Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Local Government) Share this | Hansard source

I am sure that no-one here would doubt the intentions or motivations of others in this place about the purposes of reforms that are brought in terms of aged care. I think we all want the best for the older Australians who have served our country well and in all of our electorates we would be aware of countless great Australians who, now in their advancing years, are in the position where they are required to be in forms of care. It is the intention of all of us that that care be as great, as significant and as compassionate as possible.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

In resuming, I note again the earnest intention of all members of this House to seek to provide support for those older Australians in our care. But one of the things I would also note today, on the anniversary of the election of the Rudd government, is that you need to deal with the issues that are in front of you. What we have in the Aged Care Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008 are some very marginal measures, I think. There are some big challenges in the area of aged care, and those challenges relate fundamentally, of course, to the issue of capital investment and the provision of facilities that meet changing needs. This bill deals with increased regulation. I do not wish to diminish the issues that the increased regulation seeks to address, but nonetheless I think it is very important for us to be very mindful of the fact that, if we are to provide for an increasingly ageing population, it really must be all hands to the wheel. It really must be about ensuring that the private sector, the not-for-profit sector and the government sector all work together to bring increased resources to bear. Where that cannot be done directly by the public sector, we need to ensure that we have an arrangement in aged care that enables the not-for-profit sector and the private sector to work together constructively.

The Howard government was elected in 1996 and began its reforms to aged care in 1997 with the new Aged Care Act. It dealt with many issues and aged-care principles: it introduced a unified residential care and payment system, it introduced a national quality assurance framework for residential aged care and it combined accreditation, certification and the Aged Care Complaints Investigation Scheme, to name just a few of the initiatives brought in by the Howard government. Now that the Rudd government has been in office for a year, I would have expected, after having looked intently at this area for the past year, that we would have seen more than we are seeing in this bill.

This bill reflects the changing nature of the aged-care sector, as was held out by the Minister for Ageing. In her second reading speech, she stated:

… a different model of aged care has emerged, one in which the owner and operator of a facility have distinct roles and responsibilities and may function quite separately.

Despite these changes, she said:

The regulatory framework has not kept pace with this shift in business practice.

She went on to say that it is also understood that the current regulations provide ‘limited capacity for the Department of Health and Ageing to consider the record of “related entities” when making decisions about approvals’ under the Aged Care Act. The minister said that this ‘limits the ability of the department to make an informed assessment of a company’s record in service delivery and its suitability to be approved to deliver care’, and that it is expected that the changes outlined in the bill will hold ‘large aged-care providers as accountable as smaller ones’.

When we think about who is going to be making these decisions and making the judgements about all these things, we need to reflect on something that Malcolm Turnbull, the Leader of the Opposition, said today at the National Press Club, when he talked about the difference between the coalition’s approach to policy and the approach of the government. It is very much the view of those on this side of the House that it is the objective of government to enable all Australians out there to deliver the things that they can deliver to make Australia a better place—to let them be empowered to go forward, make decisions, make investments, work in this sector and do all the things that are necessary. This is different from the view of the government, which will tell you what needs to be done.

In this bill we run the risk of going down that path. It really is looking to increase regulation in a sector where too much regulation, too much oversight, too much compliance and too much filling in of forms runs the risk of making what is already a very marginal investment even more marginal. We know what happens when investments become too marginal: they become nonexistent. In the current climate, we have a global credit crisis and access to finance is difficult enough as it is. We have the challenge being faced by aged-care providers, who, in order to get new facilities established, must rely on people who are looking to move into care to sell their current homes before doing so. So there are already an enormous number of constraints and pressures on the viability of this industry. While this bill may look at specific individual regulatory changes at the margin and increasing the regulatory burden—and I grant that in some cases that may be warranted—we also must be mindful that doing so may put the broader aged-care system under a great deal of strain.

The bill also proposes the changes to further protect accommodation bonds that are held on behalf of residents. This scheme was put in place by the coalition government in 2005 to strengthen the protection surrounding accommodation bonds through the introduction of new prudential regulatory arrangements. The scheme guarantees the repayment of bond balances if a provider becomes insolvent or bankrupt. The minister has said that experience has shown some areas where the protection for residents could be strengthened. This bill addresses these issues to ensure that accommodation bonds are fully protected under the guarantee scheme.

