Defence Determination, Conditions of Service Amendment (Benchmark schools and approved summer schools) Determination 2018 (No.33)

The Determination rests on a small set of core concepts expressed across the amended Conditions of service. These concepts control eligibility and quantum of benefit.

Posting location: The Determination adds a rule to section 15.6.4 that explains how to identify a member’s posting location for benchmark schools and approved summer schools. The rule is hierarchical. First, if the member has been directed to live in Manhattan under section 15.1.6 then the posting location is Manhattan. Second, if the member is posted to a city, or an establishment within a city, that is listed, then the posting location is that city. Third, if the city or establishment is unlisted but the country is listed, the posting location is the country or the ‘country - other’ classification. Fourth, if neither the city, establishment nor country is listed, then no benefit applies for that posting (s 15.6.4 insertion via Schedule 1).

Approved summer school: The entitlement attaches only to “approved summer schools” that are listed in Annex 15.6.B for the member’s posting location (s 15.6.15(1) as inserted). The Annex is replaced by Schedule 3 and contains a detailed list of providers by posting location. Therefore the label “approved” is a product of inclusion in that Annex.

Reimbursement quantum: The Determination sets the quantum as “an amount equal to the amount charged by a provider” for the child’s attendance (s 15.6.15(1)). There is no cap disclosed in the text beyond the time limits and the named providers. The rule therefore ties entitlement to the provider’s charge for the specific child and provider, rather than to a fixed standard rate set in the Determination itself.

Time limits: The benefit is limited to either three weeks per year for approved summer schools in France or four weeks per year for approved summer schools or summer camps in all other listed locations (s 15.6.15(2)(a)-(b).

Excluded costs: Section 15.6.15(3) lists ineligible costs: costs associated with stopovers, transport or travel; accommodation, meals and incidentals during travel to or from the school; and optional activities that carry extra charges. The text treats these as non-reimbursable irrespective of the provider’s charge.

Exception for USA summer camps: The new s 15.6.15(1) explicitly excludes summer camps in the USA from its operation, directing to Division 3 s 15.6.18 for rules that apply there. The amended section therefore acknowledges another provision in the Conditions of service will govern USA cases.

Annex specificity: The annex table (Annex 15.6.B as substituted) lists particular schools in particular posting locations. The Determination specifies discrete providers by name and location, for example International School Brussels listed against Belgium; Northbridge International School of Cambodia, The Canadian International School and The International School of Phnom Penh listed against Cambodia; and a list of named schools under France, China, Japan, Spain and others (Schedule 3, Annex 15.6.B).

Transitional entitlement: Schedule 4 provides a transitional rule that applies to members who, prior to commencement, were posted to Cambodia, China, Philippines or Cherbourg, France and who, on or after 29 May 2018, had a dependent child who attended an approved summer school listed in the transitional table. Those members are eligible to be reimbursed the amount charged by the provider, subject to the same exclusions (Schedule 4).

Taken together, the Determination creates a narrowly specified, provider-specific entitlement for summer-school attendance tied to posting location and subject to time and cost exclusions. The key operational levers are the posting-location mapping, the Annex of approved providers, the weeks-per-year limits, and the explicit exclusions listing non-reimbursable items.

Primary affected persons are members to whom the Conditions of service apply and who have dependant children attending summer schools listed in Annex 15.6.B for their posting location. The Determination explicitly frames entitlements around “a member” and “a child who is a dependant” (s 15.6.15(1)). It therefore affects serving personnel with dependants, in particular those posted overseas to locations that appear in the amended annex or to Manhattan where the Manhattan rule applies (Schedule 1).

Scope by posting: The posting-location rule determines whether a member can claim. If a member has been directed to live in Manhattan under s 15.1.6 then that member’s posting location is Manhattan for these purposes and eligibility is assessed against the list for Manhattan (Schedule 1). If the member is posted to a listed city or establishment, that city is the posting location and the Annex for that city supplies the approved providers. If posted to a city or establishment that is not listed but the country is listed, the posting location becomes the country or the country-other classification in the Annex. If the city, establishment and country are not listed, there is no benefit for the location (Schedule 1). That mapping excludes members in unlisted locations from this entitlement.

