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

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 5596:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 24), after item 2, insert:

2A  Section 210

Omit “A person’s carer payment”, substitute “Subject to section 211, a person’s carer payment rate”.

2B  After section 210

Insert:

211 Increased carer payment rate

        (1)    If:

             (a)    a person is qualified for the carer payment under this Part; and

             (b)    the carer payment is payable to that person under this Part; and

             (c)    the person is not a member of a couple;

then, for the purpose of making payments under Division 4 of Part 3 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1991, the person’s carer payment rate is worked out by adding an amount equivalent to $30 per week to the person’s carer payment rate calculated under section 210.

        (2)    To avoid doubt, the carer payment rate determined under this section is not to be used for any other purpose, including for the calculation of any other benefit or fee under this Act or any other Act.

This relates to the same provisions to provide for carers so that the carers pension is increased. Carers, as I alluded to in my speech in the second reading debate, are one of the lowest groups on the social wellbeing index for a number of reasons—low income from the carers payment, the stress of their workload and the lack of support they are getting.

I would like to point out that the Greens campaigned very strongly during the federal election on the increase in payments for carers. Carers have been calling for a doubling of their payments because of the work they do and the stresses they face. They do not get superannuation for the caring that they do, so not only are they affected by low income during their actual caring years but in their own older age they are actually very poorly provided for because they have not been in the workforce because of their caring duties. They have also been calling for some time for those areas around superannuation to be looked at.

Several months ago there was deep concern that they were not going to get the bonus payment that they had been receiving for the last couple of years and there was acknowledgement that they had been having trouble making ends meet. I have already spoken about the drawbacks of the one-off payments and the fact that they are not meeting pensioners’ needs. Carers provide a critical role in our community.

The Access Economics report of several years ago—the figures will be much higher now—showed that they provide $31 billion worth of care. If those carers were not providing that, the government would be expected to provide it. So purely from an economic rational point of view—and I for one am not arguing that we should be taking an economic rationalist point of view—these people are providing that level of care. I would argue very strongly that it is in fact higher than that now because, as I said, that was several years ago. They also pointed out that during that time the cost of living had been going up. So not only are they providing that level of care but they are even less able to make ends meet than they were a couple of years ago.

These people are carrying a tremendous workload but their own health is suffering. Not only are they in the lowest wellbeing index but they are starting to suffer from depression and illnesses themselves because of the workload that they are carrying and because they are finding it extremely difficult to make ends meet. We believe that carers should also have their pension increased by $30, which is nowhere near what they have been campaigning for. But at least it is a start until a more appropriate approach is taken to setting the base rates for all of the pensions as we have been discussing today.