2.1
The cost of early childhood education and care (ECEC) has increased by 41 per cent over the past eight years and represents a significant barrier to parental workforce participation—particularly for women. It is also a barrier to children's participation in early learning.
2.2
The Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022 (bill) is expected to cut the cost of ECEC for around 1.26 million Australian families, meaning around 96 per cent of families with children in care will be better off. In turn, this is expected to increase the hours worked by women with young children by up to 1.4 million hours per week—or the equivalent of 37 000 full time workers—in 2023–24.
2.3
This chapter explores the broad support for the bill and examines key issues raised by participants during the inquiry. It also outlines stakeholder proposals for further reform across the ECEC sector and identifies matters that could be considered as part of the Australian Government's (government's) recently announced inquiries to be undertaken by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and the Productivity Commission.
Broad support for the bill
2.4
Overall, there was broad support for the provisions of the bill, which were variously described as significant reforms and an important and welcome step forward.
2.5
There was particularly strong support for the measures designed to boost the affordability of ECEC for around 96 per cent of families. For example, The Parenthood described the proposed change to the Child Care Subsidy (CCS) as 'the biggest increase in affordable early learning and care since … reforms to the Child Care Benefit and Rebate in 2007 and 2008'.
2.6
There was also significant support for the introduction of a base entitlement of 36 hours of subsidised care per fortnight for First Nations families. The Telethon Kids Institute, Early Learning and Care Council of Australia (ELACCA) and SNAICC – National Voice for our Children (SNAICC) respectively described this measure as 'an important and welcome reform', 'a timely and impactful first step' and 'a positive place from which to begin broader reform'.
2.7
The ECEC sector's support for the bill was also emphasised by the Department of Education (department), which explained that stakeholder views had been considered in the drafting of the bill. This was acknowledged by Family Day Care Australia (FDCA), which commended the department on the extent and quality of its consultation. Similarly, Goodstart Early Learning (Goodstart) reported that the consultation process had improved the bill. The department indicated it would continue to address stakeholder views, where relevant, during implementation of the measures in the bill.
2.8
While welcoming the bill, a number of stakeholders proposed amendments or advocated for further reforms that were not addressed by the bill. Some of the key issues raised by participants included ECEC workforce shortages, the lack of ECEC services in some geographical locations and communities, and the impact of the activity test.
2.9
However, many of these same participants still argued for the bill to be passed. For example, despite raising concerns about issues not addressed by the bill, FDCA made clear that it does not oppose the bill passing as 'the measures relating to increasing the CCS rate and payment integrity are important and should not be delayed'. Likewise, Thrive by Five acknowledged the need for further reform but supported quick passage of the legislation rather than letting it get 'bogged down in too much debate or delay'.
2.10
A similar view was expressed by stakeholders who saw the bill as the first step in a longer process of sector reform. For example, the Centre for Policy Development described the potential for the bill to be 'an important catalyst toward a universal, child-focused system, underpinned by a highly valued and skilled workforce, that supports all young children and their families to thrive'. A similar view was expressed by the Hon Jay Weatherill, Director of Thrive by Five:
This legislation is a small part of what could potentially be one of the most significant social and economic reforms that the country has embarked upon in recent years. It's hard to imagine a public policy issue that develops so many benefits for children, for families, for the broader community and for the economy in just one single set of measures.
2.11
To this end, stakeholders such as the Business Council of Australia and Goodstart, noted that the bill was part of a broader package of commitments that will help drive further reform in the ECEC sector. These commitments include the planned inquiry by the ACCC into the supply of ECEC services, a comprehensive review of the ECEC sector by the Productivity Commission, the national commitment to develop a long-term vision for the ECEC sector, implementation of the National Children's Education and Care Workforce Strategy, development of an Early Years Strategy, development of an ECEC Market Strategy and Market Monitoring Framework, support for the Early Childhood Care and Development Policy Partnership, funding for additional university and fee-free TAFE places, as well as planned amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009.
Improving the affordability of ECEC
Increasing the Child Care Subsidy rate
2.12
There was almost universal support for this measure, which would increase the CCS for families earning less than $530 000 with children in ECEC. While positive for families, the proposed change was also linked to broader economic and social benefits. For example, Mr John Cherry, Head of Advocacy at Goodstart described the measure as a 'big', 'positive' reform that is 'great for children', 'great for working families' and 'great for Australia as a whole'.
