Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to direct my initial comments to the comments that have just been made by the member for Riverina. I think that she painted a very clear picture of the way the community and people in general react to people with disabilities. People empathise with the family of a young child or a baby with a disability. They look at the little baby and say that it is beautiful, just as the member for Riverina said. When that child reaches adulthood you will find people walking along the street and, rather than even making eye contact with that young adult, or an even older adult, they turn the other way so that they do not have to confront the issue that there are people with severe disabilities. I think there is a little guilt that maybe we do not look after them in the way that we should. I will make some more comments on that later in my speech, but I would just like to endorse those comments made by the member for Riverina. We do need to remember that that cute little baby becomes an adult and that, as an adult, those disabilities still exist and they still require the support and assistance not only of their parents and the community but also of government at all levels. I do not think government can abrogate its responsibilities.

I support the Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation (2006 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2006. This bill implements a number of the 2006 budget measures. They are to begin on 1 July and in December this year. Probably the most significant measures are those that increase income thresholds for families—the family tax benefit part A, which is supposed to be $93 million over four years—and the extension of the large-family supplement to families with three children. The threshold for family tax benefit part A has been increased to $40,000—it is currently $33,361—with benefits reduced by 20c in every dollar earned over that amount. The 2005 budget included increases to the threshold from $33,361 to $37,500. That measure would have come into effect on 1 July this year but will be superseded by that which was introduced in the 2006 budget. The combined effect of these measures will mean that, from 1 July 2006, half a million families will receive an average of an additional $37 a fortnight through the family tax benefits. As a result of the increase in the threshold, more than 40,000 families will also become eligible for low-income health cards.

No-one could disagree with these measures. They are long overdue. Every member of this House would recognise just how hard it is for families at the moment. This government has sat on its heels and done very little. It promised the Australian people at the last election that there would be no interest rate rises under its watch, but since the last election we have had two interest rate increases, which have had a significant impact on family income. Families have also been confronted with rising petrol prices. The money that is being delivered to families in this budget will be eaten up by just those two factors.

Families are struggling. I have had constituents in my electorate come and talk to me about both these issues. They say to me that because of the increased petrol costs they have had to make decisions about whether their children can continue to play sport. The Shortland electorate is spread out. It takes in Lake Macquarie and the Central Coast. If a family has young children who are playing soccer at the weekend, they have to be taken not only to soccer training but also to their soccer game. Whilst the western side of Lake Macquarie may only be a short distance, parents may have to do a round trip of about 150 kilometres. For families who have three children playing soccer, the government’s extended large-family supplement of $248 per year will be eaten up with a click of the fingers because it costs so much in petrol to take children from one place to another.

Whilst this budget delivers long overdue extra money to families in the form of family tax benefit A, it does not take into account the increasing costs for families. Families with private medical insurance face medical insurance rates which have increased well and truly above the CPI. This is another area where the government has sat on its hands. On the one hand the government encourages families to take out private health insurance, but on the other hand it fails to do anything to keep private health insurance affordable. The government has not addressed the issue of the gaps in private health insurance. These are all increased costs for families. Accompanying the increasing price of petrol has been an increase in the price of food. Fresh fruit and vegetables have become very expensive because transporting that food from the farm to the supermarket requires the use of petrol.

Whilst some very welcome benefits are being delivered to families in this budget, they do not go anywhere near to making up for the rising cost of petrol, interest rates and medical insurance. I put it on the record that I believe there will be a further increase in interest rates, which will be another impost on families. The government has also failed to address the issue of the unaffordability of child care for families. This issue needs to be taken into account. I mentioned the extended large-family supplement, which is now being extended to families with three children and is worth $248 a year. If I had a young family and I was considering whether to have another child, I do not think that $248 would convince me that it was affordable. Australia has a declining birth rate. We had a little blip, and it went up marginally, but overall the birth rate is going down. We need a measure that is more proactive than providing families with a supplement of $248 a year.