Provider-specific impact: The updated Annex names specific schools. Only enrolment in those named providers at the posting location will qualify under s 15.6.15(1). Therefore the Determination directly affects families who choose one of the listed providers and indirectly places a selection pressure on families considering whether to enrol in listed versus unlisted providers.

Differential impact by country: The entitlement differs by country because the time limit for France is three weeks per year whereas for other listed locations it is four weeks per year (s 15.6.15(2)). Members posted to France thus face a smaller annual duration of reimbursable attendance than members posted elsewhere.

Transitional cohort: Members who were posted to Cambodia, China or the Philippines, or to Cherbourg, France, and whose dependant child attended an approved summer school on or after 29 May 2018 are explicitly covered by the transitional provision in Schedule 4. That provision creates an eligibility window for that cohort, subject to the same exclusions as the general rule.

Excluded costs affect dependants and households: The Determination excludes travel-related costs, accommodation, and optional activities from reimbursement (s 15.6.15(3)). Those excluded costs will be borne by members, spouses, partners or children; the instrument explicitly lists these parties in the exclusion provision.

Administration and policy actors: The Acting Assistant Secretary, People Policy and Employment Conditions is the officer who made the Determination (instrument header). Defence People Group or the administrative units responsible for Conditions of service will be the implementing bodies by operation of the Determination’s amendments, as they hold the authority and maintain the annexes and posting rules. The document itself does not list the specific administrative processes, but the decision to name providers and to change definitions is an administrative choice that affects both members and the administrative units servicing claims.

In short, the Determination directly affects members with dependant children posted to listed locations who choose the listed summer schools, and it places a burden of excluded costs on the member and family. It also affects administrative decision-makers who must apply posting-location rules and administer claims against the amended annexes.

Rights created by the Determination are limited and specific. The central right is that "a member is eligible for the reimbursement of an amount equal to the amount charged by a provider for a child who is a dependant to attend an approved summer school, or summer camp, listed under Annex 15.6.B for the posting location" (s 15.6.15(1)). That is a monetary entitlement tied to the provider’s charge and conditioned on: the provider being listed in the Annex for the posting location; the posting location being determinable under the posting-location rule; and other limits and exclusions set out in the section.

Time-limited benefit: The entitlement is time-limited: for approved summer schools in France the benefit is limited to three weeks per year; for approved summer schools or summer camps in all other locations the benefit is limited to four weeks per year (s 15.6.15(2)). The right therefore does not extend to continuous or unlimited attendance; it is a per-year, per-child temporal entitlement.

Exclusions and scope limitations: Section 15.6.15(3) lists costs that are explicitly not reimbursable. These non-reimbursable items are costs associated with stopovers, transport or travel; accommodation, meals and incidentals during travel to or from the school; and optional activities that incur extra costs (s 15.6.15(3)(a)-(c)). The right to reimbursement therefore does not include travel or ancillary expenses unless they form part of the provider’s charge that is itself eligible and listed, although the text treats those items as excluded irrespective of provider billing.

Posting-location determination as prerequisite: A member’s right depends on the posting-location mapping added to s 15.6.4 in Schedule 1. If the member is directed to live in Manhattan under s 15.1.6 then the posting location is Manhattan; if the member’s city or establishment is listed in the Annex the posting location is that city; if the city is unlisted but country listed then the country or country-other applies; if neither city nor country are listed then no benefit exists for that location (Schedule 1). The posting-location determination is therefore a preliminary administrative step that controls the application of the entitlement.

Decision-maker role and listing creation: The Determination itself lists the approved providers in Annex 15.6.B (substituted table). The right to reimbursement is conditional on inclusion in that Annex. Consequently, the administrative authorities who maintain the annexes are the effective gatekeepers of who is an approved provider. The instrument is made by the Acting Assistant Secretary under s 58B of the Defence Act 1903, who exercised authority to amend Conditions of service and the annexes.

Transitional right: The Determination grants a transitional reimbursement right for members who meet the Schedule 4 conditions, namely being posted to Cambodia, China, Philippines or Cherbourg and who, on or after 29 May 2018, had a dependant child attend a summer school listed in the Schedule 4 table. The transitional right mirrors the newly inserted entitlement but applies to past attendances in the specified window (Schedule 4).

