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

I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 5796:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 10, page 10 (after line 14), after section 197E, insert:

197EA  Qualification—exchanged care of children

Purpose of section

        (1)    The purpose of this section is to allow a person to qualify under section 197B, 197D, 197E, 197G or 197H, or a combination of them, for a carer payment for caring for a person who is aged under 16, or for 2 or more persons who include a person aged under 16, despite the fact that the person is not personally providing constant care for that person.

When section applies

        (2)    This section applies if:

             (a)    the person is a parent of a person aged under 16; and

             (b)    the person (the carer) is personally providing care for that person (the care receiver); and

             (c)    the care receiver would qualify the carer for a carer payment under section 197B, 197D, 197E, 197G or 197H, apart from:

                   (i)    the fact that the carer is not personally providing constant care for the care receiver; and

                  (ii)    the fact that the care receiver has or may have more than one home; and

             (d)    the circumstances in subsection (3) apply in relation to the care receiver.

Circumstances—family law arrangements

        (3)    The circumstances are:

             (a)    under one or more registered parenting plans, parenting plans or parenting orders that are in force, the care receiver is to live with, or spend time with the carer and the care receiver’s other parent (whether or not the care receiver is to live with, or spend time with, someone else); and

             (b)    the length or percentage of time (however described) that the care receiver is to live with, or spend time with, the carer and the other parent is specified in, or worked out in accordance with, the plans or orders; and

             (c)    the carer personally provides constant care for the care receiver when the care receiver is living with, or spending time with, the carer; and

             (d)    the carer does not personally provide constant care for the care receiver only because the terms of the plans or orders require the care receiver to live with, or spend time with, the other parent or someone else.

Qualification for a carer payment

        (4)    If this section applies, the carer is taken to be qualified for a carer payment under section 197B, 197D, 197E, 197G or 197H, or a combination of them, for caring for the care receiver or for persons who include the care receiver, as the case requires.

Example:               The parents of a child with a disability or medical condition are divorced or separated. Under a registered parenting plan, one parent (the first parent) personally provides care to the child in week 1.

            In week 2, under the plan, the parents swap care arrangements for the child.

            The first parent would not qualify for a carer payment under section 197B because he or she is not providing constant care for the same children. However, this section allows the first parent to qualify for a carer payment for providing care for the child.

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendments (1) and (3)

The effect of each amendment would be to expand the class of people who would be eligible for a benefit – the carer payment – under the Social Security Act. Amendment (1) directly provides for an additional class of people to qualify for the payment. Amendment (3) removes a provision which restricts the length of time a class of people can claim the payment.

In each case the amendment would increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security Administration Act 1999.

Amendments (1) and (3) should therefore be moved as requests.

Amendment (2)

This amendment inserts a provision which allows the Secretary to determine that an additional class of people qualify for the carer payment. The amendment confers a discretion on the Secretary to decide whether any person qualifies under the provision and therefore does not directly require increased expenditure under the relevant Act.

Amendment (2) should therefore be moved as an amendment.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

The Senate has long followed the practice that it should treat as requests amendments which would result in increased expenditure under a standing appropriation.

On the basis that amendments (1) and (3) would result in increased expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security Administration Act 1999, it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that those amendments be moved as requests.

It is also in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that amendment (2) not be moved as a request. The provision inserted by that amendment merely confers a discretion on an official to authorise additional expenditure under the standing appropriation, rather than itself increasing expenditure under that appropriation.

These amendments relate to qualification for exchanged care of children. Senator Fifield asked a question around whether you could split the payments. This issue is one that this chamber has been trying to come to grips with. Certainly I have been trying to come to grips with it, sometimes dragging the rest of the chamber along kicking and screaming. Shared care is an issue that continually comes up.

As I articulated in my comments in the debate on the second reading, we have a number of pieces of legislation in this country that are now contradictory. There is now a presumption of equal shared care in family law, so we now have a lot parenting plans that have shared care. Some are not always fifty-fifty shared care, but a lot of arrangements are now fifty-fifty shared care. We accept that in family law, but our social security law does not provide for it. The changes made under Welfare to Work only recognise one parent as a primary carer, despite the fact that the family law says fifty-fifty shared care. These amendments basically mirror that. While I am pleased to see that there are provisions made for those that are looking after two children with a disability that need care, those parents that are looking after one child with a disability are not covered under these arrangements.

This is very complicated. I accept that. However, it is acknowledged that, if two parents are sharing the care of a child with a disability, they have that child full time for the 50 per cent of the time that they have them. But they cannot get full-time employment, because they are sharing the care of the child, and they cannot get access to parenting payment. I recognise that it is difficult to fix this legislatively, but here you have a group of people that are significantly disadvantaged. We are making changes in this place which are providing increased and better support for carers—which every member of this Senate accepts and which, I am sure, every member of the House of Representatives accepted when they dealt with this legislation—yet there is a group of carers which we are leaving out. We are disadvantaging separated parents, and I do not think that is fair. For the child of the separated parents it is not fair either. So, yes, it is hard, but can’t we come up with a solution?

The solution the Greens have come up with mirrors the changes that have been made for separated parents who are looking after two or more children with disabilities to be looked after as carers under the shared care arrangements that have been made under family law, the law of this land. It cannot be beyond the wit of this country to be able to do that. If the government does not like these amendments, please come up with some others. Tell us how you are going to look after this group of parents, of whom there will be increasing numbers, because under family law there will be an increasing number of orders made for shared care. It is not as if we have a diminishing group here. Potentially and probably we have an increasing group. What are we going to do about this group of parents? Yes, it is hard, but it is not beyond the wit of this country—it certainly should not be—to provide support for these carers. How are they supposed to maintain employment? If it is part-time employment and their income-generating capacity is reduced, they cannot get access to carers payment. For goodness sake, we can come up with a solution. If you do not like these amendments, come up with something else. So my question is: if the government is rejecting and does not support these amendments, what is it going to do about this group of parents who are looking after children with disabilities? Remember that we are talking about carers here. What is it going to do about this group of carers? If it is not going to accept these amendments, I would like to know what it is going to do about it and the time line for doing it.