2.13
More specifically, Ms Danielle Wood, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Grattan Institute, highlighted the importance of the reform in the context of reducing cost of living pressures, freeing up labour supply, and increasing women's economic security. Emeritus Professor Stephen Zubrick went further and spoke of the long-term impacts that could arise from the developmental opportunities enabled by the bill:
It builds human capabilities by allowing adults, particularly women, to remain engaged in employment and education and training. These effects are immediate. It has positive effects on the developmental capabilities of young children, particularly in families that are economically disadvantaged … These effects can improve school readiness, prepare a child for a better experience on entry, and thereby increase their life choices in the long run. Early childhood education and care, in this respect, has an effect on reducing inequality. When we look at it as a population dynamic, it's nation building. These effects are in the long-term.
2.14
There was also broad support for the proposal to maintain a higher subsidy rate for second and subsequent children. However, providers and peak bodies in the outside school hours care sector raised concerns about the proposal to limit the higher subsidy rate for second and subsequent children to those aged zero to five years.
2.15
While supporting the proposed affordability changes, some participants pointed to the need for a review of the hourly rate cap. This related to both its impact on the amount of CCS a family receives, as well as its effectiveness as a price control mechanism. The fall in the relative value of the hourly rate cap since it was introduced in 2015 was identified as a particular issue for the family day care sector, where 31.8 per cent of services now exceed the cap on average. While The Parenthood noted the impact of the rate cap on the affordability of family day care, FDCA also warned that it was impacting service viability in the sector.
2.16
In response to these concerns, the department stated that it was currently looking at the hourly rate caps in consultation with the sector. This work was described as a precursor to the ACCC review, which would involve a more comprehensive analysis of prices and cost drivers for the ECEC market.
2.17
In addition, some stakeholders, such as The Parenthood, warned of the potential for the increased subsidy to be undermined by fee increases. While recognising the role of the ACCC inquiry in investigating price regulation mechanisms, The Parenthood noted that this may come too late to prevent fee increases prior to July 2023. Accordingly, it urged close monitoring of fees 'to ensure families are not ripped off by excessive fee increases'.
2.18
While stakeholders supported the affordability measures in the bill, a number raised concerns that their effectiveness could be undermined by ECEC workforce shortages and the uneven distribution of ECEC services across Australia.
2.19
Discussion of broader ECEC workforce issues appears under 'Broader ECEC sector reforms' below.
Improving affordability and access for First Nations families
2.20
There was widespread support for the new base entitlement of 36 hours of subsidised care per fortnight for First Nations families, regardless of activity level. The United Workers Union described the measure as 'long overdue and really welcome'. Likewise, Ngala described the measure as 'an important step in the first targets towards Closing the Gap and removing the barriers of participation, improving outcomes for First Nations children'.
2.21
While supporting the measure, many stakeholders argued that the base entitlement should be increased. For example, Ms Catherine Liddle described the measure as a positive start but stressed that it was 'nowhere near enough to meet the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children'. Instead, Ms Liddle advocated for a base entitlement of 30 hours of subsidised ECEC per week for First Nations families. This view was shared by other participants, such as Goodstart, which explained that 36 hours was 'unlikely to be sufficient … to support affordable access to two full days of early learning, which the evidence tells us is the minimum dosage to improve school readiness.'
2.22
As with the broader change to the CCS rate, some participants including Child Australia and Early Childhood Australia (ECA) also raised concerns about the impact that a lack of services could have on the success of this measure. Ms Samantha Page, CEO of ECA explained:
Overall, we support improved access for children from First Nations communities, but we also need to address the fact that there is a shortage of services in many of those communities, with particularly difficult workforce shortages in many rural and remote communities that also need to be addressed. We hope that that's something that will get looked at as part of the Productivity Commission review next year.
2.23
In addition, while supporting the measure, stakeholders such as SNAICC, Goodstart and SDN Children's Services advocated for the measure to be extended to other vulnerable families. Similarly, other participants, such as the Parenthood and the Australian Childcare Alliance proposed extending an increased base entitlement to all families.
2.24
Further discussion of stakeholder views on the accessibility of child care, including the impact of the activity test appears under 'Broader ECEC sector reforms' below.
