The central concept is the “approved scheme” under section 35A of the Social Security Act 1991. The instrument does not define the term; it simply declares that a specific state grant program meets that description. To understand the significance, one must read section 35A of the Social Security Act, but that is outside the source. Based on the instrument’s structure, an “approved scheme” is a scheme under which financial assistance is paid to individuals for personal care support, and the Minister has determined that the scheme is approved for the purposes of the Act. The effect of such approval is likely that payments made under the scheme are disregarded for the social security means test, or that the scheme itself is treated as meeting certain legislative requirements so that recipients are not disadvantaged. The instrument also relies on the concept of “personal care support”. This phrase is not defined in the determination itself but takes its meaning from the Disability Services Act 2006 (Qld). Under that state Act, personal care support would encompass assistance with daily living activities such as bathing, dressing, eating, mobility, and supervision, provided to people with disability. The “grant of financial assistance” refers to money paid by Disability Services Queensland (the state agency) to individuals or their carers to fund such support. The grant could be paid directly to the person, to a nominated provider, or to a plan manager. The determination does not specify the form of the grant, the amount, or the eligibility criteria. The “Disability Services Act 2006 (Qld)” is the state legislation governing the provision of disability services in Queensland, including the funding of support. There is a temporal concept too: the instrument revokes a predecessor determination from 2004, which referenced an earlier version of the Queensland Act. This indicates that the federal government periodically updates the approved scheme designations to match current state law. The instrument is made under the authority of section 35A, which gives the Minister power to make such determinations. Finally, “commencement” is defined by the table: the whole instrument commences the day after registration. No provision for deferred or staged commencement exists.

The determination directly affects individuals who are residents of Queensland and who receive a grant of financial assistance for personal care support under the Disability Services Act 2006 (Qld). For those individuals, the classification of the grant as an approved scheme means that the grant will be treated in a specific way under Commonwealth social security law - most likely, it will not be counted as ordinary income when assessing entitlement to Age Pension, Disability Support Pension, Carer Payment, or other social security payments. This prevents a situation in which a person who receives state-funded personal care support is then penalised by having their Commonwealth pension reduced. The determination also affects Disability Services Queensland as the administrator of the grant scheme. By having the scheme approved, the state agency can assure recipients that the grants will not jeopardise their federal payments. The determination also affects the Commonwealth Department of Social Services, which must apply the correct treatment to these grants when calculating payment rates for recipients. It creates a compliance obligation on the department to identify grants that fall under the approved scheme and to ensure that they are properly excluded from income assessments. Carers of people with disability may also be indirectly affected, because the receipt of a grant may reduce the out-of-pocket costs of care and thereby affect the carer’s own social security position (e.g., if the carer is paid under the grant, that payment’s treatment under social security law may depend on the scheme’s approval). Private providers of personal care support may be affected insofar as the grant funding may be paid to them directly, and the approval status of the scheme determines whether that funding is attributable to the individual for means-testing purposes. The determination does not affect individuals in other states unless those states have their own equivalent approved scheme determinations. It also does not affect people who receive personal care support through private insurance, direct purchase, or informal arrangements - only those funded through the specific Queensland state grant program. Legal practitioners and financial advisers working with disability clients in Queensland need to be aware of the determination when advising on social security entitlements and financial planning.

The determination itself imposes no duties and confers no rights. It serves only as a trigger for the operation of section 35A of the Social Security Act 1991. However, by making the Queensland grants an approved scheme, the determination indirectly creates rights for recipients: the right to have the grant treated favourably under Commonwealth social security law. Specifically, recipients have the right to not have the grant counted as ordinary income, or to have it treated as a reimbursement of expenses rather than as earnings. This right arises not from the determination but from the Social Security Act itself, once the condition of an approved scheme is met. The determination also imposes a duty on the Secretary of the Department of Social Services (or their delegates) to recognise the status of the scheme and to apply the appropriate treatment when assessing claims and reviewing payments. If the department fails to do so, a recipient may seek review through the internal merits review process, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and potentially the courts. The determination does not give the Queensland government any additional rights; it merely ensures that grants made under its statutory scheme are recognised. The revocation of the 2004 determination does not affect existing rights - any transitional provisions would be in the Social Security Act itself. The determination does not create a right to receive the grant; that is entirely a matter of Queensland law. It also does not create any right to have the determination itself amended or renewed. There are no reporting duties, notification duties, or record-keeping duties arising from the determination. The only practical duty for a recipient is to ensure that the grant they receive actually falls within the scope of the Queensland Disability Services Act 2006 and is a grant for personal care support. If the grant is mischaracterised or if the recipient receives funding from a different source, the approved scheme status does not apply. For the Queensland administrator, there is a duty to ensure that the grant is properly described as being under the relevant state Act so that recipients can claim the federal treatment. No duty is imposed on the Minister to maintain the determination; it could be revoked at any time by a new instrument.

