|
representatives vote 2019-11-25#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2019-11-29 16:08:54
|
Title
Bills — Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Building on the Child Care Package) Bill 2019; Consideration in Detail- Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Building on the Child Care Package) Bill 2019 - Consideration in Detail
Description
<p class="speaker">Amanda Rishworth</p><p>by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (3) together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, items 35 to 38, page 10 (line 13) to page 11 (line 4), omit the items.</p>- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2019-11-25.105.1) introduced by Kingston MP [Amanda Rishworth](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/kingston/amanda_rishworth) (Labor), which means they failed.
- Ms Rishworth [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2019-11-25.105.1):
- > *... we are concerned about the removal of the 28-day grace period. We do welcome the minister's foreshadowed amendments, but on the whole we think it would be much simpler to just continue with the 28-day grace period for families to provide their tax file number and bank account details.*
- >
- > *The government has claimed that the provision in this bill will simplify the system for families and providers, but unfortunately this is not supported with evidence. The amendments in the substantive bill require bank account details and a tax file number to be provided at the time the claim is made for the CCS [child care subsidies] and not at any other time. As previously mentioned, currently an individual has 28 days after the CCS claim is submitted to provide these details. When CCS payments are made without that information being provided within the required time frame, it can result in a debt for families.*
- >
- > *While the government argues it's trying to avoid families acquiring this debt, Labor notes that these families are indeed eligible for the childcare subsidy and for early learning and care, but may be unable to access urgent care because they don't have immediate access to their personal information. This has been substantiated and backed up by an overwhelming concern from the sector about the negative impacts that this change will have on families in particularly difficult circumstances who do not have immediate access to their personal documents. This could be families fleeing domestic violence or natural disasters who do not have time to grab their paperwork as they leave their house, but want their children to keep a routine and keep enjoying the benefits of early education. It could be recently arrived migrant families who haven't had a chance to get a bank account or tax file number, but who want to get their kids enrolled in an early learning setting.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Schedule 1, items 35 to 38, page 10 (line 13) to page 11 (line 4), omit the items.*
- >
- > *(2) Schedule 1, items 41 and 42, page 11 (line 17) to page 12 (line 7), omit the items.*
- >
- > *(3) Schedule 1, items 50 and 51, page 13 (lines 5 to 18), omit the items.*
- ### What does this bill do?
- According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1920a/20bd055), the purpose of the bill is to:
- > *address issues that have arisen since the introduction of the Child Care Subsidy (CCS) on 2 July 2018 and to make a number of clarifying and technical amendments. The Bill proposes to:*
- >
- > * *remove the 50 per cent limit on the number of children a child care provider can self-certify as eligible for Additional Child Care Subsidy (ACCS) (child wellbeing)*
- > * *allow the Minister for Education to prescribe circumstances in which a third party may contribute to the costs of an individual’s child care fees without this contribution affecting their CCS or ACCS rate*
- > * *allow the Minister for Education to prescribe circumstances in which the CCS and ACCS can still be paid where a child is absent at the start or end of an enrolment*
- > * *better incorporate In Home Care into the FA Act and FA Admin Act by including payment rates for In Home Care and allowing the Minister to specify eligibility criteria and care requirements that must be met for access to subsidised In Home Care places*
- > * *clarify that decisions made as a result of a Secretary initiated review must first be subject to an internal review before an application can be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal*
- > * *require Tax File Number and bank account details at the time a claim for CCS is made*
- > * *immediately suspend or cancel access to child care subsidies where a provider has been suspended or cancelled by a state or territory child care regulator and*
- > * *make various administrative and technical amendments to clarify the policy intent or address unintended consequences.*
<p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, items 41 and 42, page 11 (line 17) to page 12 (line 7), omit the items.</p><p class="italic">(3) Schedule 1, items 50 and 51, page 13 (lines 5 to 18), omit the items.</p><p>As I outlined in my contribution to the second reading debate, Labor supports this bill; however, we are concerned about the removal of the 28-day grace period. We do welcome the minister's foreshadowed amendments, but on the whole we think it would be much simpler to just continue with the 28-day grace period for families to provide their tax file number and bank account details.</p><p>The government has claimed that the provision in this bill will simplify the system for families and providers, but unfortunately this is not supported with evidence. The amendments in the substantive bill require bank account details and a tax file number to be provided at the time the claim is made for the CCS and not at any other time. As previously mentioned, currently an individual has 28 days after the CCS claim is submitted to provide these details. When CCS payments are made without that information being provided within the required time frame, it can result in a debt for families.</p><p>While the government argues it's trying to avoid families acquiring this debt, Labor notes that these families are indeed eligible for the childcare subsidy and for early learning and care, but may be unable to access urgent care because they don't have immediate access to their personal information. This has been substantiated and backed up by an overwhelming concern from the sector about the negative impacts that this change will have on families in particularly difficult circumstances who do not have immediate access to their personal documents. This could be families fleeing domestic violence or natural disasters who do not have time to grab their paperwork as they leave their house, but want their children to keep a routine and keep enjoying the benefits of early education. It could be recently arrived migrant families who haven't had a chance to get a bank account or tax file number, but who want to get their kids enrolled in an early learning setting.</p><p>A number of submissions made the point that this change will actually remove the flexibility that is currently available in the system, and a bill that is designed to reduce complexity in the system could indeed increase complexity in the system. Early Childhood Australia, Goodstart Early Learning, the Australian Childcare Alliance, and the Early Learning and Care Council of Australia have all strongly opposed the removal of the 28-day period, arguing that removing this measure would be detrimental to vulnerable families. The proposed changes may reduce the administrative burden for the Department of Human Services, but they will increase the administrative burden for families and reduce flexibility. This will have a disproportionately negative impact on those families experiencing vulnerability or disadvantage. By removing the 28-day period and blocking families from registering for the CCS without a bank account or TFN details does reduce that immediate access to early learning. We don't believe that this is warranted or that the government has provided evidence for why this is absolutely necessary. As I said, we understand the government is moving amendments, but we believe that seeking an exemption from the Secretary of the Department of Education adds to the complexity for both centres and families to have to prove why they need the 28-day grace period. It seems a little overcomplicated, and really, when we're talking about 28 days—we're not talking about a year, or three months or six months; we're talking about a mere 28 days—it seems sensible that this grace period should be maintained. Therefore, I moved the amendments circulated in my name.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>The question before the House is that amendments (1) to (3), as circulated and moved by the member for Kingston, be agreed to.</p>
|