SOCIAL SECURITY - Child Care Subsidy - automatic cancellation after 14 weeks non-attendance at childcare - attends care in school holidays only - missed sessions due to a family holiday and illness - not approved absences - CCS cannot be paid - re-enrolment - decision under review affirmed

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information pursuant to subsetions 161(1B) of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999.

1. This application for review relates to whether Centrelink correctly ceased childcare subsidy (CCS) in respect of her two children [Child A] and [Child B] (the children) on 30 December 2024.
2. In September 2024, the children were enrolled at [OSHC 1]. There is no dispute that the children's last day of attendance was 17 September 2024.
3. On 30 December 2024, a Services Australia - Centrelink (Centrelink) automatically stopped Mrs Wang's CCS because the children had been absent from childcare for 14 weeks.
4. On 19 May 2025, Mrs Wang requested a review of the decision.
5. On 19 September 2025, an authorised review officer affirmed the decision.
6. On 16 October 2025, Mrs Wang applied to the Administrative Review Tribunal for an independent review of the authorised review officer's decision.
7. A hearing was conducted on 23 January 2026 at which Mrs Wang gave sworn oral evidence via MS Teams. The Tribunal had before it documents provided by Centrelink from Mrs Wang's computer and paper files (71 pages), which had been copied to Mrs Wang before the hearing. Prior to the hearing, Mrs Wang provided additional material (A1 to A44); a copy of this material was provided to Centrelink.

1. The issue to be determined by the Tribunal is whether Centrelink correctly ceased CCS on 30 December 2024.

1. Eligibility for CCS is determined by the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (the Act), the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act) and Child Care Subsidy Minister's Rules 2017 (the Minister's Rules).

Childcare legislation is interpreted by Centrelink with the aid of the Family Guide (the Guide). The Guide contains governmental guidelines and policy as to how the legislation is to be applied. Whilst the Tribunal may be guided by policy, it is not bound to follow it.[1] The Federal Court[2] has observed that in the absence of any statutory indication to the contrary, any lawful executive policy enacted to guide the exercise of a statutory power is a relevant factor for the Tribunal to consider in performing its review task. A lawful approach allows the adoption of appropriate policy as a guide but not to control the making of the decision and the Tribunal adopts that approach.

Was Mrs Wang's CCS correctly cancelled on 30 December 2024?

1. The basic eligibility criteria for CCS for a session of care is found in section 85BA of the Act. A child must be an individual's FTB child (or a regular care child) and must meet certain immunisation requirements. The individual, or their partner, must meet residency requirements found in section 85BB of the Act and must have incurred a liability to pay for a session of care under a complying written arrangement. Section 85BA of the Act provides that CCS can only be paid if, among other things, the child is enrolled for care and there is an eligible session of care provided. There is no dispute, and the Tribunal finds that Mrs Wang was eligible for CCS for her two children in September 2024.
2. Section 3 of the Act defines a session of care to have the meaning given by the Minister's Rules made for the purposes of section 9. Section 5A of the Minister's Rules specifies that a session of care is the minimum period in respect of which an approved provider can charge a fee for providing childcare. The period can start on one day and end on the next but cannot exceed 12 hours.
3. Section 10 of the Act provides that the basic rule about when a session of care is provided for the purposes of the Act and the Assistance Act is if the child is enrolled for care by the service and the child attends the session of care or child does not attend any part of the session of care - the service is taken to have provided the session of care to the child under subsections 10(2), 10(3) and 10(5) of the Administration Act. This includes where a child is unable to attend a session of care, child care subsidy can still be paid for a child for up to 42 absences during a financial year, for any reason, without the need for evidence to be provided.
4. Section 200B of the Administration Act outlines when a child is enrolled in childcare. Subparagraph 200B(1)(b)(iii) of the Administration Act provides that a child ceases to be enrolled for care by a childcare service if 14 weeks have passed since the child last attended any of the service's sessions of care. Subsection 200B(2) states:

A child is enrolled for care by a service from the day the child starts to be enrolled until the child ceases to be enrolled. To avoid doubt, a child who ceases to be enrolled for care by a service is not enrolled for care by that service until the child starts to be enrolled for care by that service again.

