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

Before moving the amendments that I am proposing, I would like to ask a couple of general questions of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. I thank the minister for the response around the assessment tool. I am just wondering if you could please clarify the nature of the research that is being done and the time line. I think you said it is 2010, next year. If that is the intent, if you could just clarify that in a little bit more detail then that would be appreciated.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, I am informed that further work will follow the House of Representatives report, but I am unable to give you detail of exactly what sort of research by FaHCSIA will occur. But it is going to be a process involving the House of Representatives report and FaHCSIA work. The minister is looking at 2010 for further improvements to the processes. In general, in terms of some of the amendments you are looking to move, it seems to me—and obviously we will get to this—that you want us to go a little bit further in the process now. What the minister is saying is that this is a major reform but that we are not finished. There are a range of other things we are looking at. The issue you identified here is one she is focused on as well and, if I know anything about Ms Macklin, there will be more reform coming.

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

I thank the minister for his response. While I do accept that the government is proposing to make, I am hoping, a comprehensive response to the House of Representatives report—that is certainly, as I understand, the intent of both the minister and the government—there are some things which I highlighted in my speech on the second reading which I think could be done straightaway. We do not need to wait, and they will make a real difference to people’s lives. I did accept at the time the minister’s explanation for why we should not be amending the assessment tool for adults now. I accepted that, which is why I did not proceed with amendments, as I had originally indicated I would in the Greens’ minority report. So I do accept the explanation of the need for further work around the adult assessment tool. I am looking for some clarification for carers so that they can actually see a point where the government will be making further amendments, particularly as they relate to carers of adults, because with this legislation, although it is not as perfect as I would like, there has been very significant progress and we do acknowledge that. I am basically trying to get some time lines around when we can expect to see the next lot of comprehensive amendments.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not sure I can add anything further, Senator. I know you are being genuine in your inquiries, but I do not want to mislead you either. The advice I have is that the minister is looking at making progress in 2010. As I said, this is a substantial set of reforms, as you have acknowledged, and the minister has been successful in getting quite a deal of money dedicated to support these reforms out of the budget. I have to confess the immigration minister did not do nearly as well out of the budget process! I have complained to her about that, but not because I have any concern about carers receiving much better support than they have in the past. I think it is fair to say that the minister is focused on the same sort of issue as you are. The question about the alignment of the assessment tools is one she is focused on. We have the House of Representatives report and the minister’s commitment to look at further reform in 2010. I have no further or more specific information, but no doubt at the next estimates round you will hold me to account for the assurances I gave in the Senate today.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you would be aware of the questionnaires in relation to the disability care load assessment (child) and that there was a great desire for there to be ongoing consultation. You may have touched on that already, but I would appreciate it if you are able to outline what the consultation process is for carer groups in relation to the questionnaires that form part of the disability care load assessment (child).

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am informed by the officials that the first meeting with carers is scheduled for next week. In the next three months there will be a series of consultations about what is required, so that process will start almost immediately and there will be wide consultation with those groups.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. I have a question which relates to one of the Greens’ amendments and to an issue which was included in the additional comments of the Greens in the Senate committee’s report. It relates to exchange care provisions being made available for carers of a single child. I understand that there may have been some advice provided from the government to the effect that it is not possible, for some technical reason, to actually split the payment between two parents and that if an amendment were to be moved to this effect—to make the payment available for individuals who care for a single child—then both adults would have to receive a full payment. I am just wondering if that is the case. In my view, you should theoretically be able to legislate anything, but I ask whether that is the advice that has been tendered—that it is, in fact, not possible to split that payment on a proportional basis between two adults.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On my reading of the advice to me—and obviously I am not on top of the day-to-day detail—it is not that it is not possible but that it is complex. As you know, with the Child Support Agency reforms, dealing with shared care was a very complex process. Not all of us agreed with the final landing point but everyone accepted the complexities. As I understand it, there are broad policy, administrative arrangement and other systems implications of the proposal. Carer payment requires the carer to provide care and attention on a daily basis. Obviously in shared care arrangements that is not going to be the case, because it is going to be shared.

