Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industrial Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment (Child Disability Assistance) Bill 2007. I support much of what was said by the member for Pearce and others on this bill today. I have some issues with the bill. At some point in the course of my contribution, I would like to talk about the issue of the way in which the carer adjustment payment is applied—that is, the $10,000 one-off payment that is made to families where they have children under the age of six with a disability. There is an issue that I would like to go to with respect to that particular matter.

Prior to doing that, I firstly say that we support the contribution that has been proposed to be paid to carers who have children with a disability. It is the view of Labor and, of course, the government that young children with disabilities can benefit from early intervention and therapy to maximise their early childhood development and learning. Indeed, we would say that some families and children would benefit from a break such as respite care. As they develop, older children outgrow aids and equipment, which will need to be replaced. Home or vehicle modifications, such as a hoist in the home or help to travel in the family car, are often necessary and, of course, very expensive. To that extent we would support the tax-free payment of $1,000 to carers.

As I understand it, the government chose to make the payment. I assume that the fact that it is a one-off payment of $1,000 per year allows for outlays on potentially expensive equipment required. I guess the government has to consider whether, in fact, it has taken the right approach, but there is a concern that one-off payments are not used as well as a payment made on a monthly or fortnightly basis. Indeed, some of the benefits from the Commonwealth to people in the community are paid in instalments to ensure that such payments are not used for other purposes. So there is a question, in terms of the application of this policy, as to whether the $1,000 payment is the best approach. There is a debate to be had about the merits of paying a lump sum or, indeed, instalments, but I do see the argument that it is more likely that families in receipt of $1,000 would use that as a contribution towards an expensive service or an expensive piece of equipment. To that extent, I think that part of the weakness in proposing a one-off payment per year is mitigated.

As I understand it, the package is $1.8 billion, of which $962 million would be provided to help older carers and their families. The federal government stated that this would translate into around 1,750 new supported accommodation places, 800 new respite places to be available by 2012 and additional in-home support and respite to assist older carers continue their caring role. At a total cost of $721.2 million, carers of around 130,000 children with disability under the age of 16 will receive $1,000 each year, with the first payment to be made next month, to assist with the purchase of necessary support such as wheelchairs, communication aids, therapy and respite. Finally, there is a $23.6 million expenditure over five years to enable respite, early intervention and other services for children in their local area.

Whilst I have some quibbles about some of the policy and the way it applies, there will be people in my electorate who will benefit from this assistance. There is some concern, however, that the minister, who earlier had undertaken to match the states and territories fifty-fifty for unmet needs for services, has withdrawn his undertaking. I am not sure of the impact that will have on the Commonwealth allocation of resources in this area, but it would seem to me that to withdraw a commitment that was earlier given would suggest there could well be some shortfall in allocation of funding in this very important area. I would hate to think that is the case, so I would hope the government can explain why it chose to withdraw its undertaking to match the amount made and paid by the states and territories.

The other matter I wanted to touch upon, and the member for Pearce referred to it, was the carer adjustment payment. I am very much aware of the origin of the carer adjustment payment because the carer adjustment payment was introduced in response to a tragic story of Tyler Fishlock, a constituent of mine from Caroline Springs. Tyler, who was four years old at the time, lost his eyes to a rare cancer. His mother had to give up her teaching job in order to care for Tyler but was struggling to survive on the $46 per week that she was in receipt of. After much lobbying and a significant amount of promotion of the story through the media, the government announced a one-off grant of $10,000 to be paid to Tyler Fishlock’s family. That was certainly a sum that assisted that family. I applauded the efforts made by the government at the time and I am happy to do so again.

There are issues about the application of this carer adjustment payment beyond the Fishlock family. This is the problem when you do make announcements—there was a heartrending story and the government responded. I was approached in May by Joanne Buttigieg, who is also, it so happens, from Caroline Springs. Joanne has two children with autism spectrum disorder. Her 11-year-old daughter has Asperger’s syndrome and has a generalised anxiety disorder, while her 9½-year-old son has severe autism, is nonverbal and is intellectually disabled. Immediately upon hearing of the $10,000 grant to Tyler Fishlock’s family, she approached Centrelink to ascertain how she could apply for a similar grant. In May—at the time of the announcement, the details were very sketchy—Joanne wrote to my office and said:

My concern and that of several families I speak to, is the lack of information available to us about this disability grant. Also, the fact that the whole process appears to be riddled with inconsistencies and bias against families that do not have media support.

Whether that is the case or not, I can well understand her concern and disappointment that she was not going to be in receipt of anything given her circumstances. Gradually, it emerged that, because her children were over six years of age, she was not eligible. Some families that she knew were eligible and others were not without there being an apparent connection to financial need or severity of disability.

In June this year, Joanne wrote to me again and said:

I do not think that my family is eligible as both children are over 6 years of age. This just does not seem right ... as both children were diagnosed just before the ages of 3 years. Also, their disability and all the challenges we face in trying to deal with them all on a daily basis with very little support, do not miraculously disappear at the age of 6. Indeed, the difficulties and challenges increase with age.

Joanne is delighted that the Tyler Fishlock family was in receipt of support. She wishes them all the best. But there is an issue about the application of the carer adjustment payment. We are not sure whether it is based on merit. It is a real issue. It is a difficult issue, too. I concede the point that you have to work out the extent to which the Commonwealth can outlay resources. But, given the announcement made by the Prime Minister this year arising out of that particular case, it would have been best for the government to have considered the way that it would apply the adjustment payment. I am not sure whether age is the right criteria to use when you are talking about disability. That is a real difficulty.

I am supporting this bill, as you know. This matter does not refer specifically to the application of the carer adjustment payment, but the government has to come up with a better application of the payment—the $10,000—to families that are placed in very difficult circumstances. Some cynicism has arisen out of this matter, because there was so much media for that poor child and his family and about how his mother was coping in particular. Joanne’s feeling is that her not seeking to go to the media to raise the matter publicly was as much a reason why she was denied support than her actual eligibility for the payment. I have to say that it is hard for me to convince her otherwise—indeed, I am not convinced myself that the application of the payment was properly and fully considered by the government.

I ask the minister to consider the application of the $10,000 one-off payment to families for children under the age of six with disabilities. The age threshold is not really the most relevant factor when determining assistance for children with disabilities, given Joanne’s comments. Quite honestly, in some circumstances it does not get easier but gets harder to look after a severely disabled child over the age of six. Therefore, the policy is deficient to that extent. I do not want to be entirely critical, because firstly I support the bill and secondly I support the fact that the government responded. But I think that it perhaps did not respond properly enough. I do not think that the way that it is applied is sound policy. I think that Joanne Buttigieg and her family—and many other families in my electorate and, indeed, in every electorate of this country—have a justifiable case to say that they are equally in need and deserving of support from the Commonwealth.

See this speech in context