Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Local Government) Share this | Hansard source

As a fairly recent member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family, Community, Housing and Youth, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Who Cares …? report. We do not show enough appreciation for the work that carers perform—and I have said that in this place before. This report seeks to reverse that attitude, as many similar reports have done in the past. I do not think we can ever give enough recognition to carers and I do not think we can ever do enough in this place for carers. I say that not as a criticism but as a simple point of fact. They make a sacrifice for those they love. If we as a society had to pay for the care and attention provided by carers, we would never be able to afford it. So for that we are always in their debt.

This report picks up on an issue that was raised at the inquiry—that is, that many carers believe it is not possible for anyone to truly understand what being a carer entails unless they are a carer or have been a carer. I think that is very true. We can do all we can to try and understand what they do, but unless we have walked in their shoes I do not think we will ever be able to fully appreciate it. Nevertheless, we should do what we can to ensure that our policy responses reflect a better level of understanding—and this inquiry has provided the committee with a greater degree of insight, I believe, into what it means to be a carer.

The terms of reference for this inquiry were very broad and addressed a number of very important matters concerning carers. Two of the key themes that were drawn from the inquiry were the need for improved recognition of carers and the need for improved support for carers. As a society, we do not do enough to support their work. Many carers gave evidence at the inquiry. Most stated that they feel that their role is not fully understood or appreciated by governments or, indeed, the wider community.

The report provides a series of recommendations—50 in total. The great theme of these recommendations is the need to improve the level of recognition. I will run through some of the recommendations now. Recommendation 5 proposes the creation of a new national office for carers and the nomination, most significantly, of a lead minister who would be responsible for overseeing the development of nationally coordinated carer legislation. I would be the last person in this place to advocate greater bureaucracy and the creation of new offices. In many cases, when we see that happen it does not necessarily lead to greater outcomes. But one of the frustrations that came through in the inquiry process was about the lack of a single point that takes responsibility for the plight of carers and how things are coordinated.

Carers have to deal with government across a broad range of portfolios, including health and family and community services. It does not matter which area it is, carers are always interfacing with some level of government—particularly the federal government but also at the state and local level. They need a champion who is in a position to, first and foremost, look after their needs and ensure that all arms of government work together to ensure that the support they require is provided as seamlessly as possible. In the committee process I was very pleased to underline this point: someone, at the end of the day, has to be appointed as the person with responsibility for carers’ issues; otherwise, we will constantly have issues being shifted between departments and ministers and jurisdictions. That is not good enough.

At the end of the day, if we believe as a parliament that carers need recognition, then we need to have someone representing the executive of government who takes responsibility for them and the support that they provide and, indeed, is an advocate for them in the course of the proceedings of the executive—and also in this place.

Another recommendation that addresses the issue of recognition is recommendation 28. Here it is requested:

That the Minister for Families Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs direct the Department of Families Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs to investigate the benefits of introducing a national carer card for recipients of Carer Payment and Carer Allowance …

A card of this nature would allow carers to be identified for access to discounts and other benefits which retailers and other service providers may want to provide. That could support carers.

This is important. Being card-carrying carers is, I think, a good way of these people being identified in our community. I think there is a strong level of support, sympathy and empathy for carers and, as that grows, I would not be surprised if those outside the government sector might look to provide encouragement, support and recognition. If there were a nationally recognised carers card then that would provide, I think, a catalyst for our broader community to recognise carers.

You can see it: the day at the movies; the day of free entry to national parks; riding on the buses; or whatever else there might be. There is an opportunity for everyone to get involved in recognising carers. A carers card would enable us to get over the hurdles of: ‘Who is a carer?’ and ‘Who is entitled?’ and ‘Who is eligible?’ and so I strongly support the idea.

The demands on carers associated with their caring roles often tend to preclude them from being involved in paid employment. This leads to many struggling to meet the costs of everyday expenses such as housing and food—and sometimes the costs associated with the care-giving itself, such as medicines and other healthcare costs. It is not just the government that can do things about this. There are community organisations which already do—and, indeed, the private sector and others can play a role directly, outside the realm of government, in providing support for carers. This would facilitate that process.

A consequence of limited participation in paid employment is that a large number of carers do not have the opportunity to save for their future through contributions to superannuation schemes. As parliamentarians, we and the government can provide better support to carers to partially compensate them for the hard work they do. Specific recommendations addressing this issue of support include recommendation 13, which proposes:

That the Minister for Health and Ageing review arrangements for systemic carer advocacy provided through Carers Australia and the network of state and territory Carer Associations.

