Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

At the outset I indicate that the Democrats support these amendments. Later down the track the Democrats have an amendment to knock out this change of the government’s altogether. I believe that is the appropriate way to go. The evidence provided to the Senate committee inquiry in my view provided no grounds or justification for changing the current situation with regard to the length of time that carer allowance can be backdated after the application is first made. If that is unsuccessful, the best fallback will be for an amendment such as this. On those grounds the Democrats will support these amendments.

I should just clarify precisely what is being proposed here. The current situation is that people who newly apply for carers allowance are eligible to backdate that payment from the date of claim by 12 months if it is a carers allowance for a child or six months for a carers allowance for an adult where it is a sudden onset of the adult’s condition. The government’s changes in the legislation before us restrict the length of time the claim can be backdated to 12 weeks in all cases. These amendments provide the scope for backdating to be extended further than 12 weeks to as far back as the current length of time if the department is satisfied that a person has a legitimate reason for delaying their application for carers allowance. I should emphasise that, as Senator McLucas said, this is broadly consistent with the recommendation contained in the committee report and specifically signed off on by government senators and the committee chair, Senator Humphries. I quote paragraph 1.31 of the committee’s report:

The Committee acknowledges ... and considers that in a small proportion of cases, particularly those in which claimants are suffering particular hardship, there should be some capacity to provide for the backdating of the Carer’s Allowance over a longer period than 12 weeks.

It is there in black and white in the committee’s report that there should be some capacity to provide for the backdating of the carer’s allowance over a longer period than 12 weeks. I believe the capacity should be there in all cases where there is an eligible reason for it to be backdated, as currently exists in the law. The committee—the entire committee, I would suggest—clearly stated that there needs to continue to be some capacity to backdate the carer’s allowance for longer than 12 weeks. This amendment clearly does that.

I noted that the minister—I am sure quite genuinely—in speaking to the previous amendment about child-care places said that in all good conscience he could not vote for the Labor Party amendment because it was a bad amendment. Quite frankly, I cannot see how, in all good conscience, any government senator, and particularly those that are aware of this issue and the reality of what life is like for carers, could possibly do anything other than vote for this amendment. There are some members on the government benches who have a good record of promoting the interests and plight of carers. I urge at least one or two of them to stand up on this occasion and actually use the ability that they have in this circumstance to ensure that the interests of carers are protected—ideally, I would say, by supporting the Democrat amendment that is soon to be moved to eliminate this schedule of the bill altogether, but at least they could provide support for the amendment before us now.

I think it is clear, particularly for people from rural and remote areas, that there are quite likely to be circumstances where you are in a position of caring, whether it is for a child or an adult, and it takes a longer time for you to be able to put in an application for carers allowance—assuming you are aware of it. I think that to show no regard for that is unfortunate in the extreme.

I should take the opportunity while I am on my feet to ask the minister, when he responds to this amendment, to also give some details to the Senate about what the government is doing in response to recommendation 1 of the committee. Recommendation 1 does not require any amendments but it does recommend the development and implementation of an education campaign aimed at raising awareness of the availability of assistance for carers and, particularly, the existence of carers allowance entitlement. I think it is important. This was a clear point that was made time and again at the Senate committee inquiry by those people who live every day with the reality of life as carers or represent people in that situation.

There is no point having Senate committee inquiries hearing from people who are directly affected, hearing from the people who walk in the shoes of people who care for family members and hearing directly from those at the coalface who know what the reality is and who know what needs to be done, getting that unequivocal information and advice from them and then ignoring it. Nothing is more guaranteed to increase people’s cynicism about the political process than doing things like that, where you get people before you; they tell you in black-and-white, absolutely clear-cut terms about something that needs to happen; the committee recommends that it needs to happen; and then nothing happens. I think it is very important for the government and the minister to clearly indicate to the Senate and, through the Senate, to the public and those organisations that I am sure are following this debate—if not now, then reading the transcript later—what the government is doing in response to this clear evidence that has been provided.

