Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Hansard source

I thank senators for their contributions in this important debate and no-one doubts the sincerity with which people come to this debate. These are issues which all senators should be concerned about and the question is, in the light of all the considerations that have gone on, what is the best way forward? The government, of course, has made a decision in the Family Assistance, Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2005 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2006 that the best way forward is to make a number of very important initiatives. I suspect if I was critical of some of my colleagues’ contributions listeners would think—even if we do not accept the facts as they outlaid them—there was nothing in this bill to benefit carers when, in fact, there is an enormous amount in this bill which will be of great benefit.

Let me summarise just some of the thoughts. The FTB part A lower income threshold will see some 400,000 families receive more FTB. I would have thought that was very good news and in all the debates I have not heard one of the senators mention that. The bill will help reduce FTB and CCB debts by improving the way the estimates are managed, and I think that is very good news. We have had a lot of debates on these issues in the parliament in the past.

The government recognise very profoundly the important role that carers play in our society, and we will continue to support them. The Australian government provided carers with direct payments—and I think this figure is interesting—including bonuses, totalling an estimated $2.2 billion in 2004-05. This is an increase of more than 175 per cent since 1999-2000. This is a very big increase in moneys paid to carers. However much our views differ on these amendments, I think we have to recognise that a genuine and important effort has been made to provide additional resources and assistance to carers.

Senator McLucas, we know that you have a great interest in this area. Indeed, I think the interest you have shown is appreciated by a lot of people. We agree with you that this has to be communicated to people. My colleague Minister Brough has indicated in the debate in the House of Representatives that there will be a communications strategy to make sure that people are better informed. I think that was the substance of one of the comments that you made. You made some comments about the forms. At this stage, I cannot judge the merit of what you said, but I have asked the advisers in the department to review the forms and see whether, in the light of your suggestions and experience, something can be done to deal with the concerns that you have. They will look very carefully at your comments and look at the forms. That provides a bit of a way forward on that issue that you raised.

Senator Siewert will be returning to the debate soon. Again, I think she shows a lot of interest in these issues and often makes very worthwhile contributions. I have to say that Senator Siewert very regularly attends estimates and committee hearings. That makes her quite unlike two of her colleagues Senator Bob Brown and Senator Nettle, who I have to say from my experience very rarely attend committee hearings—particularly Senator Brown. Her work and interest in this important area is certainly noted, and we listened carefully to the comments that were made.

I will go back to the Labor amendments moved by Senator McLucas, which relate to the backdating of the carers allowance. The government do not support these amendments. We regard the amendments as impractical. If passed, they would result in uncertainties and delays for applicants and those required to administer the act. The amendments go beyond the Senate committee’s recommendation. The committee limited itself to justifying backdating on the grounds of unreasonableness to have made an earlier claim and significant financial hardship. The amendments simply call for a legitimate reason. This is open-ended and far more than the committee recommended. That is the advice I have. The key purpose of the government’s changes is to standardise and rationalise the care allowance backdating provisions for adults and children. These amendments effectively maintain existing provisions. Current methods for assessing eligibility are based on functional ability or care needs. This removes the requirement for a final diagnosis for eligibility assessment and has introduced greater access to the payment.

The government is willing to keep the operation of the act under review. This will not be the last time these matters are debated in this chamber. Senator McLucas, as I mentioned to you, the substance of some of your remarks related to the need for an effective communications strategy. I might say that you made some unkind comments about government advertising. My only comment to that is that I suspect you apply the same rules to the Beattie government in Queensland and its advertising. I will look with interest to see what you have said on that matter, because the Beattie government is a relentless user of taxpayers’ funds for advertising and I assume you have made your in principle views known there. Senator, we are not arguing the point. There has to be a communications strategy here. It is important that there is one. We agree with you. Even more importantly, the minister agrees with you.

I turn now to the amendment to be moved by the Australian Greens regarding the carer allowance backdating. This amendment opposes the proposed backdating provisions for carer allowance due to commence on 1 July 2006 and contained in schedule 6 of the bill. The government does not support this amendment. The key purpose of the change was to standardise and rationalise the carer allowance backdating provisions for adults and children. This amendment maintains existing provisions. Prior to the introduction of carer allowance, the methods of assessing eligibility for care assistance for children relied on diagnosis. Current methods of assessing eligibility rely on functional ability or care needs. This removes the requirement for a final diagnosis for eligibility assessment and has introduced—again, I say this to Senator Bartlett—greater access to the payment. The amendments maintain the gap between the backdating provisions for adults and children. The current backdating provisions for adults are granted only as a result of an acute onset. That is the advice that I have received. Senator Bartlett also spoke about the recommendation in the report which related to the communications strategy. I think I have dealt with that particular matter in my earlier remarks to Senator McLucas.