1. Under section 200B of the Administration, a child ceases to be enrolled for that care when the arrangement ends, or there is an event prescribed by the Minister's Rules. Under section 5A of the Minister's Rules, enrolment automatically ceases when a child physically ceases attending childcare for a continuous period of 14 weeks. When a child's enrolment ceases, CCS is generally not payable for any absences after the child's last physical attendance prior to the enrolment ending. The exception to this is where the absence is for a specified reason in the 'extended period' (subsection 5B(2) of the Minister's Rules). The extended period is the 6 days following the child's last physical attendance prior to the enrolment ending. The approval of an absence for a specified reason is determined by the childcare provider.
2. Although the Minister's Rules address when a day is an allowable absence and allow for additional absences due to COVID-19 (see Rules 5AA), those provisions do not affect the operation of section 200B of the Administration Act. That is, even though the children's absences may not have exceeded the number of absences allowed over the financial year, due to section 200B of the Administration Act and section 10 of the Act, a person's eligibility for CCS is lost if the absences continue for 14 weeks without interruption during a period not specifically covered by a Ministerial exemption.

1. Mrs Wang provided a detailed written statement to Centrelink, consistent with her direct submissions to the Tribunal, as follows (unedited):

I am writing regarding my family's current experience with the childcare subsidy [CCSJ program.

The CCS payment for the enrolled dates of the 16th and 17th of December 2024 has been declined. We have been told this is due to our children being absent on the last enrolled days before enrolment cessation. And while neither I, my husband, nor [OSHC 1] have withdrawn enrolment for our children, a 14-week non-attendance policy, which neither I nor several staff at the Services Australia CCS helpdesk was/are aware of, has been applied. Our children's enrolment for the CCS automatically ceased as of 30 December 2024, even though they were still enrolled with [OSHC 1] and had prearranged booking dates.

I want to explain the circumstances that led to this and wish for a review of our situation and this policy.

Our two children, [ages], attend the [OSHC 1] service (henceforth referred to as [OSHC 1]) during the school holidays.

Both children have attended care from soon after birth and continue to this day, starting full-time and progressing to out-of-school-hours care as they started attending school.

Due to my part-time employment, they do not require care during the school weeks, only on school holidays.

Our children attended [OSHC 1] for a half day on 17 September 2024, as we needed care that afternoon. Before this, the last care dates were 9/7/2024 and 11/7/2024, an 11-week gap, almost full school term gap.

During the September 2024 school holidays, we took our first family holiday in 11 years and did not need care.

Our children were enrolled to attend [OSHC 1] on the 16th and 17th of December 2024; however, our daughter contracted COVID-19 on the first day of the school holidays, 13 December 2024, and each of our family members fell ill over the next five days. Our family was not all clear from COVID-19 until 24 December 2024, Christmas Eve. Due to [OSHC 1] being closed for business between 21 December 2024 and 7 January 2025 (inclusive) and our requirements being Monday and Tuesday only, there was no other opportunity for our children to attend before 13 January 2025

I do not feel that in this situation, we, as the family, should be financially penalised by being required to pay the CCS contribution amount to [OSHC 1]. Our family should be entitled to the absence payments due to illness, even though our children only attend during school holidays. Furthermore, although our children only attend casually, we should be entitled to take a family holiday without affecting our enrolment.

If a family misses care for one school holiday, the 14-week policy means that Centrelink lists the child/children as unenrolled, and this risks the child's/children's position in the daycare system, which is often hard to get places.

Please see below images of COVID-19 tests taken during this time, a screens hot of the message sent to [OSHC 1] informing them of our children's illness and a screenshot of the policy discussed taken from https //www.servicesaustralia.gov. au/child-care-subsidy-if-your-child-absent-from child-care?context=41186

I ask that you please review this decision, and this policy as it applies to casual attending families.

