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

by leave—I move Greens’ amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 5397 together:

(1)    Schedule 4, item 1, page 13 (line 7), after “family law order”, insert “or care arrangement”.

(2)    Schedule 4, item 1, page 13 (after line 15), at the end of the item, add:

      ; or (e)    a parenting plan within the meaning of 63C of that Act; or

              (f)    any other formal or informal care arrangement.

These relate, as I referred to in my second reading debate speech, to amending the requirement for these kinship care provisions to apply only under a family law order, to extend the clause to include other care arrangements and to include a parenting payment in the meaning of 63C of the act, or any other formal or informal care arrangements. I will also seek to make similar amendments to the Social Security Amendment (2007 Measures No. 2) Bill.

We are seeking to make these provisions meet the requirements of the community. Many kinship care arrangements are done informally or through parenting plans. As I mentioned in my speech in the second reading debate, the government is seeking to increase the development of more informal arrangements through the family relationship centres, yet they are very heavily limiting the effectiveness of these provisions in their amendments by just restricting them to family law orders. I am particularly concerned about these arrangements and how they are going to apply in Aboriginal communities because there are many children in kinship care in Aboriginal communities. While I cannot quote the percentages off the top of my head, I can virtually guarantee that the majority of those arrangements are informal.

While the government has taken a step to address the kinship arrangements—and I am really pleased that they have recognised that because it is something that we have raised from the beginning when these arrangements were brought into place—it is not addressing the heart of kinship arrangements, which is that many of them are done through informal arrangements. We are seeking to make these effective and to meet the circumstances that are really happening in the community. Can the government explain whether they have done any statistical analysis of the proportion of children that are in kinship care through family law orders, as opposed to those who are in informal arrangements or those who have parenting plans, and why have they restricted them just to family law orders? Also, have the government given thought to the fact that that only addresses a portion of the problem when they have acknowledged that there is an issue there but are only addressing part of the problem?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the importance of the question, but it is important that we look very carefully at the other alternatives available. There are a number of informal arrangements that are provided for through an exemption and that reflect the flexibility that is needed for kinship requirements and all those things. But if a particular kinship arrangement needs to be made more permanent then a permanent exemption can be provided by going through the court process to make that particular temporary or flexible kinship arrangement available. That does not have a negative impact on the flexibility of that arrangement because, under the existing Centrelink provisions, flexible exemption arrangements can be for a short term. This is not the principal or only tool that is available. The government will look to a suite of other tools, particularly capacity to provide for short-term flexible exemption arrangements, and should that kinship care arrangement become a permanent arrangement then that would be reflected through the court process.

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

I am aware that there are some exemptions, and we have been through that ad nauseam in this place—the 16 weeks. But if you are looking after children in a kinship care process it is rather onerous to keep going back for this 16-week exemption. In fact, some people do not want to make it a permanent arrangement. So, again, you are still disadvantaging children who are in kinship care on an ongoing basis that is not the result of a family law order. I remind the Senate that the figures indicate that there are an increasing number of children in out-of-home care—it is going up quite significantly—and the number of children in kinship care is going up quite significantly too. So we are talking about a significant number of children. Many of these children are in informal arrangements, particularly in Aboriginal communities, and it would seem to be much more equitable and more efficient to provide for this cohort of kids and carers in the arrangements that the government has made. As I said, the government seems to have gone halfway to fixing this problem. These amendments actually try to do what the government is trying to do in a much more cooperative manner. The so-called flexible arrangements that are happening at the moment are not meeting those needs and are still quite cumbersome.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, in your second statement of the question, you referred to the undertaking of equal sharing arrangements that sometimes occur in the kinship arrangements. I understand there was a piece of legislation being taken through here by Senator Abetz. He made an undertaking that that aspect of that legislation would be reviewed. I understand that it is under review at the moment.

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

I think you are referring to the amendments I will be moving to the measures No. 2 bill. That relates to shared parenting arrangements rather than the kinship care. I have other amendments. I will ask you some questions, but so as not to confuse the process at the moment I will leave that one be. I will go back to my original question: have you got statistics for the number of children in kinship care under formal family law order arrangements as opposed to those who are in some version of informal care arrangements?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that, while the department is currently undertaking a continual evaluation and statistical analysis, we are still satisfied at this stage that the flexible arrangements we do have in place are meeting the needs of the community.

