Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

The Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment (Child Disability Assistance) Bill 2007 is extremely important. I say that because I do not think any of us who are fortunate enough to have able-bodied, able-minded children can really appreciate what it must be like for a parent who gives to a disabled child. We all give equal love and care to our children, as well as comfort and advice and all of those things—sustenance to life—and it is challenging enough trying to bring children up in a modern society. But, for caring for children with the sort of disabilities that the member for Riverina refers to, these people do not just deserve anything and everything we can give them; as my dad would say, they deserve a medal. It is extraordinary.

I was reminded when looking at some of the photos in the book launched by the Kurrajong Early Intervention Service—and I am pleased that we have been able to help with this with our Stronger Families and Communities initiatives—that these people do not ask for much. They really do not. In many cases they do not see themselves as being unfortunate. They love and nurture their children and they treasure every day. But we have to accept that every day is also a struggle such that many think, ‘But for the grace of God there go I.’ When the Prime Minister and I announced the $1.8 billion package of which this is part, the thing that really appalled me was that this was such good news but the media hardly did a thing with it. I say this from the bottom of my heart because these people need to know that there are taxpayers out there who are happy to see their money assisting them via Commonwealth spending.

As a cabinet we sat around and we thought about this $1,000 payment. I am going to come to where and why we came to this payment in a moment, but we thought: should we restrict this to things such as some of the things that the member for Riverina has been talking about—harnesses, alterations to cars to allow people with physical disabilities to be able to get in and out, swings to get them into baths and that sort of thing? We thought no. We thought that, if you have what it takes to be a parent of one or even more than one disabled child, you do not need a bureaucrat or a government to tell you how to spend every last cent you have in the best interests of your family.

Quite frankly, if what is going to help some child is a big plasma television, you go right ahead and buy one. On the other hand, if you need to buy some respite, if you need to do some sort of intervention in the home, do it. I want people to know that this is not a one-off; this is forever. This is forever under a Howard government—a coalition government, anyway; I cannot speak for anyone else. This is what we are committing to not just today but into the future. It is not a one-off payment. What it means is that parents can actually plan for what they want to do with this money for their children, to just make that life a little bit easier. That is why it is so important.

Where did it come from? During the speeches from the members for Jagajaga and Gorton, one or two of them asked, ‘Why doesn’t this go beyond 16-year-olds?’ The reason we are actually here is that I, as the minister, and the Prime Minister have quite frankly had a gutful of trying to deal with state governments who have been responsible for these groups and have not stepped up to the plate. We felt we could hand another $1.6 billion over to the states, and hope and pray they would give the money to the children who need it and other groups, or we could actually cut out the middleman and go straight to the person and let them buy the intervention that they needed. I was a very strong advocate for that, because we have a thing called the Commonwealth State Territory Disability Agreement, and it goes for five years. The first one was in 1991; the last one was due for renegotiation and finished on June 2007—and, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will recall that that has elapsed. We do not have another five-year agreement, the reason being that on 3 April, I think, in Brisbane every Labor state minister walked out on me as the Commonwealth minister when I put an offer on the table saying the Commonwealth would put not a dollar limited amount but a fifty-fifty deal with the states and territories to actually do something positive for people with disabilities. They walked out of the room. They caucused, they came back, they read a statement and they declared the meeting closed without comment. That is the sort of reaction we got from Labor state governments and territory governments—universally, unanimously.

I came back to the Prime Minister and said that we as a Commonwealth have a duty of care. We are a wealthy country. We are in the best financial shape we have ever been in and, as the minister, I feel that there is no alternative but for us to try and do something practical. I had people, the sector, say to me: ‘Please do something for us but don’t just have two systems, because that is what we tried to overcome in 1991. Don’t have all of the duplications. You don’t do a bit and they don’t do a bit and you end up with all of this blame game.’ Hence we have gone directly to them. We have said we will do this for children under the age of 16 and that will be the cut-off. The Commonwealth is now putting $1.8 billion additional new money into disabilities, which is money that represents a 55 per cent increase to our contribution.