Legislating discounted ECEC fees for educators
2.25
Against a backdrop of ECEC workforce shortages, there was general support for this provision which would provide ongoing legislative authority for providers to offer discounted fees to educators. Mr Craig Napier, Junior Adventures Group, argued that:
I think it's a fantastic measure. Our team members need to be rewarded in some way, and if we can help them afford their childcare that would be a great way to start.
2.26
However, while supporting the measure, some stakeholders raised concerns about the potential financial impact on smaller providers and noted that it could potentially result in fee increases for families. For example, while describing the proposal as 'a welcome measure for educators', Ms Samantha Page pointed out that—unlike large providers—small providers would not have the ability to cross subsidise to absorb any loss in revenue:
For small [non governments organisations] and small business operators that, perhaps, only have one service and multiple educators eligible for the discount that could be tricky. But, overall, we welcome the measure and will seek to help to make it work.
2.27
A similar view was shared by KU Children's Services (KU), which contended that although a decrease in revenue may make fee discounts unviable for some providers, current educator shortages meant that 'removing any barriers to offer this incentive is welcome'.
2.28
While welcoming the measure, stakeholders such as ELACCA described it as only one part of the solution to addressing ECEC workforce shortages. To this end, a number of participants who endorsed the measure, also suggested extending the discount beyond educators to encompass other staff members, including ECEC centre chefs or cooks who are employed under the same award as educators and have high attrition rates.
2.29
Discussion of broader ECEC workforce issues appears under 'Broader ECEC sector reforms' below.
Increasing transparency in the ECEC sector
2.30
There was general support for, and acceptance of, the proposal to expand reporting obligations for large providers and improve the information available to parents about ECEC services. For example, the Telethon Kids Institute described financial transparency in the 'investments, use of, and profits derived from' ECEC as 'essential' and argued that:
The Government is now investing billions of dollars into the childcare sector – it is completely reasonable to demand transparency in the way of quality, performance, coverage and finance for this investment of taxpayer dollars.
2.31
For other stakeholders, such as Thrive by Five and Child Australia, the collapse of ABC Learning in 2008 and the Australian Government's provision of financial assistance to the sector during the COVID-19 pandemic—without having access to information about the financial circumstances of providers—was 'conclusive evidence for the need for better transparency in the sector'.
2.32
While supporting the reform, some submitters contended that it did not go far enough. For example, ARACY proposed that the definition of large providers could be expanded to include those with annual revenue above a specified threshold. In a similar vein, KU noted that size may not be the only indicator of concern and suggested that 'overseas and ASX listed providers, regardless of size, may warrant scrutiny'. Similarly, Goodstart suggested lowering the size threshold to providers operating 10—15 services, while the Centre for Policy Development argued that the measure 'should apply to all services, regardless of size'.
2.33
In addition to expanding the definition of large providers, the Australian Education Union (AEU) suggested that the type of information to be collected and published could also be expanded to include 'spending on educators and teachers, retention and turnover rates as well as operating surpluses at the provider and individual centre level'.
2.34
However, some providers who supported the transparency measures, also advocated for changes to reduce any unnecessary administrative burden. For example, SDN Children's Services proposed that reports be required within six months of the end of the financial year, rather than three months. It observed that this would align with existing reporting requirements for not-for-profit providers registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. Similarly, KU noted that reporting three months after the end of the financial year would be challenging for providers that operated on a calendar fiscal year.
2.35
In addition, some stakeholders such as the National Foundation for Australian Women (NFAW) expressed doubts that this measure would provide better information for parents, given most providers are 'single service' providers that would not be subject to the expanded reporting requirements. To this end, some stakeholders pointed to the need to upgrade the Starting Blocks website. For example, Goodstart asserted that the website currently '[falls] well short of providing the 'go to' portal for parents to get up to date information in choosing a centre'. Both Goodstart and The Parenthood advocated for Starting Blocks to provide real time fee information (based on a standard 10 hour session).
Improving payment integrity and reducing fraud
2.36
There was broad support for these measures, which include a requirement for ECEC providers to collect gap fees via electronic funds transfer (EFT). For example, Thrive by Five argued that it was 'appropriate that the Government takes all measures possible' to maximise its $8.6 billion investment in ECEC. This view was shared by the AEU, which observed that it was 'essential that all possible measures are taken to eradicate fraud and misuse of the CCS by unscrupulous providers'.