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

I will try to not drag this out too much. It seems to me you are having a bet both ways: you are saying that the arrangements are working okay but that you are going to deal with this smaller cohort of people who are under family orders. Why address this issue in a partial manner rather than deal with the full concept of kinship care?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the first step. As I said, we are looking at the remaining cohorts and we hope that an increased scrutiny of that particular demographic will give us good ideas for the future.

Question negatived.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Democrat amendment (1) on sheet 5383:

(1)   Page 17 (after line 14), after Schedule 5, insert:

Social Security Act 1991

1  Subsection 4(1)

Insert:

de facto partner means one of two people in a de facto relationship.

de facto relationship means a relationship between two people living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis, where the relationship is not a marital relationship:

             (a)    in determining whether two people are in a de facto relationship, the circumstances of the relationship must be considered as a whole. Without limiting the generality of this paragraph, those circumstances may include:

                   (i)    the length of their relationship;

                  (ii)    how long and under what circumstances they have lived together;

                 (iii)    whether there is a sexual relationship between them;

                 (iv)    their degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support, between or by them;

                  (v)    the ownership, use and acquisition of their property, including any property that they own individually;

                 (vi)    their degree of mutual commitment to a shared life;

                (vii)    whether they mutually care for and support children;

               (viii)    the performance of household duties;

                  (ix)    the reputation, and public aspects, of the relationship between them;

                   (x)    the existence of a statutory declaration signed by both persons stating that they regard themselves to be in a de facto relationship with the other person;

             (b)    a de facto relationship may be between two people of the same gender;

             (c)    to avoid doubt, two people may still be in a de facto relationship if they are living apart from each other on a temporary basis.

2  Paragraph 4(2)(b) (definition of member of a couple)

Add at the end “and includes a de facto partner and people in a de facto relationship”.

3  Subsections 4(2), (3), (3A) and 24(2) (definition of marriage-like relationships)

Omit “marriage-like relationship”, substitute “de facto relationship”.

4  Paragraph 5(1)(a)

After “parent” (twice occurring), insert “or adoptive de facto partner”.

5  Section 1067C

Omit “marriage-like relationship” (wherever occurring), substitute “de facto relationship”.

6  Subsection 1067C(1)

After “married to” (wherever occurring), insert “or is in a de facto relationship with”.

This amendment circulated in my name deals with the same topic that the Democrats have moved many amendments on—most recently about one hour ago to the health legislation. This amendment seeks to remove the discrimination against people in same-sex relationships and match the recommendations of the HREOC report Same-sex: same entitlements, which was tabled in the parliament towards the end of June.

The Democrats have sought to address the entrenched discrimination against people in same-sex relationships via a range of mechanisms over many years—without success. But we will continue to persevere with that, particularly given the repeated and widespread statements made by many people, including many people in the coalition and the Prime Minister himself. As long ago as late 2005 he said that he did not support discrimination against people in same-sex relationships with regard to their financial entitlements. He has nonetheless not supported efforts to remove that discrimination—which is rather frustrating—except on a few occasions. Back when I was leader of the Democrats he supported efforts with regard to a component of superannuation entitlement. That was good to see although it took a while—but the rest has taken even longer.

I will not speak at length on this because the issue is well canvassed and the position that each side is taking is also well canvassed. I do note, though, that amendments to remove discrimination in this area of social security could well, and indeed would in some areas of social security, lead to a reduction in entitlements for people in same-sex relationships because they would be treated as a couple. That would mean that if they are treated as a couple then their payment eligibility would go down because the income of one partner would be taken into account in assessing the income of the other. There are people in same-sex relationships where one partner is working full time but the other partner is entitled to welfare because their partner’s income is not counted because they are not recognised as a couple. So this would be a saving for the government, quite probably.

In the nature of these things, some people, particularly in relation to family payments, might end up with greater financial entitlements. But I do not think there is much doubt that the social security area in particular is one where people in same-sex relationships may end up financially worse off if their relationship is recognised. Certainly, from all the feedback I have had from people in the gay and lesbian community and those more widely who have been campaigning for this most basic issue of equality, this is not a problem for them. They want equality, and where equality means less money that is part and parcel of it. But it is worth making the point that this does cut both ways in terms of financial costs. If there is any time when the government have no excuse not to support this, this is it because it will probably save them money. So I look forward to hearing the minister enthusiastically supporting this money-saving measure. But, more importantly, it is about equality.