Recommendation 15 proposes:

That the Attorney-General promote national consistency and mutual recognition governing enduring powers of attorney and advanced care directives to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General.

Constituents from my electorate of Cook have told me that they have experienced difficulty looking after the health needs of elderly patients when using powers of attorney from other states. Replacement of Medicare cards is just one example. Carers need greater national recognition, and that means that laws that impact on carers which may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction need to be harmonised and there needs to be mutual recognition. This makes it not the carers’ problem but the problem of those who make the laws. It is our problem that we cannot have mutual recognition of these laws for carers. It is not their problem.

They are trying to care for those they are trying to care for, so we need to make this process far more simple for them. We need to ensure that they are not spending, as is the case for many constituents in my electorate, hours upon hours upon hours of writing letters, getting forms filled out and doing all these things simply to have their power of attorney recognised—a power of attorney which has been established in another jurisdiction—to ensure that they can do something on behalf of the person they are seeking to care for.

So I welcome the recommendations and I encourage the Attorney-General to press ahead—to actually get on with this job of getting that agreement between attorneys-general around the country to ensure that we can get this harmonisation in place.

Recommendation 23 provides for the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs to carry out a survey to measure the financial costs of households that care for people with disabilities. The committee found that many carers face not only limited opportunity to earn an income but also significant out-of-pocket expenses associated with their caring role. It was acknowledged that the additional cost of disability and caring increases the financial stress placed upon carers and their families, who are already disadvantaged by their constrained income. It is simply about understanding what these costs are. We all know that there is additional cost, but how much is that additional cost and what level of burden is it putting on people? I personally cannot imagine the emotional, let alone the physical, burden of being in one of those full-time caring roles. I have not had that direct experience. I know plenty of people who have experienced that, and they have shared their stories with me. But I have not personally been in that position, and so I cannot imagine what it is like. But to add to that experience a level of financial burden can be the straw that breaks the camel’s back—that breaks the spirit. At the end of the day, we are human beings; we have limits. We have an ability to go so far. So we should ensure that we do everything that we can so that these people are not put in the position of being at breaking point because of these issues. A good place to start is to understand just how great that stress is.

Recommendation 33 of the report addresses the dire need for more capital funding of respite carer services. While services for carers and people with disabilities tend to receive funding for operational purposes—which is welcome, and there can always be more provided should circumstances allow it—there is also a very severe shortage of funds for capital purposes, particularly when they relate to the provision of respite beds and respite facilities. There is an absolute paucity of such facilities in my own electorate. While funding may come for operational purposes, it is only as good as the beds that are there to support those operational services. There are many opportunities to pursue this. It does not always have to be just the government providing this funding directly.

There are, I think, massive opportunities out there in our communities to enhance the level of partnership between the private sector and the not-for-profit sector. We have to get smart about this. It is not just a simple process of writing cheques. I think we can look at far more innovative ways of encouraging and engaging the not-for-profit sector and the private sector to become more equipped in dealing with these challenges. Hopefully, that would see a greater provision of respite care places and beds and facilities throughout our communities, which would give these carers and those whom they care for much-needed respite. The committee found the shortage of local, timely and appropriate respite services to be one of the key issues facing carers. A lack of those services can be connected to the shortage of funding for capital works associated with respite service providers.

This report is titled Who cares …? And I thinks it is well titled. Who cares …? poses that question to our community in terms of our own responsibility and in terms of developing an appreciation and an understanding of how to engage with the issue. But it is also a statement about those who are caring. We know through this inquiry which we have been involved in who these people are and the great work that they do. If there is one thematic message that has come out this inquiry, I think it is being able to recognise in very practical ways the journey that carers are on—a journey that life’s circumstances have placed them on. It is not a journey that they have been in a position to choose.

It has been a journey that they have had to walk, and I think they walk it with great distinction. They walk it with great integrity. They walk it with great sacrifice and with great love. And when we put those characteristics together, we appropriately talk in this place sometimes about those types of qualities in relation to people who have served in our armed forces—and so we should. But these soldiers, these heroes who live in our own communities also exemplify a level of self-sacrifice and self-denial on a daily basis in order to serve those around them. I think that is very much the essence of the Australian character. I am very pleased to associate myself with this report and with the inquiry, and I hope it encourages further debate on this issue, but, more importantly, that it encourages further action.

See this speech in context