Administrative duty to apply the rules: While the Determination does not set out procedural claims steps, it imposes implicit duties on administrators to apply the posting-location rule, to consult Annex 15.6.B, to verify whether attendance falls within the temporal limits, and to apply the exclusions listed in s 15.6.15(3). The document also imposes a duty on the maker to specify the approved providers and to make the transitional table.

No procedural or evidentiary specifics: The Determination does not specify the documentation required to prove attendance, dependency, or the provider’s charge. The quantum is strictly "equal to the amount charged by a provider" (s 15.6.15(1)), which implies an evidentiary requirement to establish the provider’s charge, but the Determination does not state the process or documentation standards for proving those amounts. Administrators will therefore need to rely on other parts of the Conditions of service and internal administrative practice to implement the entitlement.

In short, the rights are narrowly defined monetary reimbursements tied to listed providers and limited in duration; duties fall to administrators to determine posting location and apply the Annex lists, and to members to secure attendance at listed providers if they seek reimbursement. The Determination sets categories of excluded costs and creates an explicit transitional entitlement for a narrow cohort.

The instrument as published does not specify penalties, sanctions, or a discrete enforcement regime for misuse or fraudulent claims. The text strictly amends definitional material, benchmark school listings and the rules for reimbursing summer school costs. It sets entitlements, time limits and exclusions, but it does not include express provisions describing enforcement, recovery of overpayments, disciplinary consequences, or criminal penalties.

Absence of express enforcement provisions: Section 15.6.15, as substituted, grants eligibility and describes excluded costs, but it does not prescribe mechanisms for verification, audit, recovery, or disciplinary action in the event of false claims. Similarly, the additions to s 15.6.4 and the revised annexes are silent on enforcement. Schedule 4’s transitional entitlement mirrors the substance of s 15.6.15 but likewise does not outline enforcement measures.

Administrative enforcement implied: Because the Determination operates as an amendment to the Conditions of service, administrative enforcement and remedial steps are likely to be handled through the standard administrative processes that govern Conditions of service and Defence personnel entitlements. The instrument does not, however, itself provide those processes or tie the entitlement to a statutory recovery power in the instrument text. Absent express recovery language in the substituted sections, any recovery or enforcement would need to rely on other provisions of the Conditions of service Determination or on Defence administrative procedures that are not contained in this amendment instrument.

Interaction with other provisions: The Determination refers to other parts of the Conditions of service, for example Division 3 section 15.6.18 for summer camps in the USA. That indicates that different rules, perhaps including enforcement or procedural provisions, may exist elsewhere in the Conditions of service. Any sanctioning or recovery process for claims under s 15.6.15 may therefore be located in those other sections or in the broader Conditions of service framework, rather than in the substitute section itself.

Operational implication: Practically, administrators must rely on the broader Conditions of service, Defence financial management rules, and internal policy to establish claim forms, eligibility verification, and procedures for recovery of erroneous payments. The Determination does not change that practical reality; it only amends entitlements and lists.

For readers seeking explicitly codified penalties or enforcement procedures, the instrument contains none. Any enforcement action taken in respect of payments made under these substituted sections will need to be grounded in other parts of the Conditions of service or in Defence administrative law and financial control instruments not reproduced in this Determination.

The Determination is made under section 58B of the Defence Act 1903, and it amends the Defence Determination, Conditions of service 2016/19 (instrument header and s 3). Its operation is therefore as an instrument of the Defence Act framework and as an amendment to an existing Conditions of service Determination. The Determination contains internal cross-references to other parts of the Conditions of service, indicating interaction within that instrument but no direct reference to other external statutes.

Interaction within the Conditions of service: The substituted s 15.6.15 expressly defers to Division 3 s 15.6.18 for summer camps in the USA by stating the section does not apply to summer camps in the USA and directing readers to s 15.6.18. That is an explicit internal interaction; the entitlement regime for USA summer camps is governed by a different provision in the Conditions of service (s 15.6.15(1) as inserted). The posting-location rule references s 15.1.6 in respect of a direction to live in Manhattan; this cross-reference ties the new posting-location rule into the Conditions of service’s existing posting and accommodation provisions (Schedule 1).

Hierarchy of instruments: Because the Determination amends the Conditions of service Determination, the latter (2016/19) remains the primary text for the clauses it does not change. The amendment therefore operates by replacing or supplementing specified sections and annexes within that Determination. Practically, anyone interpreting entitlements must read the amended sections together with the unamended remainder of the Conditions of service.

