Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I would also like to respond to some statements that Senator Abetz made. I have not been provided with that information—and this is why I have learnt to be more specific in my estimates questions. Senator Abetz will probably recall that in our last estimates I was trying to be very specific about getting specific answers to my questions additionally. When I asked this question in February, the response I got was: ‘Yes, the department has been thinking about it’—words to that effect; I do not have them in front of me—and that they have been consulting. I was not told what the outcomes of that consultation were. I have merely been told that meetings were being undertaken, so I have not been given that answer. I have had a very short answer. There may be further answers. That is why I asked for a lot more detail during the May estimates, which unfortunately the department was not able to give me.

There is still no accurate understanding of what different states’ registers do and do not cover—some states cover family carers; other states do not—and what the definition of carers is. That is what I understand from answers that I received from estimates—or in fact did not receive in estimates. That is how it currently stands.

I want to reiterate: family carers do the same job as foster carers and, in many circumstances, under even more traumatic circumstances. They do the same things. Treat them the same in the legislation. Give them the same provisions as foster carers are given. It is much more complicated for family carers than it is for foster carers and, because many of them do it in informal circumstances, they probably have less opportunity to understand and fewer ways of finding out what their rights are and what support they can access. I still fail to see why family carers cannot be given the same provisions as foster carers. It would make implementation of this program much easier for everybody if they were treated the same.

The answer that was given was that they still—I did not write the exact words down—have an obligation, and the best thing for families is that people are in work. Yes, in most circumstances it is, but when you are caring for children and, in many cases, you are caring for three or four children, it is impossible. Your first obligation has to be the care and support of the children in your care. That is why the government saw fit to bring in amendments to look after foster carers. They should be doing the same thing for family carers. The minister just explained the provisions, which I believe are inadequate, that will attempt to look after family carers. We will be watching the implementation of these provisions very closely to see if they in fact provide the same cover and support for family carers. I doubt that they are going to. I think they are going to be much more complicated. I believe that the amendment I am moving is a much better way to deal with this issue.