Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Security and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2006, and in doing so I would like to highlight a few issues that are very important to people in Australia. Firstly, I will quickly go through the issues that are dealt with in this bill. The opposition, of course, will be supporting this legislation. It contains no new policy initiatives or changes to existing policies and, as such, it is purely a bill that has some minor and technical amendments to social security and family assistance legislation. It is aimed at removing anomalies, repealing provisions that are redundant and clarifying some aspects of the legislation which are not in line with the current government’s policy. Most significantly, there are amendments to the childcare benefits provision, to ensure that care provided as part of a compulsory education program at school does not qualify for childcare benefits—or CCB, as I will refer to it from now on—and to ensure that the amount of CCB paid for a particular period does not exceed the amount actually paid for approved care in that period.

The bill also includes de facto couples in the definition of ‘temporarily separated couples’ for the purpose of certain supplementary payments available to couples who are temporarily separated, to bring the eligibility requirements for certain supplementary payments in line with other social security and family assistance payments, which recognise de facto couples.

Other measures involve the inclusion of residents of Lord Howe Island in the eligibility criteria for remote area allowance; clarification that carer allowance is not payable during imprisonment; clarification of the rules regarding the low-income and automatic issue health care cards for youth allowance recipients, in order to clarify that youth allowance job seekers are entitled to an automatic issue health care card; the repeal of a series of redundant housing acts; and the alignment of the definition of ‘homelessness’ for the purpose of special benefits with the meaning of ‘homelessness’ which applies more broadly, such as for youth allowance and young disability support pension recipients. The bill makes a range of other minor amendments to technical anomalies and drafting errors in the legislation.

Obviously, over a period of time, legislation needs to be amended because of policy changes, but the thing that always concerns me when we come back to this place is when we make amendments that rectify mistakes. That happens so many times. I do not know how many times I have spoken in debates when we have had to revisit legislation because of errors that occurred in the original drafting. So I put those words on the record very strongly. I think that is something on which the government maybe has to work a little harder.

In relation to the clarification of childcare benefits and the fact that childcare benefits are not available in respect of care provided as part of a compulsory education program, I think it is important to note that the provision also is intended to clarify existing childcare policy, which is that the CCB cannot be claimed for care given by a teacher or as part of a compulsory school program. I have many concerns about the CCB payment and child care generally. Unfortunately, like most members of the House, I am sure, I have been contacted by numerous constituents who have had a great deal of problems in accessing child care. There are lengthy waiting lists for placement of children in child care. This is very sad, given the pressures that people are under today in balancing their work and family obligations.

I have had staff in my office ring all the childcare centres in particular areas, trying to arrange for access to childcare centres for children. It is particularly difficult in the under-two age group. There is a very severe shortage of places available for that age group of children. In one particularly sad case I had a little while ago, a single father with four children had his job placed in jeopardy because he could not access child care. Whilst the government made more money available in the budget for child care, they made it available in the area where it was not needed. I reiterate that, for parents in the electorate of Shortland, it has been a real problem.

The Labor Party has a strategy to address this. The strategy looks at cutting duplication and lifting the standards in childcare centres. It proposes to take away TAFE fees for childcare trainees. It supports wage rises and the secondment of childcare workers to work in childcare policy areas in government departments. All of these proposals broaden the experience of those people working in child care. I think it is very sad that childcare workers are some of the lowest paid workers in Australia, given that they have the responsibility for our most treasured possessions. Not only is there a shortage of childcare places—and I can document that within my electorate and provide evidence to the minister—but also there is a chronic shortage of workers.

When speaking to young people in their last years at school, one of the areas that they say they would like to work in is child care. Once they experience how hard it is to live on the wages they receive they become disillusioned and move away from an area they are passionate about. We really need to look at this. The fact is that child care is not very affordable. I have had women in particular contact my office and say that they are working two days a week just to pay their childcare fees. They have to decide whether or not it is worthwhile continuing to do so.

These are issues that truly need to be addressed. If they are not addressed we will miss an opportunity to help families at a time when there is a lot of pressure on them—when both parents return to the workforce and when single parents are caught by the new Welfare to Work legislation and have to return to work. We should be doing everything we can to make it easier for those people. It is absolutely vital that child care is affordable. It is vital that parents can be satisfied that the quality of the child care their children receive is beyond reproach. It is vital for families to know this, because having a workforce that is skilled, confident and able to focus on what it is required helps build our national economy. The cost of child care, coupled with the increase in interest rates, is placing a strain on a number of families.