The proposal implies that a person who does not provide constant care for a child with a disability or medical condition should be able to qualify to receive carer payment as well. As I say, we are basically saying it is not currently possible, and considering changes of this nature to carer payment (child) would have significant implications for eligibility not just for this but for other social security payments and for the participation requirements for payments such as parenting payment and Newstart allowance.

We are not saying it is impossible but we are saying it is a huge and complex job, and we are certainly not at the point where we could do that sort of thing on the run. As you remember with the child support changes, everything has a flow-on impact to eligibility for everything else. So the response is really that this is a big issue. It is complex and has lots of implications. It is not something that has been taken up in this legislation and it is not something where we could say: let’s have an amendment and fix it. Obviously it is an issue that can be pursued, but the government is not inclined to consider it as part of this, because of those complexities.

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

I want to follow up on a question that Senator Fifield asked about the disability tool and the consultation process. Minister, I understand that you said it will be undertaken very shortly. What is the time frame for the finalisation of the consultation process—that is, when the disallowable instrument will be introduced?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The best estimate at the moment is around November. As I say, it starts next week and there will be broad consultation about how it will all work. Currently they are looking to have that finalised by November.

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

Has the draft been changed from that which was shown to the committee during the last process, as was released as we were having the inquiry, or are you now leaving it until the consultation process has been finished?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am informed—and I do not pretend to have thought of the answer myself at this level of detail—that it will be largely the same and that that will carry through the consultation process as the starting point. It is largely the same.

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

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, I am afraid I am again going to have to disappoint you. I am not going to give you the answer and the time line for amending it, because I do not have it. We are saying very clearly that this is highly complex and we do not have a solution at the moment to the issue you have raised. I take your point: you have placed it on the agenda as an issue, and that is a perfectly appropriate thing for you to do. Quite frankly, our view is that the amendments you have proposed are unworkable. That is not a criticism. This is really complex and we do not think your amendments deal with all those complexities and are workable. We are saying to you that this is not something we can deal with in this part of the legislation. There are very complex implications, in addition to the normal budgetary and systems complications, which go to impacts on a whole range of payments not only in the FaHCSIA portfolio but also in the employment portfolio et cetera.

Just as we have with child support issues, where someone might have care for only two days a month, there is a complexity of decisions about arrangements. As you know, you went through the child support debates where we had those issues about how you deal with the costs and all those sorts of things. It is very complex and issues of equity are very hard to resolve. As I say, the government’s view is that we are not able to resolve the issue you raised today. We accept that it is appropriate for you to place it on the agenda, but we are not able to give you an assurance that we have the solution or that we have a time frame for the solution. We have made a major set of reforms here that go a long way towards improving the lot of carers, and this is a really important package, but the issue you highlight in these amendments is not one we think we can address as part of this legislation and it is not one for which we think we have the answer at this moment. That is part of the public policy debate that can continue after we have dealt with this legislation.

As a personal reflection I might say that, while there are tremendous male carers out there in the community, one of the things that has always struck me as a bloke is how many children with disabilities are cared for by women singly, and I have always found it quite confronting as a bloke when one goes to the meetings and sees how many single parent women are coping with managing the care of children with disabilities. In general terms, it does not do the male gender much credit, from what I have seen, but it does highlight the really difficult issues, the pressures it places on families coping with a child and the ability to maintain the relationship between the parents with those pressures. I am generalising because I have met a lot of great male carers, but there are a lot of women who are left caring for children with disabilities and other children in a family situation without a partner, and they do a tremendous job under enormous pressures.

I mention that because it is something that struck me, but it directly goes to your question about shared care and whether or not we can facilitate better arrangements for shared care that would help deal with some of those family break-ups and try to ensure that both partners can play a role in caring. I know these are very difficult issues. I am not trying to be dismissive, but the answer is, yes, it is an issue; yes, it is highly complex; no, we do not have the answer at this stage; and, no, I cannot give you a time line. However, I concede it is your right to raise what is a real issue.

