Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

As I have to be on duty as Deputy Speaker in the main chamber at 8.30, my speech on the Aged Care Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008 will be somewhat shortened. It is important always to recognise the importance of older Australians and the role that they have played in making sure that as a nation we have the freedom, stability and way of life that makes us the envy of people throughout the world. As undoubtedly the shadow minister has pointed out, the ageing of our population is the biggest social issue that Australia faces and it will present considerable budgetary pressures. A number of years ago I held an aged-care forum in the electorate of Fisher, which is on the Sunshine Coast in Queensland, and I was staggered to hear that, given the longevity of aged Australians and given modern medical advances and increased health expectations, the aged-care industry will in the near future have to expect that people will live to 120 years of age. That of course is a wonderful outcome as far as health is concerned, but it does present real challenges as far as management of this important area by the government of the day is concerned.

Let us look at some demographics which undoubtedly the shadow minister has previously emphasised to the parliament. In Australia today we have 2.8 million people aged 65 or more—that is 13 per cent of the population—and two million people aged over 70—that is 9.3 per cent of the population. By the year 2047 we will have seven million people aged over 65, and that will be 25 per cent of the population. In 2007 there were five people of working age to one person aged over 65, but just 40 years later we will have 2.4 people of working age supporting each person aged over 65. During the 20th century, life expectancy rose by 30 years in the developed countries, and the number of people aged over 100 will increase from 2,860 people today to 78,000 by 2055. So the situation I outlined is a wonderful opportunity to harness the talents of older Australians but also, as older Australians have increased health needs, presents certain economic challenges. Over the next 40 years the number of Australians aged 85 will increase fourfold.

Let us look at aged-care statistics. There are currently 2,870 accredited aged-care facilities throughout Australia with 150,000 residents. Interestingly, only six to seven per cent of people enter aged-care facilities. Aged-care facilities are horrendously expensive for the community, but it is only appropriate that any government provides support to those people to whom our nation owes so much. Having said that, because most Australians, even most older Australians, do not actually enter these facilities, there is always a balance in looking at the funding needs of those people who do need assistance as against the requirements of the general population.

When the Labor government was elected just 12 months ago, it inherited a first-class, I would almost say a world-class, aged-care system. That is not to say, of course, that there cannot be improvements. I have to say that this bill does include many positive measures. Let us face it, regardless of the politics we have, we all support improved assistance for older Australians, and I think most people would acknowledge the debt that we owe them. This bill aims to introduce safeguards and protections to the laws affecting the aged-care sector in Australia. It comes at an appropriate time, when the aged-care sector is truly at what some could describe as a precarious and dangerous crossroad. The Labor government says that its changes aim to protect the residents of aged-care facilities and to ensure that the standard of care they receive is maintained at the highest levels. We would expect that in a nation such as Australia.

These are changes that must be successful in order to ensure that the number of aged-care beds available is able to keep up with the demand that is expected to continue given the ageing of the Australian population. The bill suggests that the standard business models that were in place when the Aged Care Act 1997 was implemented are not as common today and that there is much more variety in the industry. I believe this is undoubtedly correct. New business models have been applied to the industry. We continue to have some owners and operators running particular facilities, but we increasingly see investment and input from major corporations. That is not a bad thing, but one has to make sure that the quality of care is always good and that the clients of these facilities receive the assistance that we expect them to receive.

In the aged-care industry, as in most Australian industries, over time the influences and pressure of modern commerce, the influence of international economic factors and the impact of economies of scale on many former cottage industries have encouraged considerable change. This is not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but it is a fact of life that must be recognised and addressed. The aged-care industry has certainly been subject to much change. The Liberal-National government built a strong and successful aged-care sector over its terms in office. Sadly, there is currently a danger that change for the sake of change may well erode some of the gains made in the industry.

Labor says that the present legislation—that is, the Aged Care Act 1997—is regarded as not being as effective as when it was first introduced. Labor says that this is because of the evolution of the industry over the past decade. Labor claims that the legislation is not as effective in monitoring and guiding some of the complex corporate entities that are active in this industry. To a certain extent, the government is correct, but one ought to recognise that in the aged-care industry we no longer have a one-size-fits-all sector. The government claims that it is mindful of the need to have the protection and care of the elderly and the frail as key motivators of those providers in the industry, and I certainly hope that is the case. The legislative modifications also claim to offer better protection to residents and confidence in the sector. It is sad, however, that the government, after about 12 months in office, has eroded the confidence of many industries, including the aged-care industry.