Interaction with financial and administrative rules: The Determination creates entitlement language that requires implementation using payment and benefits administration processes. Those administrative and financial processes are not contained in the instrument; they will be governed by Defence financial management rules and internal policies. The Determination’s mandate to reimburse “an amount equal to the amount charged by a provider” establishes a monetary obligation in principle but does not set procedural details for payment, verification, or audit, which are likely governed by other administrative law and financial control instruments.

No express interaction with other Commonwealth laws in the text: The instrument does not reference any other Commonwealth statutes beyond the Defence Act 1903. It does not, for example, specify interaction with taxation laws, migration rules, privacy laws, or social security legislation. If such interactions arise in practice (for example, whether a reimbursement is taxable), they are not addressed in the text of this Determination and would need to be resolved by reference to those other statutes and policy.

Amendment and authority: The instrument explicitly states it is made under s 58B of the Defence Act 1903 (s 3). Interpretation and application of the Determination therefore sit within the powers granted by that Act. Any challenge to the validity or scope of the Determination would need to consider the Defence Act’s delegated instrument-making powers, though the Determination itself contains no litigation or appeal provisions.

In summary, the Determination primarily interacts with the existing Conditions of service Determination by amending it, and it cross-references other internal provisions of that Determination (s 15.1.6 and s 15.6.18). Other statutory or regulatory interactions are not set out in the text.

This instrument is an amending Determination that modifies Defence Determination, Conditions of service 2016/19. The instrument’s formal particulars are recorded at the front: name, commencement date 9 August 2018, and authority under s 58B of the Defence Act 1903 (ss 1-3). The Schedule structure records the targeted amendments.

Schedule 1,Education assistance: Inserts a posting-location rule into section 15.6.4 (Definitions) of the Conditions of service Determination. The specific insertion defines “Posting location” for the purposes of benchmark and approved summer schools and sets the order of precedence for determining the applicable posting label (Schedule 1, item 1).

Schedule 2,Benchmark schools: Alters Annex 15.6.A, which contains benchmark school listings. The amending items replace item 8 (France) and item 9 (Germany) with substituted entries that name specific schools and locations, and they make lexical substitutions (changing “elsewhere” to “other” in items 17 and 36). The schedule shows the textual replacements, which are discrete alterations to the Annex listing (Schedule 2, items 1-4).

Schedule 3,Approved summer schools: Replaces section 15.6.15 (Summer school costs) in full and substitutes the Annex 15.6.B approved summer schools table. The new s 15.6.15 sets eligibility, time limits, exclusions and a USA exception (s 15.6.15(1)-(3)). The Annex table is replaced with a new itemised list matching posting locations to approved providers; the list runs through multiple jurisdictions including Belgium, Cambodia, China, France (with specific entries for Cherbourg and other French posting locations), India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Spain and Thailand, among others (Schedule 3, items 1-2).

Schedule 4,Transitional provision: Adds a transitional rule that applies to members who prior to the commencement were posted to certain locations (Cambodia, China, Philippines or Cherbourg, France) and whose child attended certain summer schools on or after 29 May 2018; the transitional provision creates an entitlement to reimbursement of the amount charged by the provider, subject to the same exclusions (Schedule 4, Transitional provision items 1-3).

Formal execution: The instrument was signed by J A Clarke, Acting Assistant Secretary, People Policy and Employment Conditions, Defence People Group, and dated 9 August 2018 (instrument header). The instrument’s commencement is immediate on the date stated (s 2).

Net effect on 2016/19 Determination: The amendment replaces particular definitional and benefits provisions and substitutes annex content. It does not repeal the 2016/19 Determination wholesale; rather it modifies it in the specific places listed in the Schedules. Items labelled "Omit" and "Substitute" in the Schedules indicate that those specific paragraphs or annex entries are removed and replaced with the new text.

Absent further instruments or subsequent amendments included in the text, the amendment history recorded here is limited to this single instrument and its modification of 2016/19 as set out in the four Schedules. The instrument itself does not catalogue prior amendments to 2016/19; it simply effects the listed substitutions.

The Determination document does not record any litigation history. It is an administrative instrument amending the Conditions of service Determination and contains no mention of court proceedings, tribunal decisions, or adjudications relevant to its content. The text does not cite precedent, dispute resolution outcomes, or litigation arising from earlier versions of the Conditions of service.

