Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

(1)    Schedule 3, page 23 (after line 10), after item 2, insert:

2A  Clause 32 of Schedule 1

Repeal the clause, substitute:

32  Income test

               This is how to work out an individual’s reduction for adjusted taxable income:

(2)    Schedule 3, page 23 (after line 10), after item 2, insert:

2B  After clause 33 of Schedule 1

Insert:

33A  Combined income free area

               The combined income free area is $250,000.

(3)    Schedule 3, Item 3, page 23 (lines 11 to 13), omit the item, substitute:

4  Application of amendments

(1)    The amendments made by items 1 and 2 apply in relation to the 2005-06 income year and later income years.

(2)    The amendments made by items 2A and 2B apply in relation to family tax benefit for the 2006-07 income year and later income years.

(3)    The amount referred to in clause 33A will not be subject to indexation on 1 July 2006, but will be subject to indexation in accordance with the Act for the 2007-08 income year and later income years.

(4)    Schedule 5, page 25 (line 2), omit “Reducing allocation of child care places” substitute

        “Allocation of child care places”

(5)    Schedule 5, after item 2, page 25 (after line 14), insert

“2A  Section 206

Before “The Minister” insert

        “(1)                Subject to subsection (2),”

(6)    Schedule 5, after item 2, page 25 (after line 14), insert:

“2B  Paragraph 206(a)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

         (a)        procedures relating to the allocation of child care places to approved child care services, provided that such procedures:

                   (i)    must specify that child care places may only be allocated if an application is received from a person able to provide approved child care services; and

                  (ii)    must specify that the Secretary determine requests from any approved child care services for additional child care places at least monthly”.

(7)    Schedule 5, after item 2, page 25 (after line 14) insert:

“2C Paragraph 206(b)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

         (b)        matters to be taken into account in working out the number (if any) of child care places to be allocated to approved child care services, provided that the guidelines specify that the primary matters to be taken into account are the relative needs of:

                   (i)    different areas of Australia for the kinds of child care places to be allocated, and

                  (ii)    people in each area who have work, training or study commitments.”.

(8)    Schedule 5, item 4, page26 (lines 6-7), omit paragraph(a), substitute:

         “(a)      that number has exceeded, for a continuous period of at least 12 months, the number of child care places provided by the service; or”.

(9)    Schedule 5, item 4, page 26 (after line 25), after subsection 24(4) insert:

        “(4A)             If the Secretary reduces under this section the number of child care places allocated to an approved child care service, and if a valid application for places or for additional places has been received, the Secretary must, within 7 days after the day on which the reduction takes effect, allocate the places to one or more other approved child care services.”.

(10)  Schedule 5, item 4, page 27 (after line 11), after section 207B add:

“207C  Details to be included in annual report

               The Secretary must include, in the annual report made under section 232, details of

         (a)        the number and the location (including the relevant federal electorate) of child care services which have been subject to a decision to reduce the number of child care places allocated to them;

         (b)        the number and location (including the relevant federal electorate) of child care services which have been allocated places taken from other services; and

         (c)        the number and location (including the relevant federal electorate) of child care services which have applied for places or for additional places but not been allocated those places or those additional places.”.

(11)  Schedule 6, page 29 (after line 7), after item 1, insert:

1A  At the end of Clause 16 of Schedule 2

Add:

(3)     The Secretary may grant an extension to this period of up to an additional 40 weeks where the Secretary is satisfied that a person has a legitimate reason for delaying his or her application for carer allowance.

(4)     Without limiting subclause (3), a legitimate reason may be that:

(a)     the person may be unable to readily access relevant services or advice; or

(b)     the person may have a medical condition that would prevent him or her from applying.

(c)     the person may have a psychological condition that would prevent him or her from applying.

(d)     the person may have caring responsibilities that would prevent him or her from applying.

(e)     the person was unaware of the carer allowance.

(f)      the person was unaware of their entitlement to the carer allowance.