We have not stopped there. We also have made a guarantee, which I am very passionate about, for the first time in this nation’s history to these same sort of parents who, when the child is five and six today, will still be caring for their child—their daughter, their son—when the child is 40 and 50 and they are 70, 80 and even 90 years of age. Do you know what these people want? Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you are aware of this, and I know that the member for Gilmore is very aware of it because she has been to see me about Anglicare and Havenlee in Nowra, in her electorate, trying to have respite. What worries them is that they have given their entire life to their child, almost given up their own life because they want to give something to the one they have brought into this world, and their biggest fear is: ‘What will happen when I am too frail or I die? Who is going to look after my child? Will they be abused? Will they be neglected? Where will they go?’ The fear that is in their hearts is palpable when you sit there in front of them. They are not asking for anything for themselves—no thankyous, no medals; all they want to know is that their kid is going to be safe.

Under the package that the Prime Minister and I announced, we gave that guarantee. We now have people in the field talking to every carer aged over 65 who has been caring long term for a child about giving them a plan that will suit them. Some of it will be in their own home. Some of it will be in shared accommodation. Some of it will be with HACC style interventions. It will be through all sorts of things, but it will be what is important to them.

Again, that had to happen because the states and territories were not interested in doing that. I think that is a great shame on us as Australians and on them as state and territory Labor governments. That is why we are here. That is why we are doing that and that is why, when the opposition asks me these questions, these are the answers. It is because they have been failed by another level of government. We could have simply said, ‘I am sorry but, since 1991, the deal has been that that is the responsibility of the states—and they won’t do it.’ How the hell do you turn your back on people that have done that? When you have the wealth that this country has, you cannot do that. I am really proud to be part of a government that has said we will not do that and we will move forward.

Why don’t we have another five-year agreement? Because the states and territories, believe it or not, in 2007 will not agree to accountability and transparency. That is what the delay has been. But I think I have nearly got them there; we should have them there in November. But we would not have another agreement without external validation of supported accommodation. Let me put that into plain language. It means that when someone is disabled and they need other people to live with them and support them in their living on an everyday basis—in other words, shared accommodation, hostels, community living—up until now, in many cases, there have been no checks and balances as to the safety of those people who live in community housing. I have seen the worst of it in my own electorate, where people have faced charges because of that. Would anyone think for a moment that any Australian government would stand here today and say, ‘We will remove external validation of aged care’? You would not get away with it—and nor should you get away with it. If we said we will no longer apply standards to child care, we would not get away with that either.

But the states have been responsible for disabilities—and you can have shared accommodation, supported accommodation, and not have external validation. It was an aspiration under the last five-year agreement. The Commonwealth entered into that aspirational goal. We fulfilled our responsibility and we do have external validation for business services—what people used to know as sheltered workshops. They have the checks and balances there, but many of the states have not done it or have done it to an inappropriate level. We, the Commonwealth, have demanded that that happen in this agreement, or there will be no agreement. We will take them to the table. I wonder whether, if there is a change of government, we will have that same level of determination by a Rudd Labor government. I guarantee you we will not. So external validation, access for Aboriginals—the First Australians—and transparency and accountability are the reasons why we will still be trying to get a Commonwealth-state disability agreement.

Why did we withdraw the fifty-fifty deal? Because when I put a fifty-fifty deal on the table they walked out. I wrote to them. They wrote back and said, ‘We’ll think about it and consider it and we might do something.’ The agreement was due to expire on 30 June—not to be renegotiated, but to expire. People out there were very fearful of what was going to happen, so the Commonwealth—the Prime Minister and I—acted and we announced this. Western Australia, the Northern Territory and the ACT came to the party and we have supported them, but Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania said no. It says a hell of a lot about what they think of people with disabilities. Quite frankly, the disingenuous comments from those opposite—such as ‘Why does this cut off above 16-year-olds?’ and ‘Why haven’t you done the CSTDA yet?’—mean either that they are ignorant or playing politics with the most vulnerable and needy people in the community. The reality is that we have put $1.8 billion into this because we can afford it and because we should do so. We should no longer allow state and territory governments to simply say, ‘We’re not putting our hand up, we are not doing it, and that is just too bad for these families.’

They deserve every single cent that we can give them. They deserve our support and they deserve the admiration of the Australian public. As many of them often say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to me, imagine what the cost would be if we abdicated our responsibility. They would never do that. They love their children far too much. But the cost would be phenomenal. Today, as the member for Riverina said, with things such as Asperger’s unfortunately growing for some reason that I cannot explain and the many other intellectual issues that beset so many of our young people, we as a nation owe it to those families to give them every support. This is a practical measure that the Commonwealth government has introduced. It is something that I know will make a difference in people’s lives. We are delighted that we have a strong enough economy that we can do it. We will continue to support these people into the future. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

See this speech in context