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

I thank the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship for his honest answer. He is right: I am not happy. I have a couple of questions as a result of the answer. Yes, he is right. We did go through the child support debate and the legislation is still not perfect. There was an improvement on most things in child support last time, and that legislation does deal with shared care. It is still not perfect. I will put that on the record, but there were improvements. So it is not beyond the wit of the government to deal with some of these areas. As to the issues that the minister raises about implications for other pieces of legislation, I accept that—he is right. He is aware that I have been on about the changes in family law and shared care that have not been properly addressed for ages and what they mean for other legislation. So there are injustices in a number of other pieces of legislation. That does not mean that we should not deal with them here. One of the implications I acknowledge, which is why this is a request, is that it has budgetary implications.

I thank the minister for saying he does not have the solution and therefore does not have a time line. I wonder if there is a process the government is undertaking to look into this to see how it can be dealt with or if it is just a too-big, too-hard issue that is out there on the pin board and that no one has been game to deal with. Is the government actually starting to tackle this? I would appreciate it if the minister could give me an indication that there is a process that they are starting up to look at it. Is it part of what the government is doing to look at the response to the House of Representatives report—because it should be. It is potentially one of those issues that is just going to be left because it is too hard—‘We’ll deal with the other issues, but we’ll continue to leave that group of carers behind.’ It is a group that we should not be leaving behind, particularly as they have been left behind all the time because it has always been too hard. Is the government looking at putting in place a process to start trying to address this? An answer to that would be appreciated.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a huge package that seeks to address a large number of issues. You have correctly identified a range of other issues that remain. This is one of them, but there are the mental illness issues et cetera. I am not in a position to say to you that the minister is focused on dealing with this next year. I certainly can raise the issue with her. She is a minister who will look to tackle all the issues in her portfolio with a reforming zeal; but, equally, you cannot do everything at once. As you have acknowledged, this is an important and big package. You have identified a number of issues which are issues in this space that require solutions or require us to look at whether better public policy can be applied, but I am not in a position to be able to say to you that there is a time line or how the minister intends to handle that, because I just do not have that advice. We acknowledge that there is a problem there that you have rightly raised, but I am not authorised to give you an assurance of the sort you are looking for other than that it is on the agenda, you will be able to pursue it and the government has acknowledged that it is one of those issues that are thrown up as part of this carer payment issue.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition certainly welcomes the intention behind the Greens’ amendment, as Senator Humphries indicated in his contribution about the payment for exchange-care arrangements for a single child, and I commend the Greens for placing this on the agenda. I noted that the minister mentioned the complexity of doing something in this area. He also mentioned the budgetary implications, and I cannot help but feel that the mention of complexity—although I appreciate that these are technical matters—is actually to hide what the real issue is here: budgetary implications. I am very aware of the fact that, when a government is heading towards a deficit of $315 billion, that severely circumscribes a government’s capacity to do a lot of the good things which all of us in this chamber hope that government can do. Although this side of the chamber has often been criticised for being a bit obsessed and overly keen on balanced budgets, one of the reasons we on this side of the chamber are so keen on balanced budgets is not that it is some sort of fiscal fetish; it is because if you have balanced budgets then you are more able to spend money on the sorts of things that the community wants such as making things easier for carers. I cannot help but feel that when the government talks about complexity they are hiding behind the real issue, which is the budgetary problems they have created.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not want to delay this any longer, but I thought that was a fairly churlish contribution. This is an $822 million package for carers. The Howard government had 12 years to achieve these reforms, but it did not. To suggest that the budgetary situation is stymieing reform in this area is, I think, directly countered by the fact that, despite a difficult budget and the economic situation, this government committed $822 million to try to improve the lot of carers. I do not want to get into a partisan argument about the previous 12 years of policy and/or commitment in this area, but this is a very significant package in terms of both policy and finance.

Senator Siewert knows, as I do, having gone through the child support arrangement reforms—I do not mean to harp on about this—that this is a classic case where there was a really complex set of public policy issues and entitlements from shared care that the previous government did a very good job on in commissioning the report on the child support reforms. It then went through a very serious process with community debate and then went through this parliament. It went through, sponsored by the previous government, with the Labor Party’s support as a good piece of public policy for a really difficult issue. I am not at all hiding behind the complexity, but it would be foolish not to recognise just how complex this is. We are saying that we are not in a position to move to try to resolve this as part of this legislation. I think that if you were to get reform in this area you would probably have to go through the same sort of process we went through with the child support reforms.