1. Mrs Wang gave evidence that on 28 November 2024, she booked the 2024/2025 school holiday program for the children, covering the following dates: 16 December 2024, 17 December 2025, 3 January 2025, 14 January 2025, 20 January 2025, 21 January 2025, 28 January 2025, 3 February 2025 and 4 February 2025. This shows they had the intention of attending the school holiday program on 16 and 17 December 2024. Unfortunately, her daughter became unwell on 12 December 2024 and tested positive for COVID on Friday 13 December 2024. On Saturday, her son also became unwell with suspected COVID, and she became unwell on Monday 16 December 2024 and her husband also felt unwell and tested positive for COVID on 24 December 2024. Mrs Wang told the Tribunal that she and both children were symptomatic with COVID on 16 and 17 December and it was simply not possible for them to attend the school holiday program as planned. She contacted the program as required under their policy to advise the children were unwell.
2. Mrs Wang told the Tribunal that the children then attended the program on 13 January 2025 and she received a text message stating she needed to confirm the children's enrolment. This set off a chain of events regarding CCS. She received a Centrelink letter dated 16 January 2025 advising her the children's enrolment had ceased on 30 December 2024, but no reason was provided. She made multiple calls to Centrelink Armadale to sort out the matter and was told the childcare provider cancelled the enrolment, but this was not correct, it was Centrelink who cancelled the enrolment. Mrs Wang told the Tribunal that Centrelink staff did not appear to be aware of the '14 week' automatic cancellation policy, they referred to a 26-week period instead, advising her that it was a computer fault and they suggested she seek review. She has made multiple calls to Centrelink and contacted her local MP and eventually was advised about the automatic cancellation of CCS after 14 weeks non-attendance at childcare.
3. Mrs Wang told the Tribunal that because of the cancellation of enrolment, she is liable to bear the full costs of the two days in childcare for both children with an amount of $351.54 being outstanding. The extensive follow up with Centrelink and the childcare provider has taken up a lot of her time and impacted on her mental health.
4. Mrs Wang submitted that she has been responsible in her use of childcare and tried not to overburden the childcare system. Had they been aware of the 14-week cancellation rule, they would have attended childcare in that 14-week period and not had the enrolment cancelled. In the September 2024 school holidays, her family took their first family holiday in 11 years and did not use childcare in that period. Mrs Wang contends her family took a well-deserved holiday and they should not be penalised for this. Mrs Wang submitted that the policy has had an unfair consequence in her case.
5. There is no dispute, and the Tribunal finds, that the children did not attend any sessions at [OSHC 1] in the 14-week period from 17 September 2024 and thus, under section 200B of the Administration Act, their enrolment ceased to have effect for the purpose of CCS on 30 December 2024. To be eligible for CCS thereafter Mrs Wang had to re-enrol. The children's re-enrolment started again on 13 January 2025.
6. Pursuant to subparagraph 10(2)(b)(iii) of the Act, [OSHC 1] cannot be taken to have provided a session of care that occurred after the last day the child attended a session of care before ceasing to be enrolled. Thus, the sessions of care claimed from 16 and 17 December 2024 were days that fell into the period that was "after the last day the child attended a session of care ... before the child ceased to be enrolled".
7. The Tribunal finds that Mrs Wang is not eligible for CCS during any part of the 14-week period prior to the enrolment ceasing on 30 December 2024. Mrs Wang's eligibility for CCS in relation to the children's (non-)attendance at [OSHC 1] effectively ended on 17 September 2024.
8. The Tribunal shares Mrs Wang's concern that the 14-week absence rule and its effects, is not well publicised and may not be well understood by service providers. Notably, Mrs Wang only became aware of her additional fees after the decision was made to cease her children's enrolment, after it was too late for her to take steps to avoid costs by either changing the children's enrolment or taking steps to have the children attend the service.
9. The Tribunal notes that the decision under review only concerns the determination of her eligibility for CCS for the relevant sessions of care. The Tribunal accepts that the childcare provider reported general absences for both children for 16 December 2024 and 17 December 2024. Mrs Wang does not dispute the children did not attend childcare on those dates. As the absences were not approved absences within the extended period, they are disregarded absences, meaning that CCS cannot be paid. In the circumstances of Mrs Wang's case, the Tribunal must affirm the decision under review.
10. The Tribunal noted the authorised review officer comments in relation to Mrs Wang's circumstances stating:

As discussed, the Department of Finance reviews claims for 'act of grace' payments. These are for people who are unintentionally disadvantaged by the effects of Australian Government legislation, actions or omissions. Information about act of grace payments can be found at finance.gov.au

1. The issue of an 'act of grace payment' is outside of the Tribunal's powers and is a matter for Mrs Wang to purpose directly with the Department of Finance.

[1] Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634.

[2] G v MIBP [2018] FCA 1229.