The government needs to address the issue of job security. Unfortunately, under the Howard government, families have become less secure in their lifestyle. From one day to the next they do not know whether they will be able to sustain their job. We have had an increased casualisation of the workforce and the introduction of the Work Choices legislation, which attacks wages and conditions of workers. This flows through to families and impacts on their income. The increase to family tax benefit part A really has to be looked at in the context of lower wages for families and the fact they are doing it hard.

The bill allows for the creation of a special disability trust to assist families to make private financial provision for people with severe disabilities. It will allow families to set up trusts to the value of $500,000 a year to provide for current and future care of a severely disabled family member. The income and assets of the trust up to $500,000 will not impact on a person’s pension entitlement. That is quite welcome, but I have news for the government: most people who have severely disabled children find that they are not in a position to set up trusts to the value of $500,000. One of the parents will have to remain at home. There will not be the option of becoming a two-income family. Rather, that family will have to have one person stay at home, their income level will be severely reduced, there will be increased medical costs and care costs, increased costs associated with goods and services that that disabled person will need and there will be out-of-pocket expenses all the way along the line.

The $500,000 trust will obviously benefit some people, but I do not think it addresses the real issue that surrounds the care of disabled family members. Each and every member of this House will have had constituents with a disabled child talk to them about their concern for what will happen to their child when they die—their child whom they love, their child whom they have protected, their child whom they have fought for and their child who has been the focal point of their life. This is not the answer. The answer is that governments at all levels—federal, state and, to an extent, local governments—have to make a commitment to the care of disabled adults.

A constituent spoke to me about her friend who had a disabled daughter she had cared for from the time she was six weeks old. She was a normal child, but she caught a virus and became very severely disabled. The mother contracted Parkinson’s disease and cancer and she died. Her husband died a few months before her, and the one thing she worried about was the care of her daughter. Because there had been a need for her to provide such a high level of care during her daughter’s life, she could not work. Her husband had been a miner and he retired early because he had a severe heart condition. As she became sicker, she became totally focused on what would happen to her beautiful daughter—the jewel of her life—once she died. Luckily, accommodation was found for her daughter just days before she died and she died knowing that her daughter was being cared for. But that is not the way it should happen.

Governments at any level should not remove themselves from the responsibility of providing care for younger disabled people when their parents die. To put them into nursing homes with elderly people is not the answer. I welcome the announcement by the government earlier this year that places and funds would be made available for specific care for younger people with disabilities. That is a move in the right direction, but there needs to be a lot more. It should have happened a lot sooner. I do not want the government to abrogate its responsibility for people with disabilities. I am so concerned about it that I am holding a disability forum in my electorate on 29 June. At that disability forum we will be discussing issues that relate to families which have children with severe disabilities. We will also be discussing the implications of the government’s Welfare to Work legislation.

A young woman with a severe disability spoke to me after she received a letter from Centrelink. She was terrified that her disability support pension would be cut off. This young woman cannot work and live alone. The information that she was given was confusing. There is absolutely no way her disability support pension will be terminated, but I think when letters are sent out the government need to be aware which people they are targeting. So there are a number of issues surrounding disability, particularly severe disability.

I support the government’s payment of $1,000 to adults and $400 to children. The setting up of a permanent disaster recovery payment to people affected by disasters is a good move. It puts in place certainty and removes the need to react on an ad hoc basis to these issues. The extension of the utilities allowance to mature age, widow and partner allowance recipients is also a positive step, but $102 per pension family is definitely inadequate. I have raised before in the parliament the extension of the carers payment to carers with children under 16 with severe disabilities. There are a number of issues that surround this, and I think that the government has handled it very poorly in the past. I think there needs to be a little more sensitivity in the way that it is being implemented through Centrelink.

Overall, I support this legislation, but the government needs to do a lot more for families than that which is involved in this legislation. Families are doing it hard. They are fighting to survive. They are fighting to put bread on the table. They are fighting to pay for their Medicare bills. They are fighting to find the money to put petrol in their cars to ensure that their kids can go to sport. Sport is a very important part of young people’s lives.

See this speech in context