The determination contains no penalty provisions. It does not create any offences, and it does not provide for infringement notices, civil penalties, or criminal sanctions. Enforcement of the underlying rules about how approved scheme grants are treated is through the general compliance and enforcement mechanisms of the Social Security Act 1991. If a recipient incorrectly claims that a payment is from the approved scheme when it is not, they may be subject to overpayment recovery and potentially to prosecution for fraud under the Criminal Code (Cth) or the Social Security Act. For example, if a person receives a grant that is not from the Queensland Disability Services Act 2006 but from a private insurer or a different state program, and they fail to declare it as income, the department may raise a debt and seek recovery. The determination itself does not change the enforcement landscape - it merely specifies which scheme is approved. The main enforcement risk arises from misinterpretation of the scope of the determination. If Disability Services Queensland wrongly characterises a grant as falling under the Act, recipients could be misled. However, the determination does not impose any compliance burden on the state agency. For Commonwealth decision-makers, failure to properly apply the approved scheme status could result in administrative law review. A decision to treat an approved scheme grant as income would be a reviewable decision under the Social Security Act. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal could set aside that decision. There are no reporting requirements or audit obligations in the determination. The only indirect enforcement mechanism is the normal social security debt recovery and penalty framework. The determination does not empower any new inspectors, investigators, or authorised officers. It does not establish any new tribunal or court jurisdiction. The revocation of the 2004 determination does not affect any enforcement actions that were taken under that determination; those actions remain valid. The instrument is very low-risk from an enforcement perspective because it is simply a classification tool.

The determination sits within a hierarchy of laws. At the top is the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), specifically section 35A, which provides the authority for the instrument. The determination is made under that section and has the same legal effect as a legislative instrument made by the Minister. It interacts with the Disability Services Act 2006 (Qld) by referencing it: the determination states that grants under that state Act are approved. This creates a direct link between a state grant program and federal social security law. The determination does not amend or override the state Act; it simply uses it as a reference point. If the state Act is amended or replaced, the determination may become inoperative unless it is updated (as happened when the 2004 determination was revoked and replaced). The determination also interacts with the Disability Services Act 1986 (Cth) only indirectly, because both laws deal with disability support. The NDIS Act 2013 (Cth) is not mentioned in the determination, but in practice, personal care support may now often be funded through the NDIS rather than through state-based grants. However, the determination remains in force and may apply to people who are not yet on the NDIS or who receive complementary state funding. The instrument also interacts with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) in that decisions about the treatment of approved scheme payments are reviewable. The determination does not interact with the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) directly, but the treatment of grants for tax purposes may differ from their treatment for social security purposes; the determination only covers the latter. The revocation of the 2004 determination means that the earlier approved scheme designation under the previous Queensland Act ceases to have effect. This may affect transitional cases where grants were paid under the old Act but continue. The determination does not include any savings or transitional provisions, so the general rules of statutory interpretation apply. It also interacts with state administrative law: decisions about eligibility for the grant itself are reviewable under Queensland law, and those decisions are separate from the federal approval status. The determination does not create any conflict of laws because it is explicitly authorised by Commonwealth law and simply recognises a state scheme; there is no inconsistency.

The determination was made on 16 February 2017 by the Minister for Social Services. It was registered on an unspecified date and commenced the day after registration. The instrument as shown in the source is the original version; there is no indication of any subsequent amendments. The determination revoked the Social Security (Disability Services Queensland Personal Care Support) Determination No. 1 2004. That 2004 determination had presumably been made under an earlier version of section 35A or under a different legislative framework. The 2017 determination updated the reference from whatever Queensland Act was in force in 2004 to the Disability Services Act 2006 (Qld). This suggests that the 2004 determination may have referred to the Disability Services Act 1992 (Qld) or another earlier Act. The revocation means that from the commencement date, the only approved scheme for Queensland personal care support grants is the one under the 2006 Act. The instrument does not contain any transitional provisions, so any grants made under the old scheme before commencement might need to be reassessed under the new instrument or might continue to be treated as approved under the old determination for a period, depending on the general law. The instrument has no amending provisions; it is a standalone replacement. There is no schedule listing amendments. The note to the commencement table states that the table will not be amended to deal with later amendments, which implies that if the instrument were later amended, the commencement table would remain as originally made. Since 2017, significant changes have occurred in disability funding, including the full rollout of the NDIS. It is possible that this determination has been superseded or is no longer practically significant because most personal care support is now funded through NDIS plans, which have their own treatment under social security law. However, the determination has not been repealed or amended; it remains on the statute book. A search of the Federal Register of Legislation would confirm its current status. The amendment history of this instrument is therefore minimal: one original instrument and one revocation of its predecessor. No explanatory statement or regulatory impact statement is mentioned in the source.

