Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the motion moved by the member for Shortland, as the ageing population is a major issue for this and future governments. I agree that we must guarantee support for older Australians and, in particular, that reform of the aged-care sector is particularly important for our ageing population. The motion does not admit that this government was forced to increase the age pension as a result of its own economic incompetence and its failure to rein in the real cost-of-living pressures that affect older Australians. Governments do not support older Australians by implementing the world's biggest carbon tax economy-wide without giving one cent to almost 300,000 self-funded retirees. Governments do not support older Australians by increasing the cost of private health insurance and governments do not support older Australians by increasing taxes on superannuation and reducing the amount that Australians can contribute to their own superannuation.

We cannot support our senior Australians if we fail to implement real reform for the aged-care system, particularly at a time when Australians are expecting more and more from aged care. Yet this is exactly what the Labor government has been doing since it took office in 2007. I continue to meet with many aged-care providers in my electorate who are disappointed with the government's response to the Productivity Commission's Caring for older Australians report of 2011. The government missed the opportunity at that time to implement real supply-side reform in what many see as a wasteful, unfair and inefficient aged-care approvals round process, where providers applied for packages from the government. It has been conveyed to me by people who operate in the aged-care sector that resources are continuing to be wasted and taxpayer funds are not being efficiently allocated because clients have no, or very limited, input into choosing a provider.

They are also rightly concerned about the government cutting $1.6 billion from the Aged Care Funding Instrument. Cutting $1.6 billion is not a sign of a government acting in the long-term interests of the industry. As we move from the baby boomer generation to the next, users of aged-care services will no longer meekly accept what they are given, as many Australians had to do during tough economic times earlier last century. It is therefore integral to the future care of older Australians that we implement policies that give clients and their families the ability to choose their own provider to deliver government funded services which they have been assessed as needing.

Secondly, the Labor government is making it more difficult for older Australians to support themselves by increasing taxes on superannuation. The Treasurer has run out of taxpayers' money and is now resorting to attacking the hard-earned money and savings in Australian superannuation funds. It is likely that the quality of life and living conditions for older Australians will worsen in the future because we have a government which is ripping the heart out of the superannuation system. Despite having already increased taxes on super by $8 billion, the government has not ruled out further attacks on super. This has created enormous uncertainty for retirees and those approaching retirement. The government promised in 2007 that they would not change super taxes, but that is exactly what they have been doing ever since. By their actions, they will continue to increase taxes on super in the future. They have cut the government's co-contribution scheme—aimed directly at assisting the lowest paid in this country—by $1,000, a cut worth $3.2 billion to their bottom line.

Lastly, the motion claims that the government is helping older Australians stay at work longer. They have recently announced that they are going to legislate flexibility. You do not help older Australians stay at work longer by simply legislating that someone has the right to a part-time job, as if that right somehow compels a local small business owner to employ someone that they cannot afford. At the end of the day, governments do not create jobs; businesses do. With jobs, governments can go two ways. They can stifle business, overregulating them and controlling them with so many regulations that the likelihood that businesses will employ any Australians, particularly older Australians, is reduced. Alternatively, governments can get out of the way and ease conditions and regulations on small business so that businesses can grow and there may actually be jobs for older Australians to be employed in in the future.

I would also like to take this opportunity to commend Val French and the work she does with the Older People Speak Out, OPSO, organisation. They are great advocates for the aged in our community, not only for having older people working but also for their rights going forward.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context