The Aged Care Act 1997 was introduced by the former Liberal-National government and had the effect of improving public confidence in the quality and standard of care provided to older Australians. The Liberal-National aged-care reforms helped stabilise the industry and introduced a unified system for care and for payments. It brought in a standard quality-assurance system and a system by which complaints were investigated. The bill currently before the chamber seeks to ensure that all of those who have an interest in the aged-care industry also face direct responsibility for maintaining standards. The bill seeks to ensure that those who work behind the scenes, so to speak, are also subject to scrutiny for the operations in which they are involved. I think that is important.

Older Australians are living in desperate times and have been ignored by the Labor government since it came to power. The former government, the Liberal-National government, introduced a number of reforms that assisted the aged-care industry. Honestly, we had built confidence and enthusiasm in the sector. This interest has waned over the past 12 months and now, in Western Australia—parts of which the honourable members for Kalgoorlie and Forrest have the honour of representing—there is an undersubscription in aged-care places. It is vital that older Australians are not ignored any further. Frankly, it is a situation we have not previously heard of. The Labor government hopes to boost the industry through these reforms. However, it is vital that funding is maintained at adequate levels to ensure that further infrastructure can be built so that the undersubscriptions are prevented and so that competition by providers for places continues in order to provide an effective and efficient aged-care sector. While this bill is to be welcomed, and many of its provisions are certainly positive, the Labor government needs to lift its game in the aged-care sector so that the needs of older Australians are able to be met.

In closing, let us just look at the economics of an ageing population. I do not resent money being spent on older Australians because, let us face it, they are the people who have made Australia the country it is today. But Australian government spending on health is projected to increase as a proportion of GDP from 3.8 per cent in 2006-07 to 7.3 per cent in 2046-47. The growth of real GDP per person is projected to slow because of the ageing of the population and this will equate to a fall in living standards. With a stagnant labour market and increased lifespan, which I have outlined previously, the standard of living of Australians will fall in the years ahead. Spending on health and aged care is projected to grow significantly over the next 40 years, due to improved and more expensive drugs and medical technologies. Therefore, earlier in my speech I outlined that the major challenge confronting Australia today is the ageing of our population. That is a challenge. It is also an opportunity. It is a challenge that we should welcome because it is great that health standards are improving, that medication is improving, that technology is improving and that life expectancy is improving. But, accompanying those benefits, we will have a situation where increased spending will be required on aged care and we will need increased monitoring to make sure that those people who are in facilities are appropriately cared for.

There would not be a member of parliament in the House who has not had complaints from constituents in relation to aged-care facilities. I personally believe that most aged-care facilities try to do the right thing and, indeed, do the right thing. I would like to place on record my admiration for the carers and the nurses and the people in those facilities, because they do do a wonderful job. But it is important to make sure that we benchmark that performance. We have always got to think: how would we feel if our mother or father was included as a resident in one of these facilities? But, more importantly, we have to look at our communities—the communities we are privileged to represent.

I welcome this bill. It is a positive bill. The government, though, needs not to take its eye off the ball with respect to aged care. The government needs to continue to recognise the importance of older Australians. Very little has been done by the current government for older Australians since the government was elected on 24 November last year. Older Australians have not been given the attention that they should. Many older Australians tell me that they feel that the current government has, in fact, almost wiped them—that they believe that, because they are old, because they are not working, because they are not actually contributing the taxes they once were, somehow they are worthless individuals. I just think that is an appalling attitude and I would ask the government to reconsider. I know that the honourable member opposite is a person who does not share the approach of many people in his government and that he is genuinely interested in older Australians.

Having said that, I am pleased to join the debate on this bill. I am pleased to support the good parts of this bill. I just want to encourage the government to pull its socks up. The government can do better. The government should do better. And, in the remaining time this government has, it is important that it does do better. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context