(g)     the person was unaware that the allowance is not income or asset tested.

(h)     the person experienced a delay in having a disability assessment undertaken.

(i)      the person underestimated the ongoing needs of their child at an earlier date.

(j)      there was a delay in the diagnosis of the child.

(12)   Schedule 6, page 29 (after line 9), after item 2, insert:

2A  At the end of Clause 17 of Schedule 2

Add:

(3)     The Secretary may grant an extension to this period of up to an additional 14 weeks where the Secretary is satisfied that a person has a legitimate reason for delaying his or her application for carer allowance.

(4)     Without limiting subclause (3), a legitimate reason may be that:

(a)     the person may be unable to readily access relevant services or advice; or

(b)     the person may have a medical condition that would prevent him or her from applying.

(c)     the person may have a psychological condition that would prevent him or her from applying.

(d)     the person may have caring responsibilities that would prevent him or her from applying.

(e)     the person was unaware of the carer allowance.

(f)      the person was unaware of their entitlement to the carer allowance.

(g)     the person was unaware that the allowance is not income or asset tested.

(h)     the person experienced a delay in having a disability assessment undertaken.

(i)      the person underestimated the ongoing needs of the person they are caring for at an earlier date.

(j)      there was a delay in the diagnosis of the person being cared for.

These amendments go to a number of the issues that I raised earlier this evening. They relate to the introduction of an income threshold on family tax benefit part B to stop families earning more than half a million dollars a year or $1 million a year from receiving family tax benefit part B. The amendments also go to providing a discretionary power to extend backdated carer allowance claims in cases where there are genuine reasons for the delayed application, such as that the carer did not know about the payment or that the caring responsibilities increased during the time that the carer had not been receiving the payment.

The amendments also go to preventing the government from removing places from out of school hours care services or family day care services unless those places are immediately reallocated to another service. The purpose of this amendment is to prevent a situation where places are horded by the government, where they are announced during election campaigns or during budget speeches and then sit there unallocated—sometimes tens of thousands of places at any one time. I spoke earlier this evening about how those places are frequently extremely difficult for family day care services and out of school hours care services to get. They often wait up to two years for the allocation of a place.

The amendments also go to requiring the minister to report to the parliament on any transfers of child-care places between areas of low and high demand. The Labor Party is not confident and I am not confident that this system is adequate as it stands. We hear from the government time and time again that they do not know where the shortages are. I think that any system that allows more power to take away places from services in an environment where the government proudly claims not only that they do not know where shortages are but that they do not care and that it is not their responsibility to know is a system that is not going to deliver optimal outcomes to children or to their parents.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government opposes the Labor Party’s amendments. Particularly in relation to child care, holding a place for 12 months before it can be reallocated is a way of restricting it from being used in the marketplace—maybe unintentionally, but that would be the outcome. We are suggesting that, where there are places currently in services that are not being used and have not been used for a long period of time, those be returned and allocated so that they can be used where services have identified them. That is clearly my aim.

In relation to the backdating of the carers payment, I sympathise with the concerns that the shadow minister has articulated. It is about carers being aware of it. The amendments in fact would throw out this measure, and they miss the point of why it is able to be changed. It is because the onerous task of determining via a medical doctor what the issues are that require a carer allowance to be paid has now been removed. As I indicated earlier, I will be making major direct communications with the medical fraternity so that when a parent turns up with a child who has a disability, they are informed, ‘This is something that you may well be able to get an allowance for’ and they go to Centrelink. The issue that you raise is one that we could have addressed better in the past and I intend to address it fully in the future so that these circumstances do not arise.

The amendments relating to the FTP have not been Labor Party policy in the past. I would strongly suggest to the Labor Party that, in the interests of Australian families, they look at how powerful and important that money is to families and that they look at the policy they took to the last election. I commend the bill to the House.

Question put:

That the amendments (Ms Plibersek’s) be agreed to.