Previous speakers have raised the issue of Welfare to Work and some of the problems that have been experienced in their electorates. The shadow minister for human services mentioned a couple of issues. I would like to reiterate the cases of a few people, which I have raised previously in this House. There was one lady who applied for disability support pension. It took us about four months to finally have that pension granted to her. This woman had had a series of breast cancer operations and was in the final stages. We have a very good relationship with our local Centrelink office and they were prepared to work with us. They worked with us all the way along. But we found that the legislation was very cumbersome and it was very difficult to get the payment in place. Finally, the woman was granted the disability support pension but, unfortunately, it was far too late. I value that woman’s privacy so I will not mention her name in the House. But I must make the minister aware that decisions like this cause real hardship and a great deal of pain.

Another gentleman I worked with, who was of Italian origin, was assessed for the disability support pension. It was established that he had more than the 20 points needed to be granted the disability support pension. He was totally illiterate—he could not read or write. Throughout his working life he had always held very physical positions. He came to every interview with his wife. His wife prepared all the written information that was needed and helped him present his case. He was knocked back for the disability support pension. It was said that, whilst he qualified on grounds of level of disability, it was felt that he could work. He had previously been through rehabilitation and it had not worked. Recently he went to see CRS Australia and they felt they could not help him.

I wrote to the minister and, unfortunately, the decision stood that he would not be granted the disability support pension. I think there is another angle to this as well. It is all very well to say that this person, with a high level of disability, could re-enter the workforce with proper training, but I believe that he could jeopardise the safety of the people with whom he is working because of the level of his disability. My question is: what level of responsibility would the Commonwealth have for this person who has been assessed at a level suitable to be granted the disability support pension? I think that is something that the government really needs to think about.

The end of the story is that this man is an Italian. He could not return to work. His application for the disability support pension was refused by the ARO. I thought he had a very strong case for the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. He could not handle it. He could not continue going through it. He was very stressed. He suffered from depression as well as from the physical problems that he had. He has returned to Italy with his family. They still have their house in my electorate, but he could not afford to live in Australia. That is a very sad situation. We have lost a family with two young children—a family that could contribute to the future of Australia.

There are two other issues from recent times I would like to raise. One is on the carer’s payment and a particularly nasty case that I have raised in the parliament before where an elderly woman—I think she was 10 months short of being eligible for the aged pension—was caring for her mother. Her mother lived in a little mining settlement just outside of Swansea in Catherine Hill Bay. It is an absolutely stunning area that has become very popular. The little mining cottage that once you would be lucky to get $50,000 for is now selling for $2 million. Her house was sold for $2 million. The money was put into the hands of the protective commissioner. The woman’s mother had very severe dementia and she was looking after her 24 hours a day in the house. Because she was short of the period, she could not access any money from Centrelink. She would get some money for the care of her mother, but she was not getting any money for her own support from the protective commissioner. So here we had somebody who was thrust into abject poverty simply because of the way the policy was interpreted.

I know of another very sad case about a woman who was hit by a car, her husband was killed and she is now a quadriplegic. Her daughter gave up her job to look after her. They are paying $50,000 a year in fees for nurses to come in and look after the mother and do the nursing and personal care. The daughter looks after her mother the rest of the time. She has been told that she is not eligible for a carer’s payment any longer because her mother should be paying her. The money will not last five years. I think it is a very harsh regime in which people are being treated very badly.

The final issue is the interpretation in relation to Austudy. I have had a number of cases come through my office recently involving people training in areas where there is a skills deficit—doctors, nurses, pharmacists. I raised this last week in the chamber. A doctor became ill. He had two years off, which exceeded the period of training, and has now been told he is ineligible for Austudy. I believe that something needs to be done around the edges so that is not interpreted in the harsh, mandatory fashion it is at the moment. My Centrelink office is very caring towards these people, but when you have legislation in place that says, ‘This is what you can do and this is what you can’t do,’ you cannot get around it.

Last Saturday I met with a woman studying to be a pharmacist. After you do a science degree you must do a two-year pharmacy degree—what they call a master’s degree. The first year is covered by Austudy and the second year is not. Without doing that, she cannot and will not become a pharmacist. I think that needs to be looked at. It is not like doing a master’s degree in the true sense; rather, it is about training people up to work in an area of skills shortage. Also, a man within my electorate who lives with his aged grandmother has exceeded his training to become a nurse by six months. That six months will mean that he will not receive any Austudy payment; he must go out and look for work. What that means to that man is that he will not be able to complete his studies.

I think members on both sides of this House really want to see people like those three succeed and be able to go out there and work in our community. I am not criticising the government; I am asking them to revisit that and look at trying to get around these anomalies. I am also asking the government to look at the people who are being caught by these Welfare to Work changes. They are real people. They are hurt. They are really hurt and it is having an enormous impact on their lives. Do not ignore them, do not think they are all bludgers, do not think that they are out there to rip off the system—they are not. They are really good people who are being hurt. I ask the minister to look at it in his policy considerations.

See this speech in context