2.37
The changes were also supported by the NFAW, which relayed its concerns about 'the motives and business models of some providers in the child care sector, necessitating successive Government payment integrity and anti-fraud measures since 2013'.
2.38
More specifically, the Australian Federal Police explained that mandating EFT payments had been recommended in the wake of investigations into the Family Day Care sector, which had found the sector to be 'highly susceptible to fraud'. The AFP argued that the proposed change would 'make substantial improvements to the integrity of CCS payments and … significantly reduce fraud against the program'.
2.39
While supporting the proposed changes, KU suggested that implementation of the measure would need to recognise the 'diversity of service contexts and communities'. In relation to EFT payments, KU observed that consideration should be given to families and services that may require alternative payment methods. It noted that families for whom cash payments were standard, 'should not feel denigrated especially where fees are being paid by extended family and kin'.
2.40
This view was shared by other stakeholders who noted that the ability to make cash payments might be necessary for disadvantaged families, women fleeing domestic violence, rural and remote areas with poor internet services, or where cultural barriers exist. For example, while Gowrie SA supported the measure and noted that 'the vast majority of families' would be able to pay by EFT, it also contended this was not possible for all families and urged careful consideration of any unintended consequences:
… we have seen a family pay their fee by dropping off a plastic container filled with the coins they had collected over the intervening week/s. We also wonder how this measure may disadvantage women fleeing domestic abuse who may prefer to use cash rather than bank accounts for fear of being tracked by their partner, or if they no longer have access to accounts. With any measure, the unintended consequences should be considered carefully as the result may be a reduction in access to early childhood education by the very families who may benefit the most.
2.41
Accordingly, some stakeholders suggested that the Minister's Rules, which would outline exemptions to the EFT payment requirement, should be 'sufficiently broad in scope so as to not exclude a range of circumstances whereby families are legitimately unable to pay gap fees via electronic funds transfer'.
2.42
To this end, the department explained that while 97.5 per cent of families already pay fees electronically, exemptions would be available for both exceptional circumstances—such as a lack of infrastructure, remoteness, or natural disasters—and individuals where needed. It also noted that it would be 'engaging closely with the sector on the design of exemption provisions' and that these would be designed alongside other current safety net provisions, such as the Additional Child Care Subsidy.
2.43
In addition, some participants raised concerns that the EFT payment requirement could lead to families incurring payment dishonour fees from merchants linked to third party software providers. According to Mr Paul Mondo, President of the Australian Childcare Alliance, the fees charged by merchants may be as high as $20 per failed payment and 'could have a significant impact on those who can least afford it'. These concerns were shared by ELACCA CEO, Ms Elizabeth Death, who suggested that measures be put in place to ensure families do not incur excessive fees.
2.44
However, the department pointed out that electronic payment options would not be limited to direct debit arrangements and could include EFTPOS or one-off EFT payments, which would allow 'a vulnerable family or those on low incomes to pay whenever funds are available'. It also stated that families receiving income support payments would be able to use Centrepay, which has no default fees and allows one-off or ongoing payments.
2.45
Specific concerns were also raised in relation to the operation of the EFT requirement in relation to the Family Day Care (FDC) sector. NSW Family Day Care explained that the bill would require families to pay gap fees to the provider, rather than the educator, which is current practice. Similarly, Ms Lisa Bryant cautioned that this would 'force a change to longstanding arrangements where home-based educators collect gap fees from families'.
2.46
In response, Family Day Care Australia (FDCA) noted that it had received assurances from the department that the bill would not prevent educators from collecting gap fee payments. However, FDCA expressed concern that this position has not been reflected in the current wording of the Explanatory Memorandum.
Other issues raised by stakeholders
2.47
Concurrent with their support for the bill, participants also discussed the need for broader ECEC sector reforms and identified issues they would like to see examined as part of the forthcoming ACCC and Productivity Commission inquiries.
Broader ECEC sector reforms
2.48
A number of inquiry participants voiced their support for the Government's plans for broader ECEC sector reform—in particular, the move toward a universal 90 per cent subsidy for all families, which would be informed by the work of the Productivity Commission. At the same time, stakeholders also advocated for action to improve the availability and accessibility of ECEC.
