Mrs DE-ANNE KELLY (9:25 PM) —I rise to speak on the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 1997 . There are a number of significant measures in this bill: amendments relating to income streams such that they are classified for means testing on the basis of their characteristics, rather than where the income came from; amendments relating to seasonal worker preclusion periods such that some high-income seasonal and contract workers have a period following the completion of their work or contract when they are unable to claim benefits; and lump sum payments received by social security recipients will be treated as either income over 12 months or as a deemed asset by aligning the treatment of lump sums with the previous ordinary income test.

But the most important measure is that related to extending the carer pension to families with profoundly disabled children under the age of 16 years. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman) must be congratulated on her sound management of her portfolio. While Labor was soft on social security fraud, our minister has been able to stamp it out to the tune of $28 million a week. At the same time she has been able to extend benefits to those who are most needy in our community and who have been dealt the most difficult of lives: the profoundly disabled.

I would like to give an overview of the situation facing those looking at disability services. I refer to the 1997 edition of Australia's Welfare—Disability Services. There are three dimensions of disability recognised in the international classification `disabilities and handicaps': impairment, which is loss or abnormality in body structure, physiological or psychological; activity, the nature and the extent of functioning at the level of the person; and participation, the nature and extent of involvement in the following domains—personal maintenance, mobility, exchange of information, social relationships, education, work, leisure and spirituality, economic life, and civic and community life.

The prevalence of disability was also studied in this report in the 1993 survey of disability, ageing and carers. Disability is the presence of one or more of 15 restrictions, limitations or impairments. In 1993 there were a total of 3,176,700 people with a disability. Of these, 2,031,900 were under the age of 65 years. The predominance is with males, who make up 54.4 per cent; females constitute 45.6 per cent. The age and sex standardised rates of severe and profound handicap have remained steady since 1981 at four per cent of the total population and 2.5 per cent of the population aged 15 to 64 years.

There have been a number of analyses of trends in disability in Australia, usually to determine the trends in health status and to ask the question: are we living longer but sicker? This has been examined and while life is extended the disability is found usually to be mild or moderate. Data is unreliable on the effect of disability related to injury. Mortality due to road injury has declined, though, over the last few years. Peri-natal data on congenital malformations, brought from the National Peri-natal Statistics Unit, show that rates of congenital malformation have been declining in the 1990s. This is certainly encouraging news.

As for peri-natal deaths due to congenital malformations, since 1973 there were 35.9 deaths per 10,000. That figure has now declined, as of 1994, to 17.5 per 10,000. Similar results are found with other defects such as spina bifida and congenital heart defects. Sadly, the number of induced abortions performed before 20 weeks has increased over the same period of time.

The trend to examine quality of life and the allocation of resources, the increase in medical technology, pregnancy testing and the trend to abortion will promote the idea of the `perfect' or `normal' human being. This puts enormous pressure on disabled people to justify their existence and their share of the world and its resources. They, like every human being, have an equal right to life and to quality of life.

I would like now to briefly dwell on the need for services. This was studied by the AIHW in 1995-96. It is going to be exacerbated by two factors: the ageing of those with a disability and the ageing of those who care for them. Those aged 45 years to 64 years with severe or profound handicaps are predicted to increase by 18.9 per cent between 1995 and the year 2001.

As I have said, the ageing of carers is already of severe concern. For those with a severe or profound handicap, there were 7,700 carers who were over the age of 65 years. I am sure we all see them in our electorates, as I do—parents who are in their 80s often caring for a disabled child who is now in their 50s. It is a great strain on them. When they inevitably either become too ill to go on and move into a home or perhaps pass on, what will happen to their child is of great concern to them.

The numbers of those with a profound or severe handicap are also predicted to increase. In 1993 there were 721,000 people. By the year 2001, there will be 861,500—an increase of 13.2 per cent. The challenge is certainly ahead for everyone of good intent to deal with the increasing number of disabled people.

I would like to mention some of the very positive changes that the government has made. In the 1996-97 budget there was $36.7 million provided in funding over four years for a national respite for carers program which proposed the establishment of one carer resource centre in each state and territory and 57 regionally based carer respite centres, one of which was placed in Mackay. It receives annual funding of $61,168 and is attached to the Uniting Church division of aged care and domiciliary services. The service covers all of the Mackay region, including the Pioneer Valley, Mirani, Nebo, Belyando, Broad Sound and Proserpine shires. It has one goal: to support the maintenance of the caring relationship. We are very proud of the efforts that it has made and certainly commend those who work in the Mackay Respite Centre.

I would like to turn again to a particular measure in the bill, which is the extension of the carers pension to those families with a profoundly disabled child under the age of 16 years. The member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) earlier asked a number of questions. She also said that, firstly, it would be of little benefit because many of those families already receive parenting allowance and special allowance. This is not so. The new carers pension is in fact a pension. There will be more benefits attached to it. There is a pensioner concession card and pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Also, such an allowance will be reviewed less often, so there are considerable advantages for those families who will be eligible for the carers pension.

The member for Jagajaga said that only 100 families would be eligible for such a payment. This is not so. She has not taken into account the differential—the difference between the special allowance or the parenting allowance and the carers pension. In fact, some 400 to 500 families will benefit from this provision in the bill. Who are they? They are the 400 to 500 people who received nothing under the Labor Party government in terms of a pension. One of those families is in my electorate. I see the daily struggle that they have with a 14-year-old profoundly disabled boy. Any additional benefit to them is going to enable them either to buy some more services for their son or to perhaps assist with some additional respite. But it is going to be a very welcome addition to what is one of the most difficult jobs demanded of any parent—that of caring for a profoundly disabled child.

The member for Jagajaga mentioned that the criteria are restrictive for under 16-year-olds compared with older profoundly disabled children. They are not as restrictive as the ones Labor put on it, because they did not extend the carers pension to people in this situation. It is really a case of saying, `We didn't do it, but we don't like the way you've gone out compassionately and done it.'

I am very proud that the government is going to extend an additional pension to 400 to 500 families, some of whom are in my electorate and desperately need any additional assistance they can get. The member for Jagajaga also mentioned that there might be particular cases, such as severe epilepsy, severe psychiatric conditions and so on, which may render a child ineligible to be classified as profoundly disabled. Looking at the criteria which make up the designation of `profoundly disabled', it would not be difficult to see that some of those conditions would certainly come into that category.

Again, that is something that Labor did not do. There will be 400 to 500 families, undertaking the most difficult and demanding job any parent could, who will be far better off under the proposals in this bill. They will have a pensioner concession card, additional pharmaceutical allowances and a more generous assets and income test so they can earn more income. They will be reviewed less often and there will be some easing of the tremendous load under which they are burdened.

I agree with the member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) that there can be few tasks as demanding as being a carer in our community. Those 1.5 million people who choose to care for somebody they love or somebody they know are people we should all respect. I know I certainly do. I see many of them who come into my electorate office, and they bear a burden that, I guess, God has saved the rest of us from having to undertake.

I commend this bill to the House. It contains some very compassionate measures, particularly this one. I would certainly like to see the bill supported by those on the other side of the House.