The changes made by the previous government establish a guarantee scheme where the Australian government would pay 100 per cent of the bond balance owed to residents should an aged-care provider become insolvent or bankrupt and unable to meet its financial obligations to residents. The scheme also enables the government to become a creditor of the insolvent provider to recover debt-associated costs. The government also has the ability to levy other providers holding bonds to recover debts left by the defaulting provider from the wider industry.

I have a particular interest in these issues because of the ageing of the population, particularly in my own electorate of Cook in Sydney’s Sutherland shire, where there are approximately 34,200 persons aged 55 and over, according to the last census. Although the proportion of Sutherland shire’s residents aged between 60 and 69 is 8.3 per cent, there are a number of very discrete suburbs in my electorate where it is far higher: Kareela is 15.7 per cent, Sylvania Waters and Taren Point are 11.7 per cent, and Sylvania and Kangaroo Point are at 11½ per cent. Whereas the 70 to 84 age group makes up 8.1 per cent of the total Sutherland shire population, it is much higher for four suburbs in my electorate: again, over 10 per cent in Caringbah, Yowie Bay, Miranda and Caringbah South. An undeniable fact is that the population of the Sutherland shire is getting older. Statistics released by Sutherland Shire Council indicate that, between the 2001 census and 2006 census, the only four age groups to increase in size were between 50 and 59, 60 and 69, 70 and 84 and those aged 85 and over. All other age brackets fell in terms of their size. The 55 to 64 age group increased by 17.3 per cent between 2000 and 2006, although the 65-plus age group also increased by 8.4 per cent in the same period.

Not only is the population of the Sutherland shire getting older; the older age groups are making up a larger proportion of the total population. In its long-term plan, Sutherland Shire Council has identified that by 2020 about 40 per cent of the shire’s population will be aged over 55 years. In response to this data, Sutherland Shire Council has commenced the process of preparing a comprehensive strategy to meet the needs of the Sutherland shire’s ageing population. Indeed, prior to the last election, one of the key issues I put to my community going to the election was working together with the council and with all others who wished, particularly in the private and not-for-profit sector, to develop a long-term plan for the ageing of the population in the Sutherland shire. This is a very significant issue for our community.

The biggest issue that we face in our community is not the regulation, and it is not the issues that are addressed in this bill. It is the sheer, urgent need to find further accommodation for people who need it in our community. Our community is a very tight community. Many people in our community, particularly our older Australians, came to the shire after the Second World War. Many of them are veterans and they made our community what it is today. The idea that, by having to go into some form of care they would have to leave this community and go outside this community and live somewhere else—cut off from their community ties and cut off from where their families, their grandchildren and others are being raised—is a matter of extreme concern to them and a matter of extreme concern to me.

In order to deal with these issues we must do something about the development of aged accommodation in the Sutherland shire. That requires some urgent action at a planning and council level and it also requires this government, having come to government, to deal with the challenges of government—that is, to look at the issues of capital needs and the return on capital for investment in the aged-care sector. This is the challenge they need to face. These are the challenges you face when you come to government. It is not all smooth sailing. You cannot just come in and announce a whole range of things that do not cost any money. The surplus is being spent on a daily basis, which is why the decisions we make on how the surplus is spent are so important. You can only spend it once. Once it is spent, it is gone. We are very keen to ensure that, as we move forward, older Australians are not ignored in the process of how we invest that all-important surplus.

I will make some comments specifically about the New South Wales planning laws—in the context of this bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, aware of the concerns of those opposite that we might roam and not be very focused on the bill. The reason I raise the New South Wales laws is that they are critical to the issue of ensuring that we address the need to get investment in aged-care accommodation. By way of background, planning for aged care in New South Wales has been the responsibility of the New South Wales Department of Planning. The department established a set of standard planning controls applying to the aged-care sector known as SEPP, the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004. The planning controls for aged care fell within the provisions of SEPP No. 5, which was gazetted in 1982. In 2004, Minister Knowles commenced a review of the planning controls applying to aged persons. The review was necessary to deal with community concerns that housing for older persons was being abused, with dwellings being occupied by younger persons as a way of getting around height restrictions under other planning laws.

The New South Wales government made significant changes to SEPP 5, and a new policy called SEPP Seniors Living was introduced in May 2004. This was a blanket policy applying across the state; however, councils could seek exemptions from the policy if they could demonstrate that local policies adequately provided for the supply of housing for seniors. The main aspects of the state government policy were to set aside local policies that would prevent the development of housing for older Australians, to set design principles that would be followed to respond to the characteristics of a site, and to ensure that appropriate support services were provided in aged-care facilities. A major policy revision was gazetted in September 2007 which saw the requirement of a site compatibility certificate introduced. These certificates were obtained from the Department of Planning and were intended to avoid situations where aged-care developments were being proposed on flood-prone or bushfire-affected land. They were an acknowledgement that these types of developments were, ideally, not located in hazardous sites affected by bushfire or flooding.

