Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Hansard source

I wish to draw the attention of the Senate to a serious issue relating to a government reform to disability payments which threatens to disadvantage some of the most vulnerable families in Victoria and across Australia. During a tour of regional Victoria, I met with members of the Gippsland Carers Association in Morwell. Some of these carers fear they will be left with no respite once the federal government changes the current disabled supplementary services payment system to a one-size-fits-all inclusion support subsidy. The new system could dramatically decrease the supplement paid to family day care operators, forcing some to give up their work, which will severely disadvantage many struggling families. These families deserve better treatment from Australia’s disability support system.

Two Gippsland mothers have shared with me that they will lose their respite through their family day care operator once the new system takes effect. To protect their privacy, I have given them different names. Mrs Smith and Miss Jones use the same day care operators, Mr and Mrs Williams, to look after their severely disabled children. Mrs Smith has three sons, two of whom are severely disabled. Miss Jones is a single mother of three children, one of whom has severe and profound disabilities. The other two children have Tourette syndrome. These mothers really have the hardest job of all: raising families that include severely disabled children. They receive up to 50 hours respite each week, which gives them much-needed time off and a much-deserved break. It also gives them the chance of a full night’s sleep and the opportunity to spend quality time with their partners and other children.

The Williamses care for four disabled children and another four children without disabilities. Currently, they receive $1,365 per fortnight in supplementary payments, in addition to the regular rate of $4.60 per hour, per child. Under the new system, this couple will receive, at most, only $800 per fortnight, or as little as $400 per fortnight in supplementary payments. As a result, the Williamses have told Mrs Smith and Miss Jones that they will no longer be able to care for their disabled sons. Not surprisingly, the Williamses have come to know and love these children. They have cared for them for many years and have undertaken extra study to develop their skills. They even renovated their home to improve the care they offer the children.

For the Williamses to decide to stop caring for special needs children reveals how seriously the government’s new system will affect so many families of disabled children as well as family day care operators. Family First shares the concern of both mothers that they will be unable to find alternative care. Miss Jones says that she has been turned away by conventional childcare services and other family day care operators due to the severity of her son’s disabilities and his aggressive behaviour. Mrs Smith has experienced similar problems.

Family First is disappointed with the government’s blanket approach to an issue which could place even more stress and pressure on families with special needs children. As mentioned earlier, the current system offers additional payments to family day care operators who care for children with ongoing high support needs, like the Williamses. This payment, of up to $4.60 per hour, per child, supplements child care and family day care workers for the added responsibilities they take on. A government field officer assesses each special needs child and seeks a written diagnosis from doctors and specialists. The department uses this information to decide the amount of supplementary payment the operator should receive.

This arrangement will be replaced by a complex and unfair system where the government will no longer assess children individually. Nor will it consider the severity of a child’s disabilities or the different responsibilities of caring for each child. Instead, the department will assess the impact that one or more special needs children will have on the care environment—which, in this case, is the Williams’s house. If the department decides that the child will have a significant impact on the environment, it will allocate $8 per hour to the operator. If it rules that the child will have a moderate effect on the environment, it will allocate $4 per hour—not per hour per child, just per hour. This means that the Williams’s will be paid the same amount, between $4 and $8 per hour, whether they care for one child or four children. And regardless of the supplement the department allocates, the Williams’s funding will be slashed. In fact, they could lose more than two-thirds of their funding, which is a substantial pay cut. This couple will go from receiving $1,365 per fortnight to between $400 and $800, which is a loss of between $965 and $565 every fortnight.

The new system punishes committed operators who have worked hard to improve their facilities. For example, the Williams’s fear that, because their home is now better equipped to cater for special needs children, the department may decide these children have only a moderate impact on the environment. Family First strongly believes that dedicated, high-quality family day care operators should be encouraged to improve their environments and be rewarded for doing so, not penalised. Family First is pleased that the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough, intervened in this particular case that I have outlined, but that was only after Family First brought it to his attention.

The fact is that the case I have highlighted is not an isolated one. There are many Australian families in similar circumstances who will be worse off under the new system. Families with special needs children are special families indeed, as are those who help to care for these children. Family First believes they deserve all the support they can get, not less.