The Greens share the concerns articulated today by Senator Wong and Senator Bartlett.

But today I want to focus on one particular area of the Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Other Measures) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006. I have circulated an amendment to this legislation to deal with an issue that I have been raising repeatedly about this legislation whenever I can. That is the issue of family carers.

Before I go into some of the broader issues as they relate to family carers, I want to go through a short history of this legislation and a few of the changes that were, thankfully, made to it. When this legislation was first talked about, only biological parents of young children under the school age of six were to be exempted from it and from the requirements under Welfare to Work. When there was community outrage about the fact that this would unfairly affect carers, and in particular foster carers-and the Greens were very outspoken about this as well-the government, thankfully, saw that the changes did disadvantage foster carers and it made changes to exempt foster carers from this legislation. Unfortunately, at the time family carers were left out.

Family carers carry out the same responsibilities as foster carers, and therefore are subject to the same disadvantages or pressures that this legislation places on foster carers. In fact, many would argue that family carers face even more trauma than foster carers, because often they are caring for children who have been subjected to extremely traumatic circumstances. Not only are they looking after the children but they are dealing with family crises and with other family members. So I believe that the arguments for foster carers being exempt from this legislation apply just as much, if not more, to family carers.

Some people in this chamber may be aware that I have raised this issue here in this place and repeatedly in estimates, asking questions about how family carers are being looked after. When I raised this question during the debate in the Committee of the Whole on the legislation in the first place, I was assured that few children would be affected by this legislation-the children that are being cared for by family carers. I quote Hansard, in which the Special Minister of State, Senator Abetz, said:

Hopefully-and I think we would all be in agreement on this-the number of children involved in this situation would be small.

Unfortunately he got it wrong. In January this year the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare released its report, Child protection in Australia 2004-05. It did a survey of children placed in out-of-home care; in other words, children not living at home, whether they be in foster care, family or kinship care, or residential care. The report found that 40 per cent, or almost half, of children placed in out-of-home care-I emphasise 'placed in out-of-home care', and I will come back to that-are placed in family or kinship care. That is 9,435 kids.

Twelve thousand, six hundred and eighty kids are placed in foster care and 939 kids are placed in residential care. Almost half of all kids who are placed in out-of-home care are placed with family carers. So much for the small number placed with family carers; it is almost as many as are placed with foster carers. So the argument that only a small number of children are placed in family care so we do not need to worry about them because the vast majority is in foster care is blown out of the water. If you are just relying on numbers, it is almost the same. On numbers alone the argument should be that the same exemption should apply to family carers as applies to foster carers.

But the report also found that the number of children being placed in out-of-home care is going up yearly. On 30 June 1996 there were 13,979 children in out-of-home care. On 30 June 2005 there were 23,695.

That is an increase from three per thousand to 4.9 per thousand. Further, the figures show that this is a yearly increase. So we can expect that there will be more and more children placed in out-of-home care, whether it be foster care or family care.

That is a 70 per cent increase over that nine-year period. I would argue that is a significant increase.

Unfortunately, the figures also point out that, proportionally, more Aboriginal children are going into out-of-home care.

There were 5,678 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids in out-of-home care in June 2005. This is an increase of 619 since June 2004. About 26 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children per 1,000 are in out-of-home care versus about four non-Aboriginal children per 1,000.

Aboriginal children are six times more likely to be in out-of-home care. The point here is that Aboriginal families are much more likely to be affected by these changes than non-Aboriginal families. There are also greater impacts for large urban Aboriginal populations. Nearly nine children per 1,000 in the Northern Territory, nearly 21 children per 1,000 in Queensland and nearly 23 children per 1,000 in Western Australia are in out-of-home care, whereas in Victoria it is nearly 41 per 1,000 and in New South Wales it is nearly 40 per 1,000. In other words, it is Aboriginal urban populations that are being more strongly affected by these changes.
I would like to reiterate that we are talking about 9½ thousand children. This is a large percentage of children who are being affected. The trend is increasing. It impacts most significantly on Aboriginal families, particularly urban ones. These figures are for children who are placed in family care. It is likely to underestimate the number of kids in family care, because many children are placed in family care informally-in other words, the families step in and take care of the children before it comes to the attention of the department. They are struggling to deal with the trauma of children in family care and take it upon themselves, without intervention.

During various opportunities in estimates I asked a number of questions on this issue because I am deeply concerned about the adverse impact this is going to have on the families that provide family and kinship care and, of course, the impact that that necessarily has on the children in their care. I have been told that this is a policy decision of government. The agency, it seems, is not able to deal with it very well. In fact, I have had very unsatisfactory answers to my questions about it. I have been mainly told that this is about foster carers. It was a political decision, a policy decision, taken by government to look after foster carers. It is one I very strongly support, but it is also one I am very greatly disappointed about, in that it is not picking up a large cohort of carers and the children they care for.