We would prefer an approach that matches that of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, which is for an omnibus piece of legislation that does the whole lot in one sweep. People might gain on the swings and lose on the roundabouts. It is not about money per se; it is about equality and recognition. That is still lacking and has serious and wider consequences beyond just money. We would prefer that approach, but, as I have said previously, that approach has been stymied to date. We have legislation before the Senate that implements the HREOC recommendations. The referral of the legislation to a Senate committee was refused by coalition members in this place. An ad hoc parliamentary committee of interested MPs was established to examine it in an unofficial capacity and that included members from the House of Representatives and coalition parties. For people who are interested and want to chase it up, I would note that Senator Allison tabled the report of that ad hoc committee in the Senate an hour or two ago. It is probably no great surprise that the majority of that committee recommended that the bill should be passed and that the HREOC recommendations should be supported—nor should it be a surprise, because it is clearly the right thing to do and it is a change that is long overdue; hence our determination to continue persisting with amendments such as this.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before the minister responds to Senator Bartlett’s comments, could he also address in his remarks whether or not the government has actually done any analysis of the costs implications of these amendments?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take Senator Wong’s question first. I am not aware of that, but I am happy to take that on notice. In response to Senator Bartlett, this government has already indicated publicly that it is in favour of removing any discriminations against interdependent relationships, including same-sex couples. As Senator Bartlett indicated, the Same-sex: same entitlements report by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission was tabled on, I think, 21 June this year, and we are looking at those recommendations very carefully. I think it would be fair to say that, in response to a number of Democrat amendments over a whole suite of legislation, we would only make broad changes to government programs after we had considered all of the issues and ramifications. That has been our consistent response to the Democrat amendments in this regard. It is important to remember that we have an obligation to consider a whole range of interrelated areas of law to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. That is the reason that we will not be supporting this amendment.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is appropriate that I indicate Labor’s position in relation to this particular amendment. I am sure that those in the chamber would be aware of Labor’s policy position. Our platform states clearly that a Labor government would remove discrimination—for, say, marriage—that exists in Commonwealth legislation on the basis of sexual orientation. Obviously, this amendment is consistent with that position and we support the principles behind the amendment. I share some of the views that Senator Bartlett has outlined.

We have closely considered the HREOC report, which identified 58, or thereabouts, pieces of legislation in which discrimination exists against same-sex couples, particularly in relation to financial related benefits. Our spokesperson has stated publicly that we support the recommendations of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in that report and that in government we would implement them. I think it is safe to say that the position that Labor now has in relation to these issues is the most progressive and advantageous in relation to same-sex couples that Labor has ever stated and publicly put on the record in the federal sphere. I also note that state Labor governments have obviously led the way in clearing away discrimination on the basis of sexuality.

However, this particular amendment has significant cost implications. Senator Bartlett identified that, if this amendment were passed, there would be some cost savings and also some additional costs. We are conscious of that. If we were to win government, this would be an issue that we would approach sensibly, consistent with our platform and our public commitments. It would require us to undertake a proper analysis of the costs associated with it. We are not able to do that in opposition. For the reasons that I have outlined, we are not able to support this particular amendment on this occasion.

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

I would like to put on the record that the Greens support the amendment. We believe that it is essential to end this form of discrimination, so we support this amendment.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

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

I move:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 5), before item 1, insert:

1A  Subsection 5(18) (and the heading)

Repeal the heading and the subsection, substitute:

Principal carer—a child may have more than one principal carer

      (18)    If:

             (a)    a court orders that more than one parent is to have a significant proportion of responsibility for the care of a child; and

             (b)    the difference in percentage of responsibility for the care of a child between the two parents is 12% or less;

both parents must be treated for all purposes of this Act as a principal carer for the child.

1B  After subsection 5(19)

Insert:

   (19A)    Notwithstanding subsection (19), if a court orders that more than one parent has a significant proportion of responsibility for the care of a child and the difference in percentage of responsibility for the care of a child between the two parents is 12% or less, the Secretary must make a determination that each parent the subject of the court order is the principal carer of the child.

