Santo Santoro (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Hansard source

During my substantive reply to the second reading speeches I thought that I had significantly addressed the major concerns expressed by Senator Nettle. I have just asked my advisers whether we have seen Senator Nettle’s second amendment and I must admit there is some confusion about it. As the time is approaching 6.30 pm, we could take that on notice and review the situation over the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 pm to 7.30 pm

Senator Nettle asked for the advice of the government in relation to her amendment (1). I undertook to consult over the dinner break, and I have done so. I would like to give her the government’s response.

Senator Nettle has suggested that an amendment be made to the bill that includes a same-sex partner in the definition of member of a couple for the purpose of assessing a person’s assets on entry to residential care. Asset tests for entry to residential care are carried out by Centrelink and/or the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and are therefore guided by the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986.

The process for determining how assets are considered for two people in a home is complex. There are many kinds of couples who share a home—for example, mothers and daughters, cousins and close friends. The way a home is treated for the purpose of an aged-care assets test depends on who owns the home—in other words, what names are on the title—and whether a person left behind is providing care and is entitled to a means-tested income support payment from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs or Centrelink. Therefore, the sexual orientation and status—homosexual or otherwise—is not the primary consideration. I am now referring specifically to Senator Nettle’s proposed amendment (1). The status of the person remaining in the home—in terms of being considered a carer and an owner of the home—is the primary consideration.

Because of these facts, amending the legislation—and this is advice that I have sought across government—to reflect Senator Nettle’s suggested amendment is a complex task, I have been advised, that would involve more than just my portfolio. That is a key consideration in the response that I am providing. Further consideration would need to be given to the broader implications for at least two other acts of parliament: the Social Security Act and the Veterans’ Entitlement Act.

I therefore reiterate that on entry to aged care the consideration of a person’s assets is primarily about ownership of the home and the pension and carer status of the carer remaining in the home. Therefore we need to consider amendments such as the one that has been suggested by Senator Nettle on a whole-of-government basis—not in an ad hoc way, as the government believe we would be doing if we considered and approved the amendment that is being proposed by Senator Nettle. I appreciate that that may not be the answer that Senator Nettle wants, but it is provided in good faith.