Ross Hart (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Today we have before us in this House the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payments for Carers) Bill 2018. This bill introduces a family income test of $250,000 a year for the carer allowance and the carer allowance (child) healthcare card from September 2018. To be eligible for carer allowance, applicants must be giving additional daily care to someone who either has a disability or severe illness. Carer allowance and its predecessor payments have never been means-tested. This makes these payments unusual within the framework of the Australian social security system.

At the time of the introduction of the allowance, those opposite claimed that exempting carer allowance from a means and income test was reflective of their commitment to Australian carers. The language used by the government at that time was unequivocal and unambiguous. The government claimed:

We will always have an ongoing commitment to people in this particular role.

Nevertheless, the Abbott government's National Commission of Audit recommended applying an income limit to carer allowance of $150,000 a year. That measure, if it had been adopted, would have affected 35,000 carers. Perhaps we can assume that the introduction of income testing on this particular payment is indicative of a shift in this government's priorities.

We know that caring can add substantially to usual household costs. The proposed income limit in this legislation is fixed and will not be indexed. Consequentially, its real value will decline, and any wage rises will see more families exceeding that static income limit over time. Indeed, it is estimated that, in 2018-19, some 6,500 current carer allowance recipients and 400 healthcare card holders will be affected. This represents about one per cent of all carer allowance recipients and around 2.4 per cent of carer allowance (child) health care only holders.

Carer allowance is a fortnightly supplementary payment of $127.10 to assist people who provide daily care to someone who is sick, frail, aged or who has a disability. It is a payment to help meet the costs of caring. The carer allowance (child) health care card can be given to children who have a medical condition or disability that requires extra care of at least 14 per hours per week but not enough to provide their carer with eligibility for the carer allowance. Carers Australia is supportive of means-testing the carer allowance on the basis that the savings generated by this measure are directed towards funding for a new integrated care support services model. Ara Creswell, the CEO of Carers Australia, stated:

We appreciate that when people have become accustomed to receiving a benefit, they can feel aggrieved when it is taken away. However, the income threshold is very generous compared to other pensions and allowances, reflecting the Government’s recognition that caring can add substantially to the usual costs of maintaining a household.

Australian carers are meant to be able to benefit from the increased supports provided by the integrated carer support services from July this year. Instead, the ability for carers to access the new services through the Carer Gateway has been delayed until October 2018. The establishment of a network of regional delivery partners to help carers access a range of local services has also been delayed until September 2019.

For months, Labor has been calling on the government to provide further details about what precisely these supports will be and when they'll be available given the linkage between the means-testing introduced under this legislation and the Carers Gateway's introduction. Given the importance of providing support to carers, if the government were serious about supporting carers, they could have and should have done the hard work to have this program ready to roll out well before this change, instead of forcing Australia's hardworking, unpaid carers to await the government's convenience.

It's very important for us to remind the House that Australia's 2.8 million unpaid careers work tirelessly every day to care for children with additional needs, to care for sick or elderly family members and people with a disability. In my electorate of Bass, there are more than 1,600 carers doing their best for people under their care. I often receive representations from my constituents about the work of carers, who are often unrecognised or feel that they are unrecognised.

These changes will also disproportionately affect women. Women are more likely to be carers. They are more likely to give up work in order to care and more likely to be the secondary income earner in a higher-income family. Women are more than twice as likely to provide primary care to a person with a disability. My constituent Marjory is one such woman. Marjory has cared for her daughter Karen for 51 years. I really cannot begin to imagine the burden and the responsibility which is contemplated by caring for another for more than 50 years. Now in her 80s, Marjory is concerned that she will not be able to continue to care for her daughter one day. The sense of anxiety associated with both contemplating your own mortality and the limitation upon your ability to care for a loved one should be obvious to all. Marjory is particularly concerned as to what will happen to her daughter when she is no longer here. This is the kind of mental pressure that Australian carers have to contend with on a daily basis. I'm acutely aware of the invaluable contributions carers make to our community. We should all be aware of the burden they assume.

Whilst I've previously said that a carer is more likely to be female, there are many carers who are young in age, looking after parents or siblings who are affected by a disability or illness. It was only in the 1990s that the concept of a young carer began to be recognised. It's interesting to note, in that context, that a study was undertaken about 10 years ago which analysed some of the costs associated with caring, irrespective of whether someone was a young carer or fell within the usual definitions. This report, called Young carers in Australia: understanding the advantages and disadvantages of their care giving, was published some years before the NDIS was even contemplated. It observed:

These costs include direct costs with respect to expenditure and costs to physical and mental health; and opportunity costs, concerned with possible disruption to education, training, labour force participation, income earning, and participation in social and friendship networks. The key question surrounds how the costs of providing care should be shared among individuals, within families and across society at large. Moreover, what is the most appropriate balance between formal and informal care, and to what extent will informal care be assisted by formal support?