I will not prolong this any longer than necessary because people are well aware of the arguments on principal carers. This amendment is to amend the inequities in the act around principal carers to ensure that parents who are fifty-fifty carers or parents for whom the difference in percentage of responsibility for the care of the child is 12 per cent or less both have access to the principal carer provisions. The minister was in the process of updating us on the review of this issue that the department, as I understand it, is undertaking. I ask the minister what status that review has at the moment.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To facilitate this debate could the minister, in responding to Senator Siewert, also respond to my request as to whether or not the government has undertaken any cost assessments of the implications of this amendment?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In regard to Senator Siewert’s question, I am unable to give further advice about the status of the department’s investigations into the statistics in regard to that matter. It has been taken on notice and I understand that it is still under active consideration. I am unable to report further than that reported when Senator Abetz took the question on notice in regard to a previous bill—unfortunately, I cannot remember the name of the bill. Senator Wong, there have been no formal costings of those arrangements at this stage.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the benefit of the chamber, I will indicate the opposition’s position on this amendment. This matter has come up previously, Senator Siewert—through you, Mr Temporary Chair. I hope Senator Siewert is aware that we are also concerned about this issue. In the absence of being able to cost this particular amendment, we are not able at this time to support the specific amendment. However, I do place on record, as I have previously, Labor’s recognition of the anomaly which exists in the current legislation and our concern as to the effect on children of the government’s rather odd administrative arrangement, under which it appears to be that whoever gets there first gets the principal carer status.

I have previously raised our concerns with this in estimates, so our position is well known. But we are of the view that we do need to be very clear about what effect the detail of this amendment would have and, if elected, we would consider this issue. As my colleague in the House Ms Macklin has stated, we are closely monitoring the impact of the intersection of the Welfare to Work laws, the importance of principal carer status and the promotion of shared care under family law to make sure that parents with largely shared caring responsibility are not disadvantaged.

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

Whilst, with all due respect, I can understand that the opposition is at the moment being very careful of committing to financial arrangements, this is about the wellbeing of children, fairness and ensuring that parents are equally able to look after their children. There is a clear anomaly between family law and Welfare to Work. Clearly, a set of parents are suffering as a result of that anomaly between the two acts and, as a society and as legislators, we are sending two separate messages to the community and to parents. They are: on one hand, we think you should have equally shared parenting—and that is now law under the Family Law Act; but, on the other hand, under Welfare to Work only one parent is to be the principal carer and have the right under the Social Security Act to get benefits to enable them, if they are on income support, to be able to properly parent—only one parent can do that.

It is clearly inequitable. This inequity in the act has been identified from the start. I am glad that the government and the department are reviewing this, but I am concerned that the review seems to be taking a long time. I was hoping that I might be third time lucky with this amendment, because I think this is the third time I have put this amendment up—

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You just won’t learn!

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

Well, I put it in a motion for reference to a committee on a separate issue three times and the government finally saw the wisdom of that referral yesterday and supported our referral—third time lucky. So I was hoping the government would see the wisdom of it this time—third time lucky. But obviously it has not.

I would like a time frame on when this review is going to be finished. As I have pointed out on other occasions, the number of children caught up in this is likely to substantially increase as the Family Law Act kicks in. As more orders come through the family law process, now that the assumption is that there will be equal shared parenting, there will be more parents who are getting family law orders and establishing parenting plans that are fifty-fifty or within the 12 per cent. How soon can we expect government to have completed their review and have taken some action on it?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am unable to provide that information at this time. I think it is a very reasonable question. It will take some time, as you can imagine, to work out exactly when it is over; it is in the middle. So, if you are happy, Senator Siewert, I would much prefer to take that question on notice and I will get back to you about a time frame in terms of that scrutiny.

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

I could not honestly say that I am happy about the further delay. I appreciate the undertaking but I am not happy that it will take so long. I appreciate the further undertaking and look forward to receiving the answers in the very near future.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question is that the request be agreed to.

Question negatived.

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

by leave—

The Greens oppose schedule 1 in the following terms:

(2)    Schedule 1, items 2 to 4, page 3 (lines 22 to 28), TO BE OPPOSED.

(5)    Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (lines 20 to 29), TO BE OPPOSED.

(6)    Schedule 1, item 10, page 4 (lines 32) to page 5 (line 9), TO BE OPPOSED.

(9)    Schedule 1, items 17 and 18, page 5 (line 27) to page 6 (line 20), TO BE OPPOSED.

(14)  Schedule 1, item 25, page 7 (lines 11 to 22), TO BE OPPOSED.

(17)  Schedule 1, item 33, page 8 (lines 12 to 23), TO BE OPPOSED.

The Greens’ opposition to these items relates to the minister making ministerial guidelines by legislative instrument. I went through the substantive reasons for this in my speech during the second reading debate. We have deep concerns because these highly complex assessments do not lend themselves to such prescriptive and rigid guidelines. We also believe that they need to be subject to public scrutiny. We believe that this is not an appropriate mechanism to achieve what the government is trying to achieve.