2.49
While not an exhaustive list, evidence provided to the committee during the course of the inquiry suggested that, in addition to affordability, access to ECEC is affected by:
an uneven supply of ECEC services (ECEC 'deserts');
the need for integrated and culturally appropriate ECEC services; and
the operation of the activity test.
2.50
A brief overview of stakeholder views in relation to these issues is provided below.
Workforce shortages
2.51
Multiple submitters highlighted existing shortages in the ECEC workforce, with around 7000 current vacancies in the sector. While burnout and a lack of professional recognition were recognised as issues, most stakeholders identified higher wages as a central factor in workforce shortages—particularly as degree qualified ECEC educators may be paid up to 20 to 30 per cent less than primary school teachers. In line with this, a number of participants argued for a government-funded interim wage subsidy to help slow workforce attrition. Others, such as Goodstart, suggested that delivering both higher wages for workers and affordability for families would also require broader reform of ECEC funding mechanisms.
2.52
Concerns about workforce capacity were also noted by the department, which indicated that a number of measures were being brought forward to support the ECEC workforce, including fast-tracking elements of the National Children’s Education and Care Workforce Strategy, more supported university and fee-free TAFE places, increases in migration, and proposed changes to the Fair Work Act that would help address gender pay equity and remove unnecessary limitations on access to multi-employer agreements.
2.53
Ahead of these measures taking effect, the United Workers Union indicated that it was already working with educators, peak bodies, unions and employers to come up with sector-wide model for improving wages.
ECEC 'deserts'
2.54
Many participants highlighted the uneven supply of ECEC services across Australia, with thin markets (or so-called child care 'deserts') most likely to impact families in regional and remote areas and in socially and economically disadvantaged communities. In addition to the impact on children in these areas, stakeholders such as the Kingston Early Learning and Childcare Services Working Group highlighted the impact this has on local workforces, with parents needing to withdraw from employment to care for their children.
2.55
In response, some submitters called for governments to intervene and commission or directly fund new services, rather than relying solely on a consumer market model. Others, such as Child Australia and Thrive by Five, suggested that schools also have a role to play in delivering ECEC, particularly in rural and remote areas.
2.56
In addition, there were suggestions that ECEC funding could move from a demand-side funding model to a supply funded system—similar to school education. To this end, the Social Policy Research Centre noted that a supply funded system would also provide greater flexibility of care for families who work unpredictable hours by reframing ECEC as a right for children, rather than as a service linked to parents' work patterns.
2.57
In relation to ECEC markets, the department pointed to the development of a Market Strategy that will inform the Government's role in ECEC markets, along with a Market Monitoring Framework to measure the performance, adequacy, and sustainability of ECEC markets. According to the department, these projects have links to the reviews being undertaken by the ACCC and Productivity Commission and may also support the operation of existing programs designed to improve ECEC access in thin markets.
Integrated and culturally appropriate ECEC services
2.58
In addition to the broader issue of ECEC deserts, both SNAICC and the Moriarty Foundation raised the need for culturally safe and integrated services (that support both children and families) and suggested the current funding model lacked the flexibility required to support this type of service provision.
2.59
The department noted that work was underway on an Early Childhood Care and Development Policy Partnership (partnership) which aims to support First Nations children to thrive, including through improving access to high quality, culturally appropriate ECEC. While still early in the process, SNAICC noted that it had been working closely with the department on this partnership and highlighted the potential it offers to provide a more holistic approach to reform, particularly given the involvement of multiple government agencies, including the Department of Education, the Department of Social Services and the Attorney-General's Department.
Operation of the activity test
2.60
Various submitters commented that the activity test does not work as intended, instead undermining workforce participation and children's engagement in ECEC. The activity test was identified as a particular disincentive to increased workforce participation for parents with variable hours and was seen as punishing children—often those who would most benefit from ECEC—for their parents' activity levels.
2.61
Accordingly, a number of stakeholders, including ECA, Thrive by Five and the New South Wales Department of Education advocated for the complete removal—or significant reform of the activity test, such as removal of the bottom two 'steps' of the test.