Absent entries in the instrument, there is no litigation history included in this document to analyse. The Determination is an exercise of delegated legislative power under section 58B of the Defence Act 1903 and is presented as a standalone instrument modifying the Conditions of service. Any disputes arising from its application would be handled under the legal and administrative frameworks applicable to Defence instruments and personnel entitlements, but such matters are not within the face of this Determination.

For readers seeking litigation-related guidance or precedent on the interpretation or enforcement of Conditions of service provisions, the Determination itself provides no such material. Any litigation history relevant to the new or amended sections would need to be sourced from external legal databases, administrative decisions, or court records. The Determination’s text, however, contains no record or reference to litigation.

There are a number of operational and interpretive risk points in the Determination that practitioners and administrators should note. These are matters of textual structure, eligibility mechanics and administrative clarity that can affect claim outcomes.

Posting-location mapping can produce loss of entitlement: The posting-location rule determines whether a member has any entitlement under the Annex. The hierarchy provides that Manhattan is the posting location only where the member has been directed to live in Manhattan under s 15.1.6; otherwise city and country listings control. If a member’s posted city, establishment and country are not present in the Annex, the Determination expressly provides that there is no benefit for the location (Schedule 1). That creates a sharp cliff where an otherwise posted member receives no entitlement simply because the relevant city, establishment or country is not listed.

Provider list specificity: Eligibility turns on whether the provider is named in Annex 15.6.B. The Annex is tightly specified. If a family enrolls a child in a provider that is not listed, reimbursement under s 15.6.15 will not be available according to the substituted text. That may produce a behavioural incentive for families to prefer listed providers; it may also produce disputes about whether a particular program at a provider counts as the provider’s main program, especially where providers offer multiple programs or where commercial provider names are similar.

Different duration rules by country: The time limit is three weeks for France and four weeks elsewhere (s 15.6.15(2)). Practically, this requires administrators to track and apply different annual week quotas depending on posting location. Some families posted to France may have expectations formed under the prior regimen; the new three-week cap is a rigid limit under the text.

Exclusions are broad and explicit: The subsection s 15.6.15(3) excludes transport and travel costs, accommodation, meals, incidentals during travel, and optional activities that incur extra costs. These exclusions are stated categorically. Practitioners should be alert that provider invoices that bundle travel or accommodation into a single package may raise interpretive questions about what “amount charged by a provider” is eligible. The Determination itself does not resolve whether a bundled invoice that includes excluded items can be partly reimbursed, nor does it state procedural approaches for apportionment.

USA summer camps carved out: The substituted section says it does not apply to summer camps in the USA, and points to Division 3 s 15.6.18 for those cases (s 15.6.15(1)). Practically, this requires claimants and administrators to know which provision applies when a child attends a USA summer camp. Confusion between sections could cause misapplied approvals or denials if administrators do not cross-reference s 15.6.18.

Transitional timing traps: The transitional provision only applies where the child attended an approved summer school “on or after 29 May 2018” and the member was posted to the listed posting locations prior to commencement (Schedule 4). That is a narrow temporal window. Members with attendance slightly before that date or with posting changes near that date could fall outside the transitional entitlement.

Textual irregularities in annex entries: The Annex entries, as substituted, contain repeated names and formatting idiosyncrasies for certain entries (for example multiple repeated phrases in some France and Germany entries). Those textual repetitions could introduce ambiguity as to intended listing or whether different campuses or schools are being named. Administrators may need to seek clarification where the text as printed duplicates names or does not clearly differentiate providers.

No procedural detail for claims and evidence: The Determination sets eligibility and quantum but does not set out claim forms, documentary requirements, timelines for submission, or audit procedures. Practitioners should be aware that the absence of procedural detail means administrative practice will determine how claims are processed and what evidence is required. This gap is a practical gotcha for members relying on the Determination without reference to the implementing administrative instructions.

Potential for disputes over apportionment: Because the entitlement is "equal to the amount charged by a provider," disputes could arise where a provider’s invoice includes both excluded and included elements, or where family-specific discounts, sibling rates or part-time attendance arrangements exist. The Determination does not supply rules for apportionment or discount handling.

