Classification Amendment (2016 Budget Savings Measures) Principles 2017 [F2017L00171]-Response required [2017] AUSStaCSDLM 121 (29 March 2017)

• Chapter 1
• New and continuing matters
• Response required

---

Chapter 1

New and continuing matters

This chapter details concerns in relation to disallowable instruments of delegated legislation received by the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances (the committee) between 24 February 2017 and 16 March 2017

(new matters); seven determinations made under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 that are subject to a six day disallowance period, which were received on 20 March 2017;^[1] and matters previously raised in relation to which the committee seeks further information (continuing matters).

Response required

The committee requests an explanation or information from relevant ministers or instrument-makers with respect to the following concerns.

Instrument	Classification Amendment (2016 Budget Savings Measures) Principles 2017 [F2017L00171]
Purpose	Amends the Classification Principles 2014 to give effect to measures in the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Act 2016; and includes restrictions on who can be appointed as an adviser to assist approved providers make appraisals or reappraisals
Last day to disallow	20 June 2017
Authorising legislation	Aged Care Act 1997
Department	Health
Scrutiny principle	Standing Order 23(3)(b)

Unclear basis for determining fees

The Classification Amendment (2016 Budget Savings Measures) Principles 2017 [F2017L00171] (the amendment principles) amend the Classification Principles 2014 to set the application fee approved providers are required to pay to request that

the Secretary of the Department of Health reconsider a decision to change a care recipient's classification.

New section 27 of the Classification Principles 2014, inserted by item 6 of the amendment principles, sets the application fee for a request at $375.

The explanatory statement (ES) to the amendment principles states:

The application fee was been [sic] introduced to encourage approved providers to limit any requests for reconsideration to circumstances to [sic] in which there is evidence to show that the classification decision was incorrect. It is intended to encourage approved providers to submit genuine and meritorious applications. This will reduce the current demand on Commonwealth resources arising from such processes.

The committee’s usual expectation in cases where an instrument of delegated legislation carries financial implications via the imposition of a charge, fee, levy, scale or rate of costs or payment is that the relevant ES makes clear the specific basis on which an individual imposition or change has been calculated. The committee will be concerned where an instrument imposes fees which use an incentive as their basis rather than fees which reasonably reflect the cost of providing a service.

The committee notes that section 85-6 of the Aged Care Act 1997 provides that the Classification Principles may prescribe the application fee for reconsideration of a decision to change a care recipient's classification under that Act. However, it is unclear to the committee whether the $385 fee reasonably reflects the cost of reconsidering a decision to change a care recipient's classification.

The committee requests the advice of the minister in relation to the above.

---

^[1] [F2017L00249], [F2017L00250], [F2017L00251], [F2017L00252], [F2017L00253],

[F2017L00254] and [F2017L00255].