The source contains no reference to any litigation involving this determination. The instrument is so narrow in scope that it is unlikely to be directly litigated. Challenges would more likely arise under the Social Security Act itself, concerning the interpretation of section 35A or the treatment of approved scheme grants. For example, a recipient might argue that a grant received from a different Queensland program should also be treated as approved, or that the Minister had failed to properly approve a similar scheme. But the determination itself is a ministerial declaration; it is a legislative instrument, not a decision that would be directly reviewable in the AAT unless someone sought to challenge its validity as an improper exercise of power. An application for judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 could theoretically be brought on grounds such as ultra vires (if the Minister exceeded the power in s35A) or failure to take into account relevant considerations. However, there are no reported cases citing this determination in the public domain as of the date of this writing. The 2004 predecessor determination also appears to have generated no reported litigation. The most likely litigation context is an administrative appeal about whether a particular grant qualifies as a grant under the Disability Services Act 2006 (Qld). That question would be one of fact and state law, not federal law. A separate appeal might concern whether the Minister’s determination applies to a particular recipient if the grant was made through a different mechanism (e.g., a sub-contract). Without any cases, the litigation history is effectively a blank slate. This is consistent with the instrument’s character as a routine, non-controversial classification tool. It does not create rights or obligations that are likely to be contested. The lack of litigation may also indicate that the Social Security Act section 35A is well-understood and that the Queensland scheme has operated smoothly. There is no indication of any class actions, test cases, or tribunal decisions involving the determination.

Despite its brevity, the determination contains several potential traps. First, the determination relies entirely on the Disability Services Act 2006 (Qld) as the source of the grant. If the Queensland government restructures its disability funding and begins issuing grants under a different Act (such as the NDIS-related state legislation or a new community services Act), those grants would not be covered. Recipients and advisers must check the precise legislative basis of the grant, not just that it comes from Disability Services Queensland. The instrument does not name the scheme - it names the state Act. A grant that looks like personal care support but is made under a different state Act is not an approved scheme. Second, the determination uses the phrase “grant of financial assistance”. If the funding is structured as a loan, a voucher, a direct payment to a provider, or a reimbursement rather than a grant, it might fall outside the scope. The term “grant” suggests a gratuitous payment, not a contractual payment. Third, the determination does not define “personal care support”. The meaning is imported from the state Act. That Act’s definition may change over time. If the state Act narrows or broadens its definition, the scope of the approved scheme changes automatically without any amendment to the federal determination. Fourth, there is no sunset clause. The determination continues indefinitely. If the state Act is repealed and replaced, the determination could become a dead letter, or it could be argued that it no longer applies. Legal uncertainty could arise during transitional periods. Fifth, the revocation of the 2004 determination may affect people who were receiving grants under the old scheme and whose grants have been continued under transitional arrangements. If the old grants were not formally reissued under the 2006 Act, they might not be covered by the new determination. The instrument provides no grandfathering. Sixth, the determination is ministerial, not legislative in the sense of being passed by Parliament. It could be revoked or amended at any time without public consultation. Recipients have no guarantee of continued favourable treatment. Seventh, the determination does not state the effect of being an approved scheme - it simply states that the scheme is approved for the purposes of s35A. Practitioners must locate the current version of s35A to understand the consequence. Those who rely on memory of the earlier 2004 determination may be caught out if s35A was amended in the meantime. Eighth, the instrument applies only to Queensland. Clients who move interstate and continue to receive a Queensland grant may still be covered, but those who receive a similar grant from another state must check whether that state has its own determination. Ninth, there is no mechanism in the determination for resolving disputes about whether a particular payment is a grant under the state Act. That would need to be resolved under state law. Finally, tax treatment may differ: the determination does not provide any income tax exemption; it only addresses social security means testing.

Compliance with this determination requires no action from most individuals because it is a passive classification. However, for the intended effect to flow through, several practical steps are needed. For a recipient of a personal care support grant from Disability Services Queensland, the key compliance step is to inform the Department of Social Services or Services Australia that the grant is received under the Disability Services Act 2006 (Qld). This should be done when reporting income or when applying for or reviewing a social security payment. The recipient should retain documentation from Queensland showing the statutory basis of the grant, such as a letter of offer, a service agreement, or a plan that cites the Act. If the grant is paid to a third-party provider directly, the recipient may need to obtain confirmation from the provider or from Queensland that the payment is indeed a grant under the Act. For the Department of Social Services, compliance means ensuring that its computer systems and staff correctly identify grants from the approved scheme and apply the appropriate treatment. This may involve coding the grant as exempt income or as a non-income item. The department should also communicate this treatment to recipients to avoid confusion or double counting. For Disability Services Queensland, compliance involves ensuring that all personal care support grants are issued under the correct state Act and are documented as such. If the state agency issues grants under a different legislative head, those grants will not benefit from the determination. The state should also consider whether any grants made before the commencement of the 2017 determination and continued after it need to be reissued or confirmed under the 2006 Act. For legal and financial advisers, compliance means verifying that the determination is still in force (checking the Federal Register of Legislation for any subsequent amendments or reclassifications) and that it covers the specific grant their client is receiving. They should also monitor any changes to the Queensland Act, because those changes automatically affect the scope of the approved scheme. There are no annual reporting obligations, no registration requirements, and no fees associated with this determination. The compliance burden is minimal and largely documentary. The main risk is non-compliance through inaction: failing to claim the favourable treatment, or wrongly assuming that all state disability grants are covered. A periodic review of the determination and the underlying state Act is advisable. If the NDIS has fully funded the recipient’s support, the grant may cease, and the determination becomes irrelevant. In that case, no further compliance action is needed.