable.[109] All these changes
mean centres will have to increase fees.
Centre
Closures
The Australian Confederation
of Child Care reported that, "...in Victoria for our membership, which
runs about 200 centres, we would have had about a five per cent closure rate
over this current calender year."[110]
The South
Australian Minister for Education and Children's Services, the Hon Robert
Lucas, demonstrated the enormous impact the Federal Government changes to child
care were having. He reported centre closures since the loss of operational
subsidies, the drift of parents into informal care and families leaving paid
work because of the high cost of care. He also reported staff losses through
centre closures and fee increases.[111]
The National Out of
School Hours Association conservatively estimated that, "...of the 1,400
or 1,500 services across Australia, you would be looking at 200 or 300 services
suffering quite substantial viability problems as a result."[112] The Australian Confederation of
Child Care reported in a survey examined by Access Economics that anything from
500 to 3,000 people could become unemployed as a result of this legislation.[113]
Use
of Informal Care
Family day care
services have reported that the change in fees from $3.05 per hour to $2.30, a
difference of 75 cents will result in families leaving the formal care system
and seeking unlicensed, unsupervised backyard care. "...[I]f children in
family day care cannot stay because of the prohibitive costs or for whatever
reason, they would have no child care."[114]
These changes are
building on last year's budget changes. The NACBCs survey, Cost versus Quality, shows 67% of people leaving child care are
going to informal care. Parents leaving child care cite fee increases as the
reason (74%).
Decrease
in Quality
The massive changes
in the childcare sector including the abolition of operational subsidies for
the community sector have seen a reduction in the quality of child care that is
set to continue following the implementation of the Child Care Payments Bill.
The National Association of Community Based Children's Services questions the
Government's ability to ensure children are safe if parent's cannot afford
quality child care.[115]
The National Out of
School Hours Association reports, "...that, in order to keep fees low,
parent management committees may drop standards of quality, for example, lower
staff-child ratios and insufficient equipment."[116]
Parents
Leaving Work force
The Government has
not assessed the impact people leaving the work force because they cannot
afford child care will have on revenue collection and on increasing social
security payments to these people and their families.
Disturbingly, the
Queensland Child Care Coalition reported that: "In March this year the
female participation rate dropped by 50,100, the largest decrease since
September 1979." The QCCC attributed this drop to increases in childcare
fees since the Federal Government's budget cuts and changes to the childcare
industry.[117] A report from the
National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling presented at the 26th Annual
conference of Economists reports that there is little financial incentive for
women, particularly in low income families to enter the work force even on a
part time basis because of childcare costs and reductions in family payments.[118] The Queensland Child Care Coalition
stated at the public hearings that, "A lot of the women who are in the
lower income range are finding that $15 a week more for child care is just
making it unaffordable for them."[119]
Conclusion
The Federal
Government's $820 million changes over two budgets, including the
implementation of the Child Care Payments Bill is causing fee increases, centre
closures, job losses and a decrease in the quality of care.
The Government has
made and is proposing massive changes to the childcare industry and to the
lives of families using child care and has proposed giving both parents and
childcare services little time to adjust.
The Federal
Government has failed to realise the essential part child care plays in the
lives of families who work and in children's development. Families continuing
reliance on backyard or informal care because of fee increases in quality care
is disturbing.
The Government
needs to acknowledge the widespread community concern and to make changes to
its current childcare regime that makes it affordable, accessible and
equitable.
Recommendations
- That
implementation of the legislation not be before 1 April 1998 (the Minister
recently announced an implementation date of 27 April 1998, acceding to
this request), or a minimum of four moths from the passing of the Bill.
- Immunisation
must be exempted as a criteria for childcare payments where a recognised
immunisation provider has certified that the vaccine necessary for
immunisation is not available.
- The
period for a retrospective claim must be changed from 13 weeks to 6
months.
- The
withholding rate for debt repayment needs to be limited to 14% (this is
the standard social security withholding rate and the Government has not
put any limit on how much it can withhold from future payments in the
bill).
- The
limit of four weeks continuous care in one 12 month session of care for
emergency childcare assistance should be removed.
- Chapter
6, Part 1, Division 2 should be amended to make it clear that the
requirement for a service to have an allocation of childcare assistance
hours only applies to new services (not existing services).
- Chapter
6, Part 1, Division 3 must be omitted as it allows the number of new
family day care, occasional care and outside school hours care places to
be capped without recourse to Parliament.
- The
Minister's determination of the regional allocation of new childcare
assistance hours must be made disallowable.
- It is
not appropriate for families to face penalties of six months imprisonment
for failing to comply with a request for information. Such penalties
should be changed.
