HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-11-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Carers Recognition (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 11 November 2025.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (11:05): I speak in favour of the Carers Recognition (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. Carers, as we know, are the quiet backbone in South Australia who—probably until more recent years, 20 or 30 years or so—have just gone about assisting loved ones often completely unrecognised and without any additional financial support. This has been and is being rectified over the years in terms of both formal financial support through Centrelink and Services Australia and through various state and federal governments recognising them and initiating charters and funding support services.

I would particularly like to commend the carers' organisations, whose boards are often substantially run by carers who, in addition to their own caring role, are doing that in a volunteer capacity. It is quite an extraordinary job to look out for people who would otherwise need to go into government-funded or government-supported services, either residential or the like. They really have been the unsung heroes in our society and should always be commended at every opportunity for the compassion and stoicism that they provide to the people whom they love.

This bill takes some steps towards modernising the South Australian Carers Recognition Act to better reflect the diversity and reality of caring. It expands the definition of a carer, updates and expands the Carers Charter, strengthens obligations on public sector agencies and departments, and requires regular statutory reviews.

Caring roles have evolved and, over time, our understanding of them has also evolved, and therefore our legislation needs to evolve with them. The updated charter explicitly acknowledges informal carers, including grandparents, siblings, kinship carers and others whose relationships have not previously been reflected in the act. This validates what people do day in and day out, often getting to the end of the day and being completely exhausted because they are doing two jobs. This bill will help.

There are unfortunately concerns that there may be some gaps that remain. Informal kinship carers who look after children continue to fall outside the definition of a care relationship if the child does not meet the criteria in the act. We do know that thousands of children in South Australia are being raised through informal kinship carers who prevent those young people from entering state care, and that is an absolutely critical role. It is much better than if the state was looking after them, quite frankly. Their contribution needs to be recognised as well.

The bill also implements stronger reporting requirements and brings public sector agencies into its scope. I understand that there are recommendations from the recent review that the government has chosen not to adopt, but we need to ensure that the act is strengthened, carers are recognised and that reviews are undertaken regularly so that people can be included because, yes, if they fall apart then there are lots of other consequences outside the trauma that they and the person they care for will experience. With those few words, I indicate support for the bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (11:10): I rise to speak briefly in support of the Carers Recognition (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, which we know follows the 2024 review of the Carers Recognition Act 2005 undertaken by the Department of Human Services, as well as the commonwealth's 2024 inquiry into carer recognition, which culminated in the release of the National Carer Strategy 2024-2034.

The bill seeks, as we have heard, to implement 21 of the 24 recommendations from the state review and to align South Australia's framework with the National Carer Strategy, promoting national consistency in the recognition and support of carers. Under the act a person is considered to be in a care relationship where they provide personal care, support or assistance to another person who meets at least one of the criteria outlined in the act. I will come back to that point in a moment in relation to one of the issues that has been raised with respect to this bill.

The bill also clarifies what is not considered a care relationship. It makes explicit that a paid contract-for-service arrangement, volunteer or community organisation work or care provided as part of an education or training program does not fall within the scope of the act. It also expands the reporting requirements and updates the Carers Charter to reflect the nationally consistent approach. It establishes a requirement for the act and the charter to be reviewed every five years. At present, the act applies only to seven public sector agencies. The bill will expand its coverage to all public sector agencies, thereby strengthening the whole-of-government responsibility to recognise and support carers.

It has been noted that about 13 per cent of Australians—more than 230,000 people—are carers. Their contribution is immense and can never be overstated. We are very fortunate in those cases to have people doing what they do in caring capacities. The number of carers is expected to continue to rise in the future as our population ages and the demand for informal care grows, and that is, I guess, what makes this framework so important. We have heard that there has been consultation on the bill involving around 30 non-government executive stakeholders. Many more public sector agencies and policy teams in other jurisdictions have also undertaken similar reforms.

I want to touch on the issue of grandcarers and kinship carers. I note that there was concern that this bill did not cover grandcarers specifically. I have thought about this in great detail, in terms of those concerns. The first and foremost point I would make is that this is about a nationally consistent approach, and in order to have a nationally consistent approach we follow the lead of what we have federally, so that inclusion would put us out of step with the definitions that apply federally, but I think there is a little bit more to it.

At the outset I thank Julia Overton, CEO of Carers SA, because I spent some time talking to her about this, and I think that was actually very useful in the context of what was considered. Of course we all have a great deal of sympathy, given that we have all worked over the years with these groups.

My starting point is that I am concerned that including grandcarers in this actually does not assist them; firstly, because the inclusion is not consistent with the commonwealth. There are the recommendations of the review of this, and the commonwealth inquiry into the recognition of unpaid carers was consistent with definitions between states and commonwealth, but it is, I think, quite fair to say that it could lead to confusion. Certainly one of the issues I discussed was what benefit would be served for grandcarers if they had that formal recognition under this act, how that would interact with their recognition under other and what I would call much more relevant pieces of legislation that exist in Human Services and DCP.