Another recent change was the introduction of what became known as vertical villages. A vertical village is aged care that is provided in a multi-storey building. The policy allows the development of a vertical village on sites where apartment buildings are ordinarily permitted. These developments would provide high-rise aged care in areas located in close proximity to community services such as shops and health facilities. A requirement of these types of developments is that they provide on-site support services.

I stop here to mention that in virtually all of our communities around Australia, particularly in the suburbs, there is a real reluctance to engage in developments of high-rise buildings. It is often said that what prevents that is the NIMBY syndrome, but the point I would make about that is simply that such communities have a justifiable concern: they are reluctant to allow high-rise developments in our suburbs because they know, based on experience, particularly in my home state, that the infrastructure that is needed to support a large population is not being provided. It is absolutely essential that we develop a greater willingness and acceptance of the need to provide these types of aged-care facilities around the country, but to do that we have to understand the links between allowing a taller building to go up in a particular place and having community support for that, and the failure to deliver infrastructure—particularly in Sydney, I would stress—across suburban areas which makes communities reluctant to accept that type of development. So we need to continue to have planning policies that are very friendly to the development of aged-care accommodation as a priority.

This also goes to people who have a disability and who have been looked after for many years by older carers. As they get older and their carers, sadly, pass away, they need to move into accommodation, and it is much better for them to move into that accommodation when they are in their 50s rather than in their 60s, and before the terrible day comes when their carer actually passes away.

All those types of housing—and we are talking about housing—are necessary to support our older population so that they can enjoy quality of life in their retirement years. We need to get the planning rules right, we need to get community acceptance and, most importantly, I think, we need to get a much closer relationship in the investment sector between the not-for-profit entities and the private entities.

I would commend to the government the idea of looking through the tax treatment of aged-care accommodation. I would refer them, as I have referred the Minister for Housing in relation to the National Rental Affordability Scheme, to look more closely at what happens in the United States regarding the provision of tax credits, which provides a very useful way—handed out by state entities, but in our case it could be done by local government entities—of being able to sit in a room with those seeking to develop aged-care accommodation and deal with the financial incentives, concomitant with planning incentives and site availability, to ensure we get the accommodation where it needs to be.

The return on capital is something that we cannot ignore if we are to expect anyone other than the public sector to be involved in providing aged care in our community. It is as fundamental to getting the situation right as any aspect of regulation. There is an important role for regulation, but we must ensure there is a return on capital. It is a wise policy to encourage older Australians to remain in their homes and communities for as long as possible, but we must remember it is the case that, when the day comes for an older Australian and their partner—or without their partner—to go into care, their level of need is likely to be higher. When that level of need is higher, so are the costs. It is not just the recurrent costs but the capital costs of providing for that care. So, if we look at that, we also need to understand that at the end of the day that is going to place further strain on the investment in and financial viability of those projects when they ultimately go to market.

The point I am trying to make is that, in order to deal with the challenges of ageing, it will not be solved by one bill. I am disappointed that the bill has only dealt with some very low-order issues, some very marginal issues, after 12 months. This is the grand reform plan. There are obviously many more issues that need to be dealt with, but I would encourage the government, as they move forward with an aged-care program, to actually think outside the areas of their own investment and their own regulation. It is incumbent upon a federal government to actually look at what is happening in the community and engage that community in delivering a solution, not seek to be the answer to all questions. The answer is at a state level. It is a local-level issue, very much at a community level. There is a big role to play in understanding the future needs of older Australians in these forms of accommodation.

The other point I would make in my capacity as shadow minister for housing is that it is also absolutely vital that we get this right, because, as our household size continues to contract, further pressure will be put on the availability of housing for younger Australians. If we can make it attractive for older Australians to move into new forms of accommodation, it will free up housing stock right across our suburbs for the rest of the community. Household size is already projected to decline and we need to ensure that we address that in the future to ensure there is housing affordability for all Australians. A way to do that is by providing for a seamless transfer, an attractive transfer, for older Australians to move from their existing accommodation to new accommodation, where they will have the respect that they deserve and have earned and a comfort and quality of life that goes along with that.

See this speech in context