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

Parkinson.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right; it was the Parkinson report, which had a community group who worked very hard at working through all those issues, complexities, effects on other payments, and the different rates of care and how those impacted on people’s entitlements. It was hugely complex.

It is not a matter of us hiding behind purely financial concerns. In fact, as I say, this is a massive commitment to carers of $822 million. We have certainly put our money where our mouths are, but we have also tried to do what is good public policy, and I think we have achieved that outcome. This is a task beyond this piece of legislation. It is a task that would require a large amount of dedicated work before we would be in a position to deal with that. It has been put on the agenda, and we acknowledge that, but it is not part of this bill. It is not something that can be done on the run. It would take a very serious commitment to a reform process to make progress in that area.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly accept and recognise that there are technical issues to be navigated in this area. As someone, I know, who cares very deeply about these matters, particularly from his former shadow responsibilities, I would urge the minister to argue within his cabinet for pause and thought when proposals such as pink batts come forward and that such moneys could be much better spent in areas perhaps such as this.

Question negatived.

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

I move Greens amendment (2) on sheet 5796:

(2)    Schedule 1, item 10, page 16 (after line 30), after section 197K, insert:

197L  Qualification—short term or episodic care of disabled adult

Secretary’s determination

        (1)    The Secretary may determine that a person is qualified for a carer payment for a period if:

             (a)    the person is personally providing constant care for a person (the care receiver) with:

                   (i)    a severe disability or severe medical condition; or

                  (ii)    a disability or medical condition; and

             (b)    a treating health professional has certified in writing that, because of the severe disability or severe medical condition or because of the disability or medical condition:

                   (i)    the care receiver will need personal care for at least 3 months but less than 6 months; and

                  (ii)    the care is required to be provided by a specified number of persons; and

             (c)    apart from the fact that the care receiver will need personal care for less than 6 months, the person would qualify for a carer payment under section 198.

Limits on period determined

        (2)    The period determined by the Secretary:

             (a)    must be 3 months or more and less than 6 months; and

             (b)    must not begin before the person’s start day.

197M  Qualification—extension of short term or episodic care of disabled adult

Extension of qualification under section 197L

        (1)    This section applies if:

             (a)    a person is qualified for a carer payment for caring for a person (the care receiver) for a period (the preceding period):

                   (i)    under section 197L; or

                  (ii)    if this section has previously applied to the person and the care receiver—under the most recent application of this section; and

             (b)    before the end of the preceding period, the person gives the Secretary a certificate from a treating health professional certifying that:

                   (i)    because of a severe disability or severe medical condition, or a disability or medical condition, the care receiver will need personal care for a further period of less than 3 months starting immediately after the end of the preceding period; and

                  (ii)    the severe disability or severe medical condition, or the disability or medical condition, is the same as, or related to, the severe disability or severe medical condition, or the disability or medical condition, that necessitated the care for the preceding period; and

                 (iii)    the care is required to be provided by a specified number of persons.

Person qualified for further period determined by Secretary

        (2)    The person is qualified for a carer payment for a further period if:

             (a)    apart from the fact that the care receiver will need personal care for less than 6 months, the person would qualify for a carer payment under section 198; and

             (b)    the Secretary determines that a carer payment should be granted to the person for the period.

        (3)    The period determined must end not later than 6 months after the first day on which the person started to receive a carer payment under section 197L.

Amendment (2) relates to the qualification for short-term or episodic care for an adult with a disability. As I articulated in my second reading contribution, the Greens are strongly supportive of the amendments in this bill to deal with episodic care. It is very important to provide support for carers of children who require episodic care.

During the Senate inquiry, it was apparent that there are adults who require episodic care as well, particularly around mental illness. People with a mental illness may have episodes where they require care. I understand that this bill is predominantly about carers of a child with a disability. The point I raised in my second reading contribution, and I also made to the minister earlier, is that we know there is a deficiency in the current legislation as it relates to adult carers and we could fix it now rather than having to wait for the next round of amendments. I appreciate the government’s commitment to the next round of amendments—I do not doubt that for a minute—but I think that where we have a problem and we know how to fix it, we should do something about it and do it now. The Greens want to extend the provisions to provide care for adults who require episodic care, with a particular focus on those with a mental illness. But I am also aware that there are some degenerative diseases that also require episodic care.

