House debates
Monday, 18 October 2010
Private Members’ Business
Special Disability Trusts
12:43 pm
Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source
I rise to speak to the motion put forward by the Hon. Judi Moylan, the member for Pearce, and seconded by Michael Keenan, the member for Stirling. I thank the member for Oxley for his comments on carers. I could not agree more. This motion seeks to remove some of the barriers to entry which parents of children with a disability currently face if they consider establishing a disability trust. At the moment there is unnecessary red tape that has led to a relatively low uptake of these special trusts, which is disappointing because they were introduced by the coalition government in 2006 to help families who have one or more dependants with a severe disability to plan for the future. I also thank Senator Kay Paterson, the then health minister.
The fact is that point 1 of this motion recognises that there are far too many ageing parents in our community who are caring for their child with a disability and are worried about what will happen to their child when they are gone. I also recognise there are many younger families facing this predicament and are concerned about how to access what we proposed in 2006. We have a large number of these families in Gilmore and the numbers are growing each year as our special needs schools will testify. These parents have enough to worry about without spending their last days being anxious about the future needs of their dependants. It is almost a case of deja vu for me, as I have been advocating for the needs of people with disabilities and their families and carers since I came into parliament in 1996. Several of my first speeches were on the subject and I concur, again, with the member for Oxley that we should not play politics with these motions.
This motion is about governments helping parents to help their children, making their lives easier. That is the No. 1 concern here. A Senate report released in 2008 by the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs titled Building trust: supporting families through disability trusts dealt with just this. It made 14 recommendations to improve the current model, which the government has failed for the most part to pick up. By introducing this motion, we are seeking to put this issue back on the agenda and make some relatively small changes which will make a huge difference to many families. These changes include but are not limited to examining the complex tax laws surrounding disability trusts and their wider implications. As points (4) and (5) of this motion highlight, the complexity of the current system is thought to be responsible for the very low uptake. Anyone who has tried to work out the rules and conditions of a trust will know what I am talking about.
Families should not need to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees to take advantage of a trust. They should not need a law degree to work out whether or not it would benefit their family. There are also serious discriminatory issues which should be addressed. For example, beneficiaries of disability trusts cannot claim the first home owners grant or other incentives, as stated in the motion. There are financial barriers in some cases which make trusts not only unattractive but also unaffordable. It makes sense that some parents would like to transfer their home into a trust for the future benefit of their child. Parents who want to transfer their property into a trust are shocked to learn that they will be up for thousands of dollars in capital gains tax.
The last point I would like to touch on relates to the eligibility criteria for special disability trusts which require a beneficiary to first be eligible for a carers allowance. There is no doubt that this approach disfavours those with a mental disability who might still benefit from family members helping them plan for the future but who currently do not meet the restrictive criteria.
To sum up, the hard work has already been done. The Senate committee has looked long and hard at this and the recommendations need to be taken more seriously. I wholeheartedly support this motion, as do the families in Gilmore affected by this issue. I certainly commend it to the House and thank all members for participating in the debate on this motion. I thank particularly the member for Pearce for putting forward the motion.
No comments