Issues for investigation by the ACCC and Productivity Commission inquiries
2.62
Many participants acknowledged the role that the ACCC and Productivity Commission inquiries would play in underpinning broader ECEC sector reforms. To this end, some stakeholders provided suggestions for issues that could be investigated as part of these inquiries. These suggestions included (but were not limited to):
ECEC funding models, including direct funding of providers;
the structure of the sector, sector competition, cost drivers, and the implications for cost of delivery;
fee charging practices and the length of sessions of care;
the adequacy and effectiveness of the hourly fee cap, as both a component of the CCS and a price control mechanism;
workforce shortages and the uneven supply of ECEC services
the operation and impact of the activity test;
the relationship between ECEC and workforce participation, including flexibility of the current system and its ability to support non-standard working arrangements; and
fees charged by financial merchants linked to third party software providers.
Committee view
2.63
During the inquiry, participants expressed overwhelming support for the bill—both in their submissions and at the committee's public hearings. The need for action to address the affordability of early childhood education and care (ECEC) was underscored by multiple stakeholders who confirmed that the cost of early childhood education and care is a significant barrier to both parents' workforce participation and children's access to important learning and development opportunities.
2.64
The committee would like to thank stakeholders for participating in both the inquiry and the earlier consultations that underpinned development of the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022 (bill). The committee recognises that the high degree of support for the bill reflects constructive engagement by stakeholders in the development process. To this end, the committee welcomes the department's commitment to continue addressing stakeholder views, where relevant, through the implementation process.
2.65
There was particular support for the measures that would increase the Child Care Subsidy (CCS) for families earning less than $530 000 and introduce a base entitlement of 36 hours per fortnight of subsidised care for First Nations families, regardless of activity levels. Despite this support, the committee is mindful of stakeholder suggestions that the 36 hour per fortnight entitlement should be increased to 30 hours per week and extended to all vulnerable children. The committee also acknowledges calls for the activity test to be abolished or reformed significantly. To this end, the committee welcomes the Australian Government's (government's) commitment to a comprehensive review of the ECEC sector by the Productivity Commission—with the aim of implementing a universal 90 per cent CCS for all families. In light of stakeholder concerns about the operation of the activity test, the committee encourages the Productivity Commission to examine both its impact and potential options for reform.
2.66
Given the Government's significant investment in ECEC, the committee is encouraged by the broad support expressed for the measures that will expand reporting obligations for large providers and improve payment integrity within the sector.
2.67
In relation to the electronic payment of gap fees, the committee is mindful of the concerns raised by some participants in relation to the need to allow cash payments in certain circumstances. The committee is reassured by the department's commitment to engage with the sector on the design of exemption provisions but also urges the department to remain vigilant to possible unintended consequences. The exemption process should not be so complex or onerous that it becomes a barrier to ECEC for low-income families, those without reliable internet access, or women and children escaping domestic violence.
2.68
Further, the committee heard concerns that the move to electronic payments may lead to an increase in families incurring (sometimes exorbitant) dishonour fees from merchants linked to third party software providers. Given this has the potential to impact on those families least able to afford it, the committee suggests that this matter be considered by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) as part of its inquiry into the supply of ECEC services in Australia.
2.69
The committee recognises that the bill does not address every issue affecting ECEC in Australia. As the committee heard over the course of the inquiry, there are many long-standing issues to be resolved within the ECEC sector—including persistent workforce shortages and thin markets in particular regions and communities.
2.70
In relation to workforce shortages, the committee is cognisant that a number of participants advocated for a government-funded wage subsidy as a short-term measure to stem workforce attrition. However, it is apparent to the committee that addressing workforce shortages in the ECEC sector will require comprehensive change. Accordingly, the committee supports the government's proposed approach to reform in this area, which will be underpinned by the findings of the ACCC and Productivity Commission inquiries, as well as implementation of the National Children's Education and Care Workforce Strategy, and the government's proposed changes to the Fair Work Act 2009, which will improve gender pay equity and access to multi-employer agreements.
2.71
Overall—and in the context of the broader reforms underway—the committee believes that this bill is an important first step towards delivering on a long-term vision for the ECEC sector in Australia.
2.72
Accordingly, the committee recommends the bill be passed.
2.73
The committee recommends the bill be passed.
Senator Tony Sheldon
Chair