Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of and through the vivid experience of the Frankston family of Ray and Lyn Jones and their three children, I call for the Rudd government to amend the current law that limits the availability of carer payments. I specifically refer to the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security Administration Act 1999 and argue that they need to be amended so that people who receive compensation payments for reasons other than the conditions that give rise to carer responsibilities can receive the carer payment. At the moment the carer payment is denied to anybody who is receiving compensation payments and is not treated as ordinary income.

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

Ms Hall interjecting

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the ridiculous carry-on of the member opposite! Listen to this and you might actually notice something.

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

Ms Hall interjecting

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Shortland will not interject.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The example that has given rise to this came to my attention late last year after this family, struggling to care for their autism afflicted child and their other two children, was asked to repay carer payments that they had received. They were asked to repay those payments because the father, Ray, is receiving workers compensation for a back injury that denies him the opportunity to work. The law, as it is currently written, overreaches. If these compensation payments related to the condition that gave rise to the carer payment, I am sure that all in this parliament would recognise that that could give rise to double dipping, and that would be a perfectly reasonable application of the law. But the law goes way beyond that.

What is unjust and unfair about the Joneses’ case is that the compensation that Mr Jones receives, which makes him ineligible for a carer payment, is entirely unrelated to his carer responsibilities for his son Brad. Along with this, in the way the law is administered, this family, who goes to great lengths to provide a full level of support and care for their 14-year-old son, Brad, is denied access to carer payments. On any other criteria—whether it be the family’s incomes, the demands of the care responsibilities towards Brad, his condition, the fact that the family needs ongoing support and counselling because of the challenging behaviour of Brad—the family would meet the eligibility requirements. All of those factors, every one of them, would ensure that carer payment eligibility was met by the family.

The one reason that stops them is this over-reach in the law that says, because there are workers compensation payments being made and being received by the family, completely unrelated to Brad’s condition, that of itself denies this family eligibility. If those workers compensation payments were treated as ordinary income and, therefore, treated in the same way as income earned from any other purpose, again, the family would be eligible for carer payments. This is a legislative over-reach; it has been recognised as such by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. The case has been brought to my attention and is a vivid example where an amendment is required. Despite the ridiculous carry-on from one member opposite, I urge the House and the ministers to consider this. (Time expired)