One of the things I am worried about is undermining their role by giving them recognition, because the reality is that all you would get in this bill is recognition. Nothing else attaches to that, it is just recognition, whereas there are other very important pieces of legislation which apply to those groups that should and can provide much more than just the formal recognition. That formal recognition under this act does not give rise to access to anything at a commonwealth level or a state level. That is the first point ,and one that cannot be understressed.

In addition to that, having spoken again to Ms Overton, even on the face of it the concern is that the meaning of care relationship and carer will not include grandcarers or kinship carers. I think it is fair to say that Ms Overton just does not agree with that proposition because, by virtue of the fact that you are in the position where you are, for instance, raising your grandchildren, there is scope to fit within these provisions that relate to the meaning of care relationship and carer. I accept the points Ms Overton has made in relation to that.

We were talking about having discussed this with her, and said, 'Well, how would you consider that they fit into this?' Yes, there may not be a person with a disability or somebody who is experiencing mental ill health, or a medical position. The fact that there is a provision in here that says the other person is frail due to age, it is also not limited to old age. Then there are references to the issue of alcohol or other drug dependency, and of course any other reason prescribed by regulation.

I take on board the feedback I have had from Ms Overton in relation to that. She does not see that as an exclusion of those groups, she certainly does not see it as an exclusion of grandcarers. Indeed, I think she sees it as quite the opposite; that, again, by virtue of the fact that you are in this situation where you are the grandcarer of a grandchild, that in and of itself may give rise to falling within the meaning of care relationship and carer.

As I said at the outset, I maintain that there are other pieces of legislation that are much more critical to those carers than this one is. This one is—I am not going to call it symbolic; I do not mean that disrespectfully—but it is a recognition. It does not follow from that that you necessarily have any entitlements. Certainly, you do not have the entitlements at the commonwealth level, because the commonwealth definition does not include those groups.

Again, this piece of legislation will be subject to further review, but right now the importance of reaching that nationally consistent approach—which is what this is aimed at—and ensuring there is recognition is vitally important. We can hand over to the scheme coming into effect, coming into play, and see how that pans out in line with the advice I have been provided about whether somebody would or would not fit within the scope of this. As I said, there are other pieces of legislation that I think are much more critical in terms of providing not just recognition but something that attaches to that recognition.

All the discussion we have around these arrangements when it comes to kinship carers and grandcarers is that they ought to have something attached to their relationship with a person they care for. That simply does not exist under this bill. It is on that basis that I am satisfied with the information and response that I have received to date.

We know these are unique and complex caring relationships, which can include grandparents, siblings, family friends, kinship care, particularly amongst our diverse ethnic groups and our Aboriginal collective kinship care groups, and other family and kinship relationships. We accept that they should be supported, as the government has said, irrespective of any ambiguity around guardianship or legal status.

However, when it comes to some of these groups, firstly, I think the intent is that they would be covered in any event, and secondly, the important thing is that you do not just have recognition but that something follows from that recognition. This bill does not deliver that, not at this point in time anyway. It may very well in the future, but it does not right now, so there is room to revisit this and consider this further after its implementation. But I hasten to say that I would hate to see something done that actually undermines a person's ability to have a formal recognition and entitlements under a different piece of legislation.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (11:21): I rise to offer my support for the Carers Recognition (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2025. The bill acknowledges the vital role of unpaid carers in our community and is intended to ensure that government agencies provide appropriate assistance and support for carers as well as effective consultation about programs and policies. The bill also includes a Carers Charter, which highlights the importance of maintaining the health and wellbeing of carers, as well as recognising informal carers such as grandparents, siblings, family friends and other kinship relationships.

While I fully support the acknowledgement of informal carers, in particular the vital contribution that grandcarers continue to make to our communities, I am concerned that the bulk of this bill will not achieve what many carers so desperately need. Carers need more than recognition. They need direct and concrete support from government agencies such as the Department for Child Protection, rather than statements about how much carers are valued.

Unfortunately, some of the praise offered by this chamber today will appear as empty words to carers such as Leah Terry, who has tirelessly and continuously called for support and assistance from the DCP and the government to provide her with the medical and disability equipment she so desperately needs to provide appropriate palliative care for her foster daughter Grace. Leah has also informed my office that not only has DCP provided less than adequate support for Grace; the department has actually withdrawn some of Grace's services and funding. According to Leah this case is not the only one where a carer of a disabled child has not received appropriate levels of assistance and support.

Consequently, while it is definitely worthwhile and warranted to acknowledge the great work that thousands of carers do in our community, and it is also important to highlight the impact that the job of caring has on the wellbeing of carers, we should not let this provide any cover for the ongoing concerns and serious issues in this space that have still not been addressed. Until we can truly and legitimately back up these statements and intentions about how much we value carers with some tangible actions, it will be difficult for carers to accept these measures before us today.