In summary, the most important operational pitfalls are the posting-location determination, the narrow and specific provider list, differing week limits by country, broad categorical exclusions, the USA carve-out, narrow transitional criteria, and the lack of procedural detail for claims and evidentiary standards. Administrators and advisers should plan for clarifications and procedural guidance to resolve these practical risks.

Compliance for members and administrators requires attention to the textual triggers in the Determination. The obligations are not long, but they are precise; adherence depends on meeting the listed eligibility criteria and aligning with the Annex.

Step 1, determine posting location: The first compliance step is to apply the posting-location rule inserted into s 15.6.4. If the member has been directed to live in Manhattan under s 15.1.6 then the posting location is Manhattan. If not, check whether the posted city or establishment is listed; if it is, that named city is the posting location. If the city or establishment is unlisted but the country is listed, the posting location is the country or the ‘country - other’ category. If neither city nor country are listed in the Annex, the member is not eligible (Schedule 1). Administrators should have an authoritative list of cities, establishments and countries to apply this mapping consistently.

Step 2, check the Annex for approved providers: Once posting location is established, consult Annex 15.6.B as substituted by Schedule 3 to confirm whether the summer school provider is listed for that posting location. Eligibility under s 15.6.15 attaches only to providers that appear in the Annex for the posting location. If the provider is not listed, there is no entitlement under s 15.6.15.

Step 3, verify the nature of the program and temporal limits: Confirm the program is an "approved summer school" or summer camp listed in the Annex and determine the number of weeks requested against the annual limits: three weeks for France, four weeks for other listed locations (s 15.6.15(2)). Claims should be structured so that total reimbursable weeks per child per year do not exceed these limits.

Step 4, exclude non-reimbursable items: When calculating the reimbursable amount, do not include costs expressly excluded by s 15.6.15(3): costs associated with stopovers, transport or travel; accommodation, meals and incidentals during travel to or from the school; and optional activities that incur extra costs. If the provider invoice bundles such costs, administrators and claimants should agree on an apportionment method consistent with the exclusions. The Determination does not set an apportionment method, so administrators should document the approach used for consistency.

Step 5, account for the USA carve-out: If the summer camp is in the USA, s 15.6.15(1) does not apply and the claim must be considered under Division 3 s 15.6.18. Check that provision and any implementing guidance to determine eligibility and quantum for USA summer camps.

Step 6, transitional cases: For members meeting the Schedule 4 conditions, confirm that the child’s attendance occurred on or after 29 May 2018 and that the member was posted to one of the listed locations prior to commencement. If those criteria are satisfied, the member is eligible for an amount equal to the provider’s charge for that attendance, subject to the exclusions of s 15.6.15(3). Administrators should ensure records show dates of posting and attendance to satisfy the transitional criteria.

Step 7, preserve evidence of provider charge: Because the entitlement is "equal to the amount charged by a provider" (s 15.6.15(1)), claims will require a verifiable indication of the amount charged. Although the Determination does not specify documentary formats, best practice is to retain the provider’s invoice or receipt itemising charges and to record attendance dates and any items excluded from reimbursement. Given the Determination’s silence on evidentiary standards, documentation will be the practical basis for computation and for any subsequent audit.

Step 8, coordinate with Defence administrative processes: The Determination does not set claim submission deadlines, forms or appeal routes. Members should follow the Defence People Group or relevant administrative unit’s claim procedures for Conditions of service entitlements. Administrators should align their implementation with broader Defence financial and personnel policies to ensure consistent processing.

Step 9, address ambiguity in annex entries: Where an Annex entry contains repeated or unclear names, administrators should seek clarification from the policy-making office or the Acting Assistant Secretary’s office to avoid inconsistent approvals. Document any interpretation used and apply it consistently across claims.

Step 10, communicate limitations to members: Because the entitlement is limited and excludes travel and related costs, administrators should communicate clearly to members what is reimbursable, the week limits, and the need for provider invoices. Clear communication reduces the risk of members incurring unreimbursable costs under mistaken assumptions.

In short, compliance requires applying the posting-location rule, confirming provider listing in Annex 15.6.B, checking the applicable weekly limit, excluding specified costs, following the USA carve-out where relevant, applying the transitional table when applicable, and maintaining provider documentation. Administrative implementation must bridge the Determination’s substantive rules with operational processes for claims, evidence and accounting.