Page 1457 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 6 April 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
With that as the backdrop, we are now faced with Minister Burch committing to commissioning a study to, in her words, “seek to identify the extent of any demand and options for the delivery and location of a service” and with Ms Hunter, as per her motion today, wanting what is tantamount to an immediate announcement of funding. In this regard, if such a service were to be feasible it would have to be delivered under a sustainable operating model. Costs need to be considered. Alternative operating models need to be explored. Stakeholders need to be formally consulted, and the list goes on. Again, I stress that this is an issue that we need to get right. Failing this, even with the idealistic intentions of the Greens, they would end up doing more harm to the disability community than good.
These last few weeks of sittings have shown a Greens party that is so hungry for claiming the political win that it is willing to sacrifice the disability community for a photo op and a sound bite. We saw that this week with the Greens motion that wanted the government to implement a dedicated taxi service without proper due diligence and care for fiscal prudence, and today we see Ms Hunter’s motion, trying to force the hand of the government to establish after-school programs at our special schools without proper costings and a business model in place. Faced with a commissioned study to further look into the committee’s recommendation for after-school care or a rushed Greens motion that seeks to slam-dunk a problem, I think a study to consider viable after-school care models at our special schools in light of resource constraints is preferable—though the Canberra Liberals will continue to hold the government accountable.
That said, this Assembly needs to be reminded that oftentimes caregivers lose out on many things through bad arrangements. Their physical and mental health suffers and because they have to spend so much of their time and energy on the job caring, they lose important job market skills and capabilities. No decent community program or policy framework can guarantee all caregivers a happy life, but it should ensure some basic thresholds of normalcy in their lives. There is a tremendous amount of care work done that is unpaid and in many circumstances it is not formally considered work.
A just society would have enforceable mechanisms that would protect the exploitation of the caregiver and provide for adequate care support. It was not too long ago that the work of caring was the duty of a household member who did not need to work outside of the home. In many cases, this role fell to female members of the household. That said, it does not seem that much has changed in the present day. ABS figures show that 78 per cent of carers care for someone in the same household and 71 per cent of primary carers are women.
The fact is, we live in a social system that still sees the role of caring as something assumed. It is to be done for free, out of love. This imparts tremendous stress on carers, in particular women and their ability to be fully active members in our community. Regardless of whether the carer is male or female, old or young, the fact remains that good care support mechanisms would make the decision to care for a family member or a friend a true decision, not an imposition, and carers who have to care beyond their means need not feel guilty for their inability to care. This is true
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video