The Australian Bureau of Statistics most recently undertook a survey of disability, ageing and carers in 2015. There were, at that time, approximately 2.7 million unpaid carers in Australia. This represents a most extraordinary resource. But, like all resources, that resource should not be squandered; nor should it be taken for granted. Deloitte Access Economics estimates the value of these unpaid carers to the Australian economy was $60.3 billion. There are some more statistics. Around 856,000 carers—that is, 32 per cent—are primary carers, those who provide the most informal assistance to another individual. The replacement value of that unpaid care provided in 2015 was about $1 billion per week. The median weekly income of primary carers aged 15 to 64 was 42 per cent below that of non-carers. More than two-thirds of primary carers are female. The average age of a primary carer is 55, and 272,000 carers are under the age of 25, which equates to about one in 10. Almost all primary carers—that is, 96 per cent—care for a family member. More than half—55 per cent—of primary carers provide care for at least 20 hours per week. Fifty-six per cent of primary carers aged 15 to 64 participate in the workforce, compared to 80 per cent of non-carers. It is estimated, as I've said previously, that carers provided an extraordinary 1.9 billion hours of unpaid care in 2015.

There are many personal stories in addition to the story of Marjory that I've recounted to the House. I'd like to finish by reading you a letter that was shared with my office for publication in our local paper just this week from one of my constituents, Mr William Ovenell. This letter, in my view, underscores the sense of frustration in our community associated with this government's priorities—indeed, their expressed priorities. Mr Ovenell writes in his letter:

There is quite desperation from some family carers of aged disabled people at home, that so little has been done about the financial burden they suffer.

These people have made a massive contribution. Their dedication continues to save the government billions.

Family carers receive about $60 a week, 36 cents an hour for their seven days, 24 hours work—

their devotion—

There is a need for a substantial increase to their payment.

The government approved providers ... can receive about $50,000 plus out of pocket fees from clients for a level 4 for between about 10 and 14 hours service.

The case management can eat up to 30 to 50 per cent of the package, thereby reducing the front line services and equipment.

Some improvement would allow home carers to nominate themselves as providers and receive funding for services rendered.

This would increase the hours of front-line services.

Mr Ovenell continues:

It's disappointing the Prime Minister ... and Treasurer ... have not in the budget recognised one of their responsibilities includes an ability to distinguish between those in urgent need, than being domineered by wealthy elites who have more than they will ever need.

I share Mr Ovenell's disappointment. This government has demonstrated its priority. It's handing out, indeed today, tax cuts which include tax cuts prospectively more than six years in the future to people who are on the highest incomes. It's also handing out an $80 billion tax cut to big business and the big banks, even whilst we have people like William Ovenell trying to provide for their loved ones at a rate of approximately 60c per hour.

I would urge those on the other side to carefully reconsider their priorities, just as Mr Ovenell suggests. It's not, in my view, the case that the government should run their persistent line that we should only pay for things like the NDIS, that we should only pay for Medicare and that we should only pay for public education if we have a sound economy and the budget is in a sound state, because that ignores the fact that the government can and do make choices as to how they address the budget. The most significant failing of this government is the fact that, today, they have sought to bind—although they can't do so—a future government with respect to taxation cuts which are going to cost the budget of Australia billions of dollars every year, far more than is currently spent on either the NDIS or supporting carers. In my mind, that is an unconscionable choice.

Similarly, this government should not put it to the Australian community that it's a case of choosing between properly funding Medicare and ensuring that the federal government meets the increase in cost, which should be shared equally between the states and the federal government. It shouldn't put to the Australian community that it's a choice between tax cuts and paying for properly funding public education. It shouldn't put to the Australian community that there's a choice between properly funding technical and further education or having tax cuts. I know that in northern Tasmania people value public health and they value public education. They understand the importance of TAFE. They understand the importance of ensuring that our public institutions are properly funded. This legislation deals with, in particular, the carer allowance and means-testing the carer allowance. I would not like to see this government use the means-testing of the carer allowance as an opportunity to means-test further benefits for carers.

See this speech in context