I will take the opportunity now, in relation to this amendment—and also as a broad-brush statement on the later Democrat and Greens amendments—to emphasise again the current situation for people who apply for carers allowance. Carers allowance is not ‘carers payment’ or ‘carers pension’. It is not an income support payment. It is, as Senator McLucas said, an additional payment in recognition—a fairly small recognition, in some cases—of the extra costs of people who are caring for children or adults. It is $94.70 per fortnight at the moment, so it is less than $50 a week. It is hardly a massive windfall for carers in that situation.

According to the government’s own evidence, the changes will mean that each year there will be around 26,000 people who apply for the carers allowance for adults who will lose, on average, about $410 as a result of this measure, and some will lose up to $663. That is based on current values. It will also mean that 16½ thousand people who will apply for the carers allowance for children will lose on average $1,450 as a result of this measure, and some of them will lose nearly $1,900.

I suggest that would compare to what Senator Evans was arguing about earlier with family tax benefit B, which is $3,300 a year but gets paid to people even if their partner is earning over $1 million a year. The government has just voted to retain that situation, where partners of millionaires can get over $3,000 in family tax benefit B, but it is still willing to proceed with this component, which will take away nearly $1,900 from over 16,500 people who are working and acting as carers for family members. You could not get a starker example of the distorted priorities of this government and how it is focused on buying votes, not on using the social security system to produce the best possible and fairest social outcomes.

It should be emphasised again that this is not a normal payment. It is not a normal payment because it is not means tested because it is not an income support payment. It is a recompense for expenditure. It is also different in the sense that it does relate to the illnesses of other people—family members and children. As I stated in my contribution on the second reading, carer allowance (child) is the modern version of the old child disability allowance, which also had significant scope for backdating, for the same reasons. I will not go over in detail what I said in my speech on the second reading last night, but the evidence was quite clear—and, again, the evidence is provided, even for senators who do not have experience or engagement with carers—to the Senate committee, from groups and people who lived this experience, that when many people first realise that their child requires extra care they focus first and foremost on getting diagnosis and assessment. Senator McLucas gave an example. There is an example in the committee’s own majority report from the Australian Association for Families of Children with Disability. They gave an example of a child who was close to three years old before the carers were finally able to get a diagnosis of cerebral palsy from doctors.

I spoke yesterday about the growing number of diagnoses for children on the autism spectrum and how that particular condition is one that can take a long period of time to diagnose as it represents itself in many different ways. It requires significant variations in the amount and type of care that is needed to be provided by parents. I also say that, because of the uncertainty surrounding that condition in many cases and just what it is that the child has to deal with, it can be a time of great difficulty for parents trying to find out precisely what it is about their child that they need to get about—I hesitate to say, ‘What it is that is wrong with that child,’ because it is not an issue of seeing it as an illness that somehow or other needs to be recognised as such; it is just a different characteristic. Nonetheless, it is a difference that requires different and often extra types of care or assistance.

In some cases children with that condition can grow into adults who not only do not need assistance but also can have extra-special abilities. So it is an unusual condition, but it is still a condition that can require a lot of extra caring, particularly in those early childhood years. However, it is a condition that a lot is unknown about, and it is one which can mean a lot of time is taken before diagnosis is given. In those sorts of circumstances, for parents who are often unaware of the carers allowance payment or simply so focused on clarifying what is needed and what the situation is—and it can take a long period of time—to not then get that extra bit of recompense for what would already have been an enormous amount of expense, time and opportunity cost not only is miserly but also sends a very poor signal. It sends a signal to those parents and carers who are already struggling financially and emotionally that the government either does not care or, in some ways even worse, just does not understand and does not recognise that this is a need and, indeed, a growing need.

We have recently had statements from the new education minister about the importance of early education and more focused early education for children, which is good, at least in principle. To be saying things like that at the same time as actually withdrawing support for parents who are doing their best to try and provide that extra care for children in those early stages where it can make such a difference is flying in the opposite direction. As I said yesterday, this is the sort of miserly measure that you can possibly comprehend might happen if you have a razor gang desperately trying to find a few dollars here and there to fill in a massive budget deficit, but to be just taking away desperately needed support for carers in this country at a time when we have record levels of budget surpluses is simply inexcusable.