That being said, I do offer my full support for this bill and acknowledge the need to recognise the contribution of all carers as a significant initial step towards improving the lives of carers. However, it must not end with this. It must be accompanied by a genuine commitment to enact further measures that will empower and support our carers to continue their invaluable and challenging work.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (11:23): I rise today to speak in support of the amendments in the Carers Recognition (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. At the outset I want to acknowledge the enormous contribution that carers make to our communities. They are the quiet backbone of our state. For many carers the load is carried in private, often with little recognition and limited support. It is therefore essential that our legislation keeps pace with their lived experience and properly reflects their role.

This bill introduces important updates. It will broaden and clarify the definition of 'carer', so it better reflects the diverse types of caring relationships; expand the act's coverage and reporting requirements and modernise the Carers Charter; and require a review every five years, ensuring the legislation remains relevant.

Carers are parents, partners, children and siblings, extended family, friends and neighbours who step in to help someone who is living with disability, illness, frailty, mental ill health or other complex challenges. Their work holds families together, strengthens communities, and saves governments.

In 2024, the Department of Human Services undertook a thorough review of the act, while the commonwealth government completed its own inquiry and released the National Carer Strategy 2024-2034. More than 2,000 carers participated in these processes. Their lived experiences, insights, and voices are at the heart of the reforms we bring forward today.

A central purpose of this bill is to align South Australia's legislation with the National Carer Strategy, ensuring that carers are defined, recognised and supported consistently across the country. If passed, this will make South Australia the first jurisdiction in the nation to achieve this alignment.

There are an estimated 236,600 carers in South Australia, making up 13 per cent of our population. Across Australia, the demand for unpaid care is expected to increase by 23 per cent between 2020 and 2030, while the number of people stepping into caring roles is projected to rise by only 16 per cent. The urgency of making sure our legislation is responsive and meaningful is highlighted by this growing gap.

The bill applies to all public sector agencies, not just the seven currently covered. The definition of 'carer' will focus on when a care relationship exists and removes the requirement that the care provided must be ongoing. The bill clearly acknowledges caring for people with medical conditions, terminal illnesses, dementia, and alcohol or other drug dependence. It replaces 'mental illness' with 'mental ill health', a term that is a more respectful way of describing people's experiences and fits better with contemporary mental health practice.

The bill removes section 5(3), which has long caused confusion, and clarifies that 'relevant services' refers to services designed for carers and the person they care for, not generic services that carers may incidentally access. Obligations on applicable organisations will be expressed more clearly, including a requirement that internal HR policies have due regard to the Carers Charter.

For the first time, a new, contemporary Carers Charter will be adopted. It will reflect the national strategy and explicitly acknowledge informal kinship carers, sibling carers, Aboriginal collective kinship care arrangements, and others who have felt unseen in the past.

Finally, the bill makes consequential amendments to three acts within the Attorney-General's portfolio, so that removing the 'ongoing care' requirement does not have unintended effects elsewhere in the law. Carers give so much time, energy, and compassion so that others can live with dignity and support. I commend the bill to the chamber.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Autism) (11:29): I thank the honourable members who have spoken on this bill before us today: the Hon. Michelle Lensink, the Hon. Connie Bonaros, the Hon. Sarah Game and the Hon. Tung Ngo.

As we all know in this place, the best bills that come before us are those that have been highly consulted on, and this is one such bill, with over 2,000 carers, 30 non-government stakeholders and 95 public sector leaders who shared their insights into crafting and bringing this bill before us today. As everyone has rightfully highlighted, in the chamber today we all know volunteers play a significant role in our lives but particularly our carers. We understand there are about 245,000 carers in South Australia and to each and every one of them we say thank you, and we say thank you through this bill in recognising your service.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1 passed.

The CHAIR: Are there any contributions on clauses 2 to 9?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I have a question, but I am not sure which clause it is at. I refer to my second reading contribution and, indeed, the discussions I have had with government and Carers SA to confirm that in the case of grandcarers there is not an explicit exclusion from the scope of this bill and those categories may very well include grandcarers and other informal carers within them, regardless of whether it may not be apparent on the face of it through the definition that is in the bill.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: The honourable member is correct. They are not excluded if the person they are caring for meets the criteria that is set out.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: And that is not necessarily limited by age, so if somebody is frail, for instance, that is not limited to somebody who is frail because they are old, it may be because they are frail because they are young and, by virtue of the fact that—as Ms Overton said—a grandcarer, for instance, is caring for a grandchild, the circumstances around that may very well be enough to bring them within those existing definitions that have been put in the bill.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: You have put that perfectly, and that is correct, as I am advised.

Remaining clauses (2 to 9), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Autism) (11:34): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT