Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aged Care, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (11) and (12) on sheet 4887:

(11)  Schedule 6, page 29 (after line 7), after item 1, insert:

1A At the end of clause 16 of Schedule 2

Add:

        (3)    The Secretary may grant an extension to this period of up to an additional 40 weeks if the Secretary is satisfied that a person has a legitimate reason for delaying his or her application for carer allowance.

        (4)    Without limiting subclause (3), a legitimate reason may be that:

             (a)    the person may be unable to readily access relevant services or advice; or

             (b)    the person may have a medical condition that would prevent him or her from applying; or

             (c)    the person may have a psychological condition that would prevent him or her from applying; or

             (d)    the person may have caring responsibilities that would prevent him or her from applying; or

             (e)    the person was unaware of the carer allowance; or

              (f)    the person was unaware of his or her entitlement to the carer allowance; or

             (g)    the person was unaware that the allowance is not income or asset tested; or

             (h)    the person experienced a delay in having a disability assessment undertaken; or

              (i)    the person underestimated at an earlier date the ongoing needs of his or her child; or

              (j)    there was a delay in the diagnosis of the child.

(12)  Schedule 6, page 29 (after line 9), after item 2, insert:

2A At the end of clause 17 of Schedule 2

Add:

        (3)    The Secretary may grant an extension to this period of up to an additional 14 weeks if the Secretary is satisfied that a person has a legitimate reason for delaying his or her application for carer allowance.

        (4)    Without limiting subclause (3), a legitimate reason may be that:

             (a)    the person may be unable to readily access relevant services or advice; or

             (b)    the person may have a medical condition that would prevent him or her from applying; or

             (c)    the person may have a psychological condition that would prevent him or her from applying; or

             (d)    the person may have caring responsibilities that would prevent him or her from applying; or

             (e)    the person was unaware of the carer allowance; or

              (f)    the person was unaware of his or her entitlement to the carer allowance; or

             (g)    the person was unaware that the allowance is not income or asset tested; or

             (h)    the person experienced a delay in having a disability assessment undertaken; or

              (i)    the person underestimated at an earlier date the ongoing needs of the person from whom he or she is caring; or

              (j)    there was a delay in the diagnosis of the person for whom he or she is caring.

These amendments have their genesis in recommendation 2 of the chair’s report from the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into these bills. As you know, Mr Temporary Chairman, the chair of that committee is a Liberal Party senator and convention is in this place that it is the government of the day that signs off on a majority report. So these are government senator recommendations. The second recommendation of that inquiry said:

1.39      The Committee recommends that the legislation be amended to allow a discretion for the backdating of Carer’s Allowance for a period in excess of 12 weeks where:

(a)       it would have been unreasonable in all the circumstances for a claimant to have made an earlier claim for the Carer’s Allowance, and

(b)       a failure to backdate would occasion significant financial hardship.

Labor’s amendments here today put into effect the intent of the committee in making that recommendation. The amendments identify and put into effect the concerns that were expressed during the inquiry about the limiting of backdating provisions. During my speech in the second reading debate I identified a range of those, and they include the fact that most potential applicants for carer allowance do not know that the payment exists.

There is a very poor knowledge in the Australian community of the fact that we have an allowance called the carer allowance. Concerningly also, there is very little action either by the department of families or by Centrelink to be proactive and explain to people that they are potential claimants for carer allowance. Centrelink do very little work—in fact, they said no work—to try and match the data that they have, to try and identify those people who obviously receive care, because they are on a disability support pension or are an aged care recipient, and find out who is providing care to them. They do not try to link the fact that there is a payment recipient with the fact that obviously or potentially that person will have a carer. They do not even use the systems that they have in front of them.

There is very limited advertising done by the department of families to promulgate into the committee information about the fact that the carer allowance exists. We can spend $50 million telling people about the Liberal Party policy on industrial relations, but I do not think we spend $100,000 telling people who are caring for their children or caring for their elderly loved ones that they are entitled to a payment of $94 a fortnight. We will spend $50 million telling people that we will sack them after 27 March, but we will not spend $100,000 telling people that they might be able to get a bit of assistance to help them out with this caring role that has been thrust upon them.

As well as the fact that many people are unaware of the carer allowance, we know that many people think it is a means tested payment. Well, it is not a means tested payment. It is not income replacement; it is a payment in recognition of the cost of providing care. But no effort is made to tell people that in fact this is a payment that recognises the cost of care and is not means tested. We know from the evidence given to us in the inquiry that people who live in more regional and remote places find it difficult to access Centrelink offices, to access the systems that are there to support them. So we know that people who are geographically isolated will have more difficulty accessing the carer allowance.

We also know that the forms that are used to apply for this payment are so poorly designed that even the medical profession have trouble filling them in. I raised that during my speech in the second reading debate the other night. The forms lead the person who is completing them to the view that they need to make a medical diagnosis, and we know that for many, especially for newborn children, it will take a long time to diagnose what condition they in fact have. We had a story given to us during the inquiry about a child in a family that had already had a child with a disability and it took 18 months to diagnose what ailment the child had. It was only then that the parent applied for carer allowance for that child. That is a circumstance where the family was connected to the system and even then they waited until the final medical diagnosis was made before making the application. These are the families that we are trying to pick up with this sort of amendment so that discretion can be applied when there is a legitimate reason for the person not applying.

We know that when a family is faced with the reality that either their child or someone in their family has had a disability or illness diagnosed and that they have to contemplate caring for that person for the rest of their life, it is a very traumatic episode for that family. It takes that family some time to deal with it. We were told by a number of witnesses that families in those circumstances suffer a sense of denial. They do not want to come to grips with the fact that their child or loved one has a significant and severe disability that will require care for the rest of their life. Because they are in denial they do not do the thing that reinforces the fact they have this child with a disability—that is, fill in the form and tick the box to say. ‘I have to care for my child and I probably will not be able to go back to work.’ Of course they are not going to do that.

The amendments that we are moving today pick up on that. In cases where there is a real, legitimate claim they allow the secretary to backdate for the full 26 weeks for applicants for carer allowance (adult) and the full 52 weeks for carer allowance (child). Of the 42,000 people annually that are successful in receiving carer allowance, a huge proportion is fully backdated for carer allowance (child). There must be a range of reasons for that. I was quite astonished, though, that neither Centrelink nor the department do any work—none at all—to try to ascertain why it is that so many of these people do not apply in a timely way. We do not know why people do not apply in a timely way but we are going to cut them off anyway.

Some families with the child with a disability are going to miss out on nearly $1,900—money that will be well used for basic medical supports but also for changing the family home to accommodate the child with the disability. To a person, the witnesses to the inquiry said that that money would be well used. But this department and Centrelink do not do any work to try to find out why people do not apply in a timely way—but we are going to cut them off; that will be fine.

The other thing that annoyed witnesses to the inquiry was that in the lead-up to the last budget the government did what it usually does and talked with lobby groups—Carers Australia, the National Welfare Rights Network and a range of other welfare organisations—about the sorts of proposals they were contemplating in this budget. They talked about the good things that this government was going to do for carers. The carer organisations were quite happy to receive that information, but the government did not tell carer organisations about the sting—the fact that they were going to cut the backdating provisions for carer allowance.

The carer representative organisations feel that they have been dudded—that they have ticked off on the bonus payment that was being paid and a couple of other amendments that happened through that budget process but then they got the sting. This sting will not hurt those people who are current recipients of carer allowance; it will hurt a large proportion of the 42,000 people who will apply from 1 July. Like Welfare to Work, they have quarantined a certain group of people and will just hurt those people who will not even know they are being hurt. That is the way this government operates when it comes to the welfare sector.

I think these are sensible amendments. They are amendments that are supported in principle, shall I say, by the report of the Liberal Party members of the Senate inquiry. They are amendments that are practical. I think they are eminently supportable and I am sure that the welfare sector will see that this is a way forward. The other thing that these amendments will do is put the onus back on the department. If you do not want the bureaucratic trouble of people having to apply for a backdating outside the normal form process, then you get out there and start telling people about the fact that there is this thing called a carer allowance. You get out there and start working to make sure that people will apply in a timely way. Why do we not look up the list of people who are recipients of the disability support pension and write to them and ask, ‘Does the person who helps care for you get a carer allowance? They are probably eligible.’ Let us do some practical, sensible things to get people who are potential claimants into the system so we do not have this messy system of backdating, whether it be for the 12 weeks that this government is proposing or, as I am proposing because it is the right thing to do, to put it back to 12 months for carer allowance (child) and 26 weeks for carer allowance (adult). I commend the amendments to the chamber.