Senate debates

Thursday, 30 March 2006

Family Assistance, Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2005 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2006

In Committee

6:23 pm

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

The Greens, as people would be aware, had the same amendment that Senator Bartlett has just moved. I would like to speak to that amendment relatively briefly because I did make a fuller statement earlier. While there may be some other positive initiatives in this bill, you do not give with one hand and take with another. Yes, carers may benefit from some of the provisions in the bill—the same as a great many Australians may benefit—but, on the other hand, we are taking away from carers. So the government is basically giving with one hand and taking away resources with another.

This government seems to have prided itself on promoting policies that encourage people to help themselves. However, in this instance, people who do help themselves and in fact others—carers supporting those in their charge—seem to be being discriminated against. They seem to be being penalised by having the back pay provisions taken away. So while other members of the community are encouraged to help themselves, people who are helping themselves and others are being penalised.

As I articulated before, carers in our society are helping those who are in most need and are most vulnerable. By doing that, they make themselves vulnerable. As I said earlier, many of them drop full-time work or add their care on top of their work responsibilities or go to part-time work and then care for those they are caring for. They deserve the most support that our society can give them. Unfortunately, schedule 6 of the bill does not do that. As I said before, it seems absolutely mean spirited that as a society we cannot afford to give carers this small amount of money. When it gets down to per carer, it is a small amount of money that we are now taking away—but these carers make that small amount of money go a very long way.

Overall, this sends a really bad message to carers: that we do not value what they are doing and the care that they are giving the most vulnerable in our community and that we also disregard the financial value of what they do. So not only do we not appear to be valuing the emotional component and the care that they are giving but also we do not appear to be valuing the contribution that they make to our economy, which, as I said before, is around $30.5 billion. With this section we are saying, ‘We don’t value that. We’re not even going to give you back pay to help you deal with the section of your life where you are often in one of the biggest crises of your life. We are not going to acknowledge that it is difficult to deal with and that it is a really bad time in your life. We’re not going to give you space.’ We are saying to them, ‘You have to do it within 12 weeks of the immediate crisis happening and you coming to terms with a new life’—and in many cases it is a new life. We are saying, ‘You’ve got 12 weeks to do it; after that, it is bad luck. You’ve missed the point; you’ve missed the mark; you’re not up to speed—bad luck.’ I think that sends a really nasty message to carers.

The Greens do not think that is appropriate. We do not think that we should be sending such a depressing message to the carers of Australia. As I articulated before, we think it is unfair. As a community, we can afford to provide this small amount to carers. I do not think anyone can argue that we cannot afford this. We cannot afford to send this message—because it is not just a financial message that we are sending. We should be sending a message of our support and caring for carers. I strongly support this amendment and believe very strongly that we should be removing schedule 6 from this bill.

Comments

No comments