I will just add, while I am on my feet, that I heard the argument of the ALP. We do not accept their argument necessarily, either. We believe that this is a rather clumsy way of dealing with these issues. We are deeply concerned about the power being put into the minister’s hands in relation to these matters and about how that affects the discretion of job capacity assessments and appeals following the process. We believe these amendments are inappropriate. That is why we are seeking to have them removed.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Senator Siewert identified, I outlined, during the second reading debate, our position in relation to the legislative instrument set of amendments contained in this bill. I understand the concerns, particularly given this government’s form, raised by a number of advocacy organisations, including through the Senate inquiry process. Our view is that many of the concerns to which Senator Siewert refers really deal with the content of instruments that we have not yet seen. It is not possible to assert that there are no review capacities unless you have a look at the content of the legislative instruments. We come at this from the perspective that, as a matter of principle, there is benefit in having these prescriptions included in legislative instruments which are disallowable by the parliament. I accept that the Australian Greens have a different position on that.

I again place on the record that, if the government is returned and if the government proceeds down this path, we will be very closely looking at what is contained in those legislative instruments to ensure that some of the issues that have been raised by the groups which have communicated with us are addressed appropriately.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question is that items 2 to 4, 8, 10, 17, 18, 25 and 33 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

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

by leave—I move the Greens amendments (3), (4), (7), (8), (10), (11), (12), (13), (15) and (16) on sheet 5394:

(3)    Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (line 11), after “family law order”, insert “or care arrangement”.

(4)    Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (after line 19), at the end of the definition of family law order, add:

             (e)    a parenting plan within the meaning of 63C of the Family Law Act 1975; or

              (f)    any other formal or informal care arrangement.

(7)    Schedule 1, item 15, page 5 (line 20), after “family law order”, insert “or care arrangement”.

(8)   Schedule 1, item 16, page 5 (line 25), after “family law order”, insert “or care arrangement”.

(10)  Schedule 1, item 20, page 6 (line 25), after “family law order”, insert “or care arrangement”.

(11)  Schedule 1, item 21, page 6 (line 30), after “family law order”, insert “or care arrangement”.

(12)  Schedule 1, item 23, page 7 (line 4), after “family law order”, insert “or care arrangement”.

(13)  Schedule 1, item 24, page 7 (line 9), after “family law order”, insert “or care arrangement”.

(15)  Schedule 1, item 31, page 8 (line 5), after “family law order”, insert “or care arrangement”.

(16)  Schedule 1, item 32, page 8 (line 10), after “family law order”, insert “or care arrangement”.

These amendments also seek to change the definition of family law order in a similar way to what we tried to do in Social Security Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007, so I will not bother repeating the arguments. But I would just like to ask the minister about his previous answer. I understand that he said that the change in the family law orders was the first step in dealing with the kinship care issue. Does he have a time line for the process of reviewing the statistics and making further possible changes?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reason I gave you the answer earlier is that they are very similar amendments; my apologies for that. My answer remains the same. They are under current consideration. As I have said, this is the first tranche. We are continuing to consider these matters. As I have said, I will try to get a time line for the first tranche. I am not sure whether I will be able to get a position for the remainder. I am not sure what sort of consideration that is under. I am a little reluctant to make an undertaking to provide that, but if there is sufficient information available I will ensure that it is provided along with the answers to your first request.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Question negatived.

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

The Greens oppose items 37 to 46 in schedule 1 in the following terms:

(18) Schedule 1, items 37 to 46, page 8 (line 30) to page 9 (line 21), TO BE OPPOSED.

This relates to the impairment tables. As I articulated in my address during the second reading debate, we have very strong concerns about replacing the words ‘medical assessor’ with the word ‘assessor’. While we have broader concerns across many areas of disability we are particularly concerned about issues of mental health.

We believe this is already an issue of concern in the community in terms of how mental health issues are dealt with under the disability provisions and we are deeply concerned that in fact this is going to exacerbate these issues. Concerns around these amendments were raised by a number of community organisations and submitters to the Senate inquiry and we share those concerns and believe, again, that this is a clumsy way of dealing with impairment ratings and urge the government to go back and have another look at this issue. Therefore we are opposing the changes that the government is trying to bring in with this amendment.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that the opposition have already circulated an identical amendment in relation to this issue that is opposing the removal of the term ‘medical officers’ in various provisions relating to the assessment process for entitlement to the disability support pension. I have outlined in my speech on the second reading reasons for that. We have an amendment that is in identical terms to that of the Australian Greens. Obviously we will be supporting this amendment.

