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

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 4954:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 7), after item 1, insert:

1A  After section 5B

Insert:

5BA  Registered and active family carers

        (1)    A person is a registered and active family carer if the Secretary is satisfied that:

             (a)    the person meets the requirements (if any) of the law of the State or Territory in which the person resides that the person must meet in order to be permitted, under the law of that State or Territory, to provide family care in that State or Territory; and

             (b)    the person meets the requirements (if any) of the law of the State or Territory in which the person resides that the person must meet in order to be permitted, under the law of that State or Territory, to be in receipt of child care support payment as a family carer in that State or Territory; and

             (c)    the person is taken, in accordance with guidelines made under subsection (2), to be actively involved in providing family care in that State or Territory.

        (2)    The Secretary may, by legislative instrument, make guidelines setting out the circumstances in which persons are taken, for the purposes of the social security law, to be actively involved in providing family care in that State or Territory.

During my contribution in the second reading debate, I articulated the reasons why I think this amendment giving an exemption to family carers is particularly important. I will highlight those very briefly again. I appreciate that Senator Adams addressed the issue of family carers but, while I acknowledge that some attempt has been made to address these issues, I do not think the measures the government has taken adequately protect family carers. I do not believe this bill gives them the same protection that foster carers have. Because of the difficulties that I have explained previously about family carers not being registered and different states having different registers, the fact is that family carers are different from foster carers.

In the second reading debate, I also went through the history of how this issue had developed. I said how extremely pleased I was that the government had moved to exempt foster carers from this legislation. And I believe I gave very compelling evidence about the number of children who are affected by these changes but not protected under the foster carer provisions because they are in family care and family carers are not adequately protected under this legislation.

I believe the amendment I have moved is essential to give proper and due protection to family carers and the nearly 9½ thousand children in family care. I reiterate that these are the children who are placed in family care. I believe that there are probably nearly as many children in informal family care as there are placed in formal family care. This is particularly so in Aboriginal communities—and I articulated the number of children in Aboriginal communities who are in family or kinship care. The figures that I was talking about are for those who are formally placed in family and kinship care. Once again, I believe that the actual numbers are probably far greater. These people who are providing family and kinship care to children need all the support that we as a community and this government can provide, to ensure that these children grow up to be fully functioning members of our community.

I beseech senators to look into their hearts and support this amendment so that we give family carers every encouragement we can to ensure that their task of looking after these children is easier. These are the children of Australia who are in crisis, who are suffering trauma and who have in many cases, unfortunately, been subject to abuse, which is why they are in family or kinship care. We should take every step and make every effort and every endeavour possible to make their lives even one little bit easier.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise just to indicate that Labor will be supporting the amendment moved by Senator Siewert and that we share the range of concerns that were outlined previously in this chamber about the adequacy of the way in which this bill and the principal act deal with the issue of family carers.

While I am on my feet, I would ask if the minister in his response could address one issue relating to this bill, and that is the amendments to the social security guidelines. In the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee inquiry last year into the original Work Choices legislation, which came before the Senate in December, evidence was given by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations about quite extensive obligations and rights which would be included in the social security guidelines but not in the legislation. We still have not seen those. The act commences in 15 days or thereabouts, but no copies of the proposed guidelines have been provided to this chamber, to my knowledge.

I want to make the point very clearly that one of the issues before the Senate committee was the extent to which quite a number of obligations were going to be placed in the guidelines as opposed to in the act itself. I would have thought that, if the government is in a position to provide those, it should do so as soon as possible. We are amazed that, with just over two weeks to go until the largest shake-up of social security in this country in a generation, this government has not been competent enough to provide guidelines to this chamber or to the community about how significant aspects of these welfare changes will work.

I also want to place on record that the department has also advised senators, through the Senate estimates process, of guidelines regarding the financial case management which will occur for people whose payments are ceased under the new breaching regime. Again, despite the fact that those guidelines will apply in just over two weeks, they have not yet been finalised or made public to my knowledge. If senators are unaware, these are the guidelines which relate to Centrelink providing emergency payments for people who will not get income support for two months. The government’s own figures indicate that 18,000 Australians or thereabouts will be denied income support payments for a two-month period. Financial case management—that is, access to emergency payments for food and housing—will only be provided to around 4,000 or 5,000 people, which leaves around 14,000 Australians with nothing but charity to rely on for a two-month period, even if they remedy whatever breach they engaged in. Even if they try and attend the interview, take the job or remedy whatever the problem was with their previous behaviour, they get a two-month penalty.