Does the government recognise that there is potential in the current legislation? Also, during the inquiry the issue was raised about the provision of qualification for episodic care being extended for two years. I seek confirmation from the government that that is in fact the case. As I understand it, there will be a significantly reduced requirement after the six months—if episodic care is required again within two years that there would be a reduced requirement for application for those episodic care provisions. I would appreciate it if the government could answer those questions, as well as supporting the amendments.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, what can I say? You are nothing if not pugnacious and determined, and looking always to push the government further. But my instructions tonight are that I am not to fall over and agree with a massive extension of arrangements for adults, which would be in addition to the arrangements in this legislation dealing with children. Effectively, you are looking to introduce carer (adult) provisions into this legislation, which deals with children. There are obviously a range of very significant implications in terms of that move. It is not work that is being done currently and it would require considerable work around the characteristics and needs of those with mental illness, and of course would also require significant additional funding.

Again, I realise why you are putting it on the agenda, and that is a perfectly appropriate thing to do. But it is not an amendment that the government can support. It is a significant extension beyond what is envisaged in this legislation and would require the sort of work around the needs and characteristics of those with mental illness which has not yet been done. As I say, I think it fits again into the category of placing on the agenda and making the case for movement, but I am unable to agree with you this evening that we ought to include that in this bill.

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

I find it curious that the government has acknowledged the need for episodic care for children but does not acknowledge it is an issue for adults. Clearly it is an issue for adults. It has been raised a number of times. It is obvious that there is a requirement for adults. Is this issue being considered in the next round of research? If it is not, can adults be considered when developing amendments for the next round?

I point out that the name of the bill includes ‘improved support for carers’. I know it is generally about children, but it is about improved support for carers. This is a group of people who strongly need support. That has been clearly and repeatedly identified as an issue, particularly around mental illness, and the carers of those with mental illness would greatly appreciate this form of support.

I appreciate that I am asking two questions at once, but I would also like confirmation from the government that the episodic care qualification period has been extended for two years with reduced requirements for application.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the answer to the second bit is ‘yes’. I am looking for reassurance. There is a particular adviser of Ms Macklin who will be looking for a job if that is not right. I will have committed the government to it, so I hope for her sake she is right. In terms of your main point about carers of adults with mental illness, I think this parliament is very well aware of the increasing need of support for people with mental illness and those who care for them. I know a small number of members of this parliament who have had to care for adults with a mental illness. Its strains are felt by families all around Australia. As I said, I have had personal exposure to it through at least two members of the parliament who have been trying to cope with the stresses and demands that they are placed under and through a number of my colleagues in the Western Australian state parliament as well. This problem is much more common than many people think.

The key point to make to you is that, while I understand why you look to extend this provision to carers of adults with a mental illness, the government is not clear that that is actually the best thing to do—that is, that if you had the money to commit to the needs of carers of adults with a mental illness it would be your first choice. Not only do we not think it should be part of this bill and not only do we think we are a long way from having done the work to do it but we are not actually convinced. My advice is that we are not at the point of saying that it would be how you get the best bang for your buck or that it is the most appropriate policy response. So for a range of reasons we will not be agreeing to that amendment. They include the reasons I gave earlier, but equally I want to make the point that the minister is not clear at this stage whether, if you had the money, the capacity to deliver and all the policy issues sorted out, it would necessarily be the best thing to do. I think there would need to be more work done and more examination of the issues before this government would accept that that was necessarily the first thing you would do.

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

I am hoping that this will be my last question on this issue. I acknowledge the minister’s response and understand the framework he has put it in, although I do not necessarily agree with the government. Is this something that will be considered in the next round of work—that is, whether the government can be convinced that this is the appropriate route and the appropriate form of support for carers of adults with a mental illness? It is about need for other forms of episodic care as well, but with a focus on mental illness. It was carers of people with mental illness who particularly raised this with us. Is this in the framework of what the government will be looking at for the next round of changes?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I concur with Senator Siewert in hoping it is the last of her questions, because they are a bit tough for a representing minister. I think the answer to that is that the House of Representatives report puts on the agenda the whole question of care for adults. The minister has indicated that she will be looking to respond to that report in the totality of the issues around adults. I am not in a position to respond to specific issues now, but the government will be doing work in response to issues around carers of adults, and obviously this will be part of that consideration.