Senator Belinda Neal (ALP, New South Wales)
Senator Kay Denman (ALP,
Tasmania)
Appendix 1 - SUBMISSIONs AND LETTERS RECEIVED BY THE COMMITTEE
|
1
|
South West
Gippsland Family Day Care
|
|
2
|
Child Care
Centres Association of Victoria
|
|
3
|
Victorian
Family Day Care Association - State Advisory
Committee
|
|
4
|
Victorian
Family Day Care Association
|
|
5
|
Queensland
Nurses’ Union
|
|
6
|
Australian
Liquor, Hospitality & Miscellaneous Workers’ Union
|
|
7
|
Moreton
Downs Early Education
|
|
8
|
Australian
Confederation of Child Care
|
|
9
|
Queensland
Child Care Coalition
|
|
10
|
Department
of Health and Family Services
|
|
11
|
Australian
Federation of Child Care Associations
|
|
12
|
National
Family Day Care Council of Australia
|
|
13
|
National
Association of Community Based Children’s Services
|
|
14
|
South East Region
Family Day Care
|
|
15
|
Cardinia
Family Day Care
|
|
16
|
Australian
Council of Trade Unions
|
|
17
|
Narre Warren
Child Care Complex
|
|
18
|
Murdell
House Occasional Child Care Centre
|
|
19
|
South
Gippsland Family Day Care
|
|
20
|
South
Australian Minister for Education and Children’s Services
|
|
21
|
Billabong
Educational Childcare
|
|
22
|
Vaccination
Information South Australia
|
|
23
|
Mr Greg
Beattie
|
|
24
|
Australian Vaccination
Network
|
Letters received relating to Child Care Assistance
|
Ms
Cathy Andrews
|
|
Mr
and Mrs John Kiploks
|
|
Mr
Gary Bennett
|
|
Ms
Dianne Marsh
|
|
Ms
Leslie G Fox
|
|
Mr
Andrew Halliwell
|
|
Ms
Jane Crowe
|
|
Ms
Lisa Garland
|
|
Ms
Leeanne McLay
|
|
Mrs
Melissa Whelan
|
|
Ms
Nerrelle Graham
|
|
Mrs
Yvonne Drybwgh
|
|
Ms
Karen Ann Johnson
|
|
Ms
Glenda Lennie
|
|
Ms
Clare Wickham
|
|
Mrs
Tracey Vincent
|
|
Mrs
T Linke
|
|
Ms
Elizabeth Hove
|
|
Ms
Megan O’Brien
|
|
Mrs
Erica Maguire
|
|
Ms
Janis Ovens
|
|
Ms
Karen Vick
|
|
Ms
Michelle Andrews
|
Appendix 2: PUBLIC
HEARING
Details of the two public
hearings held on the Bills are as follows:
Thursday, 2
October 1997, Senate Committee Room 2S1
Committee Members in attendance
Senator Sue Knowles
(Chairman)
Senator Kay Denman
Senator Alan Eggleston
Senator Michael Forshaw
Senator Belinda Neal
Senator Karen Synon
Senator John Woodley
Witnesses
National Out of School Hours Services
Association
Ms Robyn Miller,
Chairperson
Ms
Anne Taylor, National Coordinator
National Family Day Care Council of
Australia
Ms Bev Foden,
President
Ms Margaret
Nicolson, Secretary
Ms Jo Comans,
Executive Director
Australian Federation of Child Care Associations
Ms Evelyn
Callaghan, National President
Ms Liz Lester,
National Chief Executive Officer
Ms
Gwynne Bridge, Member
Australian Confederation of Child Care
Mr Brian
McFarlane, Vice President
Mrs Lyn
Connolly, Executive Member
Mr Ian Weston,
Consultant
Friday, 3 October 1997, Senate
Committee Room 1S3
Committee Members in attendance
Senator Sue Knowles
(Chairman)
Senator Alan Eggleston
Senator Karen Synon
Senator John Woodley
Witnesses
Queensland Child Care Coalition
Mr Chris
Buck, Spokesperson and President, National Child Care Centres Association
Ms Gwynne
Bridge, Steering Committee Member
Ms Wendy
Turner, Steering Committee Member
National Association of Community Based
Children’s Services
Ms Celia
Haddock, Secretary
Ms Prue
Warrilow, Deputy Convenor
Department of Health and Family Services
Mr Barry
Wight, First Assistant Secretary, Family and Children’s Services Division
Ms
Margaret Carmody, Assistant Secretary, Policy Analysis and Planning Branch
Ms Paula
Swift, A/g Director, Child Care Fee Subsidies
Mr Denis Bayada, National Manager, Families and Children,
Centrelink