These are very important aspects of the government’s welfare changes. These are part of a package which was announced over a year ago in the May 2005 budget. We not only find it extraordinary that the government is bringing this bill through the Senate some two weeks before the changes come into effect because it has had to fix up some of its failings in the previous legislation but we also want to know where the guidelines are—both the social security amendments and the financial case management guidelines—which will be part of the implementation of the changes to this legislation that come into effect in two weeks.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senators for their brevity. I acknowledge that Senator Siewert’s contribution is genuine and well meant. In fact, she pursued some of these issues during Senate estimates. I put on record my acknowledgment of her genuine interest in this area. I say to her that the government is not minded to her amendment, and I will briefly outline the reasons why.

The government believes that wherever possible it is better for people to receive income from a job rather than from welfare. The government has already recognised the fact that family carers may have circumstances where, due to caring for the children of other family members, they are unable to look for work and may therefore need an exemption from the activity test. This exemption will allow for an individual caring for a child or children of a relative to have no participation requirements for up to 13 weeks. This is not based on whether they are a parent but the fact that they have special circumstances that temporarily limit their capacity to look for work.

Also under Welfare to Work, the existing rules around foster carer exemptions will make some allowance for family carers who are principle carers, be it of their child or the child of a relative, where they are considered to be active and are registered under the relevant state or territory legislation or regulation. This allowance will be made through the guide to the Social Security Act, which will identify the circumstances where a family carer may be treated as a foster carer. This will provide for a longer exemption from participation and the potential for a higher rate of payment where they are on income support.

I understand that the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations has consulted with all states and territories and with non-government agencies on this issue. I also believe that information on these guidelines was provided to Senator Siewert, the mover of this amendment, in response to a question on notice from the February additional Senate estimates hearings. In addition, in the recent budget it was announced that it will be easier for grandparents or other relatives who are looking after children to be identified as principle carers. The Welfare to Work reforms are not yet in place, so it is far too early to be talking about further adjustments when we believe we already have appropriate supports in place.

In response to Senator Wong, the guidelines are designed to provide as much flexibility as possible. I understand that some of them are online, but I offer Senator Wong a briefing by Minister Andrew’s office on what the guidelines will contain and the time line. I am unable to advance that issue any further. I make the same offer in relation to the breaching regime guidelines. Suffice to say, to fill in what might be a void in this debate, you are only excluded from receiving payments in circumstances where you are in breach for a third time or you reject a job. Those who are particularly vulnerable in our community, I understand, are case managed on an individual basis to ensure that they are given the sort of security that our community would expect. I understand that the Minister for Human Services may have made a statement in relation to this, but I confess that I am not sure of or acquainted with it, so all that I can offer to the honourable senator opposite is a briefing by Minister Andrew’s office.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that offer. It does not really deal with the principal issue, which is: when will they be finished? Is the minister not able to get advice on that issue? There is no-one in the department who can tell the Senate when the guidelines which govern a substantial proportion of the obligations in its so-called Welfare to Work package announced in the May 2005 budget will be finished.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I place on record the opposition’s concern with the lateness of the development, the publication and the provision to the opposition, NGOs and the community of aspects of the government’s implementation of the welfare changes which will have such an enormous effect on social security recipients.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will deal with Senator Siewert’s issue first. If I am right—and I stand to be corrected in relation to this—I have in front of me question on notice No. 18 from additional Senate estimates on 16 February 2006, and I thought you had been provided with that. That was my advice. I assume that is the question you are referring to. If it is not, could I invite you to ring either my office or Minister Andrews’s office to see where that answer is.

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

I do not have the actual question number in front of me. Is that the one with a short paragraph in it?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. Unlike most of Senator Siewert’s questions, this was a short one. I envy the quick way that she speaks and gets in a whole stack of questions in the one breath—something I can never do. The question was:

Have you had discussions with the states about these classifications and whether family carers and kinship carers are actually registered as foster carers and will meet your exemptions? Have discussions been held?

Was that the question?

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

That was the question, but it does not answer my question about how they are being dealt with. When I was following that in May, I was not given the detail. The answer to the question I asked then was, yes. What I did not include at the time was: what were the outcomes of those? I have since learnt to ask what were the outcomes, which is what I did in May. I have not had the answer to that yet.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was the supplementary estimates in May, and you still do not have an answer to that—I understand that. I thank you for correcting me in that regard.

In relation to Senator Wong’s question about the guidelines, I am advised that, because this government is such a consultative government, consultations have been held as we speak right up until today. Today was the cut-off point for changes to the guidelines. The changes have been made on a progressive basis to the proposed guidelines. When and as suggestions have been made and deemed appropriate they have been incorporated in the guidelines, so it has been a work in progress. The department is unable to advise me as to how much work is required to absolutely finalise them in relation to any outstanding suggestions—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will it be before 1 July?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just put that interjection on the record for Hansard. Senator Wong asked whether the guidelines will be available before 1 July. I understand the secretary of the department indicated that they would be online and available on 3 July, which will be the first working day of the impact of the guidelines. I assume 1 and 2 July are a Saturday and a Sunday, so that is the calendar.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.