I also understand that there are going to be some guidelines on this issue, but it is not regulation and it is not in the legislation. They are not being given the same protection, support and exemption that foster carers and the children in that foster care receive. I believe it is much better to acknowledge and to protect the large contribution made by family and kinship carers and their rights. It is in the best interests of the children to protect them under the law and to protect them under the same exemption that the foster carers have. I believe the place to do this is in a provision under the act.

We need to understand the situation of family carers. Often, as I said before, they take over the care of children in extremely difficult and traumatic circumstances. I suggest to you that there are no circumstances under which children move out of parental care into either foster care or family care where there are not difficult and traumatic circumstances.

In many circumstances, the children who go into family care have suffered and, unfortunately, have been subject to abuse.

They need extra support and extra counselling, which means, for example, taking children out of school during the day to counselling sessions often a number of times a week. This applies not only to children under the age of six but, in many cases, to children of all school ages, and they all need support. Sometimes it is very sudden; other times it is a gradual thing where, over a period of time, as circumstances become more difficult, family and kinship carers find that they have been handed over the care of children. Often this is informal, and they do not approach agencies, so they are not registered as foster carers are registered-and I will come back to that point in a minute. Often they do not want to be washing their so-called dirty linen in public. They do not want to be telling an agency what is going on in their family. They are just doing it.

The process can be messy. Sometimes it is only temporary and sometimes it is a long time before the process is finalised.

People have to go to court, and it can take up to 18 months or longer to have the formal responsibility and care of the children in your family. Sometimes there is a source of conflict within families over what is in the best interests of the child, whether the child should stay with the parents or whether aunts, uncles or grandparents should step in and provide care for children. Sometimes there is a death or disability, and this can be drawn out. So formal custody is not taken over straightaway. Sometimes they go into family care over a protracted period of time as a person, for example, gradually becomes sicker or goes in and out of hospital.

As I said, it is often under tragic circumstances, where the trauma of loss can be overwhelming. Families go into denial and they have an attitude of, 'We can cope.' It is not until they reach a point of financial crisis that they reach out for help. But they still need that help, whether or not they have formally registered for it and formally registered for income support for the children. They should still be supported and they should not be required to undertake all the strenuous activity that is associated with the new Welfare to Work process. The other complicating factor here is that different states and territories have different rules about the register for foster carers and whether they register family or kinship carers and what that register means. It is not standard across Australia. Some states have registers for family carers-for example, I understand the ACT does-and some do not, and it is very hard to find that information.

The other thing is that family carers are much less likely to know their rights and have access to formal channels of support than foster carers. There are foster carers associations and registers of foster carers. Various government agencies have foster carers registers. You have to go through a process to become a foster carer.

So foster carers know their rights, but it is more than likely that very often family carers do not know theirs. They do not know where they can get information from. They do not know what support they can get from Centrelink, for example, or from other government agencies in their states.

Therefore, communication and education is critical, but it is very difficult for this group. There is no obligation, as far as I am aware, for carers and family carers to be told of any support that they could receive.

Under estimates questioning, DEWR has acknowledged that the legislation is inconsistent for foster carers and family carers, that there is a significant number of family carers-and that has been pointed out in the report, so it could hardly deny it-and that the work they do is the same as that of foster carers. DEWR also acknowledged that most states and territories do not register or authorise family care in a way that fits into the act. But it states that the exemption of the family carers-I come back to it-was a government policy decision. It is a government policy decision that I believe is badly flawed. The legislation is inconsistent for these groups of children and for these carers. One set of children is advantaged because they have the exemption and their carers are covered by the exemption. Another set of children-an equal number, almost; and, in fact, if you include informal care, more children are covered-does not have the advantage of this exemption. How is that fair? How is that just?

These are our future generations. These are the children that are most disadvantaged in our society. It can be easily dealt with. Accept the amendment that the Greens will move to support family carers and give them equality with foster carers. You have done the right thing in acknowledging the hard work of foster carers. It was supported by the community. It was supported by everybody. There was acknowledgment of the work that foster carers do. Family carers do the same amount of work. Why aren't they subject to and given the support of this exemption? There are problems that need to be sorted out at the state level-there is no doubt about that. There are problems about legitimisation and registration of family and kinship carers. But the Commonwealth needs to provide the lead on this. They need to change the legislation to include family carers.

The other thing is that you need to make sure that it is for children over six, because children over six are traumatised by the terrible circumstances which lead to them being in care. The fundamental issue here is the welfare of children in extremely difficult circumstances. The point is to give them a chance to lead worthwhile, meaningful and productive lives in spite of the many and deep crises and extra challenges they face. This is through no fault of their own. Through no fault of their own they are starting a step back from everybody else in the first place.

What matters is their welfare and that we as legislators are prepared to provide support to the people who love and care for them. We are talking about people who sacrifice a great deal to look after these children in often tragic circumstances and in circumstances where they are often dealing with their own sense of loss and grief. They are prepared to take on the extra responsibilities. We should be prepared to support and help them and not add to their burden. I will be moving the amendment to this legislation during the committee stage. I really hope the government can find it in their hearts to support this small amendment that would mean so much to so many children.

EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (WELFARE TO WORK AND OTHER MEASURES) (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2006

In Committee

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia) (6.23 p.m.)-I would also like to respond to some statements that Senator Abetz made. I have not been provided with that information-and this is why I have learnt to be more specific in my estimates questions. Senator Abetz will probably recall that in our last estimates I was trying to be very specific about getting specific answers to my questions additionally. When I asked this question in February, the response I got was: 'Yes, the department has been thinking about it'-words to that effect; I do not have them in front of me-and that they have been consulting. I was not told what the outcomes of that consultation were. I have merely been told that meetings were being undertaken, so I have not been given that answer. I have had a very short answer.

There may be further answers. That is why I asked for a lot more detail during the May estimates, which unfortunately the department was not able to give me.

There is still no accurate understanding of what different states' registers do and do not cover-some states cover family carers; other states do not-and what the definition of carers is. That is what I understand from answers that I received from estimates-or in fact did not receive in estimates. That is how it currently stands.

I want to reiterate: family carers do the same job as foster carers and, in many circumstances, under even more traumatic circumstances. They do the same things.

Treat them the same in the legislation.

Give them the same provisions as foster carers are given. It is much more complicated for family carers than it is for foster carers and, because many of them do it in informal circumstances, they probably have less opportunity to understand and fewer ways of finding out what their rights are and what support they can access. I still fail to see why family carers cannot be given the same provisions as foster carers. It would make implementation of this program much easier for everybody if they were treated the same.

The answer that was given was that they still-I did not write the exact words down-have an obligation, and the best thing for families is that people are in work. Yes, in most circumstances it is, but when you are caring for children and, in many cases, you are caring for three or four children, it is impossible. Your first obligation has to be the care and support of the children in your care. That is why the government saw fit to bring in amendments to look after foster carers. They should be doing the same thing for family carers. The minister just explained the provisions, which I believe are inadequate, that will attempt to look after family carers. We will be watching the implementation of these provisions very closely to see if they in fact provide the same cover and support for family carers. I doubt that they are going to. I think they are going to be much more complicated. I believe that the amendment I am moving is a much better way to deal with this issue.

EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (WELFARE TO WORK AND OTHER MEASURES) (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2006

In Committee

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia) (6.09 p.m.)-I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 4954:

(1) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 7), after item 1, insert:

1A After section 5B

Insert:
5BA Registered and active family carers
(1) A person is a registered and active family carer if the Secretary is satisfied that:

(a) the person meets the requirements (if any) of the law of the State or Territory in which the person resides that the person must meet in order to be permitted, under the law of that State or Territory, to provide family care in that State or Territory; and

(b) the person meets the requirements (if any) of the law of the State or Territory in which the person resides that the person must meet in order to be permitted, under the law of that State or Territory, to be in receipt of child care support payment as a family carer in that State or Territory; and

(c) the person is taken, in accordance with guidelines made under subsection (2), to be actively involved in providing family care in that State or Territory.

(2) The Secretary may, by legislative instrument, make guidelines setting out the circumstances in which persons are taken, for the purposes of the social security law, to be actively involved in providing family care in that State or Territory.

During my contribution in the second reading debate, I articulated the reasons why I think this amendment giving an exemption to family carers is particularly important. I will highlight those very briefly again. I appreciate that Senator Adams addressed the issue of family carers but, while I acknowledge that some attempt has been made to address these issues, I do not think the measures the government has taken adequately protect family carers. I do not believe this bill gives them the same protection that foster carers have.

Because of the difficulties that I have explained previously about family carers not being registered and different states having different registers, the fact is that family carers are different from foster carers.

In the second reading debate, I also went through the history of how this issue had developed. I said how extremely pleased I was that the government had moved to exempt foster carers from this legislation. And I believe I gave very compelling evidence about the number of children who are affected by these changes but not protected under the foster carer provisions because they are in family care and family carers are not adequately protected under this legislation.

I believe the amendment I have moved is essential to give proper and due protection to family carers and the nearly 9½ thousand children in family care. I reiterate that these are the children who are placed in family care. I believe that there are probably nearly as many children in informal family care as there are placed in formal family care. This is particularly so in Aboriginal communities-and I articulated the number of children in Aboriginal communities who are in family or kinship care. The figures that I was talking about are for those who are formally placed in family and kinship care. Once again, I believe that the actual numbers are probably far greater. These people who are providing family and kinship care to children need all the support that we as a community and this government can provide, to ensure that these children grow up to be fully functioning members of our community.

I beseech senators to look into their hearts and support this amendment so that we give family carers every encouragement we can to ensure that their task of looking after these children is easier. These are the children of Australia who are in crisis, who are suffering trauma and who have in many cases, unfortunately, been subject to abuse, which is why they are in family or kinship care. We should take every step and make every effort and every endeavour possible to make their lives even one little bit easier.