Question negatived.

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

I move Australian Greens amendment (3) on sheet 5796:

(3)    Schedule 1, item 16, page 18 (lines 13 to 18), omit subsection 198AA(3).

This amendment relates to the provisions around hospitalisation and seeks to extend the government’s amendments that remove the 63-day limit relating to care of children in hospital. Obviously, we support this bill. This provision is a very good one and we seek to extend it to adults. The same issues apply to carers of adults as apply to carers of children. Care does not stop just because the person you are giving care to is in hospital. As I articulated in my speech in the second reading debate, this is an issue that has been brought up with me repeatedly—that is, the concern that the limit for a person in hospital is 63 days.

I will pre-empt some comments that I know the government will make. The government will talk about respite care, but the point is that having someone cared for in hospital is not necessarily respite for the person doing the caring. They are still travelling to hospital, still caring for that person and looking after their needs. It is an extremely traumatic and stressful time for the person doing the caring as well. As I said, I can pre-empt what the government is going to say so that we can get to the debate a little bit quicker. I do not wear the argument that respite, just because it is offered, actually deals with the issues, because when a person is in hospital the carer is still caring for that person. We believe that, for the same reasons this amendment has provisions for the carer of a child, the process should be extended to the carer of an adult.

I also want to pre-empt the government by saying: yes, I know that you are going to be considering people caring for adults during the review. The same argument applies: we know this is an issue, so why not deal with it now? Why not provide that relief for carers now rather than next year, which is at least 12-18 months away? We can actually be helping carers now rather than waiting, because we know it is an issue. We know it is an issue, because it was brought up again during the Senate inquiry. As I said, it has been brought up repeatedly with me, particularly, I must say, by carers of older people and by older carers. It is very stressful when the person they are caring for is in hospital and they are still providing care. So the Greens strongly believe that the provisions could be and should be extended to those providing care for adults.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will only advance one of the arguments anticipated by Senator Siewert, which is the one I advanced to her previous proposition, which is that we will be dealing with the question of the response to the House of Representatives committee report in terms of the treatment of adults, and that consideration will be occurring. We are not seeking to respond to that as part of this legislation. There are obviously huge implications in all of this. The populations are different and the characteristics are different. We are not intending to respond in this legislation to all those issues around carers of adults. That will be part of the consideration in responding to the House of Representatives committee report.

I am not going to advance the argument about respite. It may well be the government argument, as Senator Siewert said, but having cared for my dying father a little bit in the last month or so—although I must say my sister did most of the care—I certainly have lived the experience of that sort of support when people are in hospital et cetera. I know the pressures it places on people and I know my experience is minuscule compared to those who are caring full time and under much worse conditions than we had to deal with. There is no doubt that the demands of caring for an adult—whether it is someone with a disability or someone who is terminally ill or what have you—are enormous. As Senator Siewert rightly points out, those obligations in caring do not disappear when people are in hospital or other care. There do not seem to be enough hours in a day to meet all those obligations, let alone to do a full-time job as well.

If I needed any reminding, my recent experiences have reminded me of the actual burden that carers face and the tremendous sacrifice that people who do that long term make. I am not sure what the official government policy is in terms of the respite argument, but I am not advancing it tonight. I may be whipped into line on it on some further occasion, but I will certainly be making the argument internally that we have to consider the fact that carers continue to have a role when people are hospitalised or in other forms of care. I will leave it to the minister how that public policy is responded to. Before I have another slash outside the office, I had better stop before Ms Macklin comes down to deal with me. The basic answer is that the issue you raise is one that ought to be on the agenda, and it is on the agenda. The government will look to respond to that with other issues surrounding carers of adults in responding to the House of Representatives committee report.

Question negatived.

Bills agreed to.

Bills reported without amendment; report adopted.