It was interesting watching the debate in the House of Representatives on this matter when, frankly, the minister’s argument was almost entirely self-contradictory, on the one hand saying that this in fact made no change and on the other hand trying to explain why the change was a good idea. We do take very seriously the concerns raised by organisations such as the Mental Health Council and the Australian Confederation of Disability Organisations on this. The minister in the other place and the minister representing tonight have made similar remarks that try to brush away those concerns. It is very clear that the position of the government or its interpretation of its amendments is not accepted by significant community groups in this sector and we continue to press for these amendments as previously outlined.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am unaware of the debate in the other place, but I can see not only by the notes in front of me but I think from some common sense and I am advised that, for a couple of reasons, when we are talking about the issues staying the same, we are not diminishing the role of what we would consider in general terms a ‘medical officer’. The changes are not going to prevent a medical officer from involvement and they are not going to reduce the importance of medical information in relation to the assignment of impairment ratings. It is important to note that a job capacity assessor is in fact instructed by Department of Human Services guidelines that they must take into account all relevant supporting material, including the treating doctor’s report. They are specifically required to do that.

When we are making an assessment in terms of a particular disability and how it has an impact on people’s capacity to provide a certain amount of work, clearly there are aspects outside a medical officer’s capacity—for example, speech therapists and a whole range of other allied health professionals. There is no mischief in the intent of this. We are simply attempting to ensure that a whole suite of assessment that can be made is available for consideration, and this government amendment provides for just that.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not want to prolong this debate but really let us be clear what this amendment is. It deletes the reference to medical assessors so it is really beyond logic for the government to say that they are not diminishing their role. What is clear is that there is a removal by virtue of this amendment of a presumption in the act that a qualified medical practitioner should conduct certain assessments, particularly the assessment of impairment ratings using impairment tables set out in schedule 1B of the act. That is the purpose of this. So the government can engage in a whole range of sophistry about this but fundamentally they are deleting the reference to ‘medical officer’ in the act. They cannot say that they remain as important.

They then say that the job capacity assessor can have a look at what medical officers say. Let us be clear: we in the Labor Party do not believe that entitlement to disability support pensions should entirely be determined by medical assessors, but we do think that for the purposes of assessing the impairment against the impairment tables that is a function that ought to be undertaken by medical assessors. That is the concern being raised by the disability organisations. The government’s response to that, frankly, does not go to the argument. We do not believe that these amendments should proceed. Again, I remind the chamber of the dissenting report from Labor Party senators in this inquiry that this aspect of the bill should not proceed.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I support the senator in her interest in moving on from this argument. I know that there has been much debate on it and I have to confess that I do not have the hindsight from having listened to the contribution in the other place. I reiterate that the term ‘assessor’ clearly also includes a medical officer. There is no question that the term ‘assessor’ would include a medical officer. I point you to the position that a job capacity assessor is instructed by the Department of Human Services guidelines that they must—it is no choice; it is not a matter of ‘may’; it is a must—take into account all relevant supporting material, including the treating doctor’s report. As I am informed, and as I read the notes around this, Senator, the current situation concerning a medical officer is just simply to be able to give the assessor the capacity to refer to other assessors, and I think we will have a more comprehensive assessment of that to give recognition to the complex needs of the assessment at the end of the spectrum.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question is that items 37 to 46 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

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

I move the Greens amendment (19) on sheet 5394:

(19)  Schedule 1, item 47, page 10 (lines 11 to 17), omit all the words from and including “That day” to and including “new payment”.

We are opposing the application of section 12. Again, I will not take too much time, because I articulated our opposition to this amendment in my speech on the second reading. Section 12 allows the secretary to deem a person to have made a claim for a different income support payment where a person becomes qualified for it. Amendments to section 12 provide there can be no claims resulting from that section more than 13 weeks prior to a termination under that section. We have very strong concerns about this. We see no requirement for this amendment. Because some of this legislation and some of the entitlements are quite complex, very often people do not know that they are due different entitlements, that they are on another provision under the act or that they are eligible for other payments. When the government changed the back pay provisions for disability carers, we expressed similar concern that they were restricting people’s capacity to receive back pay in extremely difficult circumstances. Essentially the same arguments apply. We think this is quite mean spirited and do not support it. We think it is unfair to put that restriction on people. We believe this amendment should be opposed and urge the government, again, to rethink it. I also point out that community organisations making submissions to the inquiry pointed out the unfairness of this amendment, did not think it should go ahead and urged the committee to rethink it.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Social Security Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007 and Social Security Amendment (2007 Measures No. 2) Bill 2007 reported without amendment; report adopted.