Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today because I have serious reservations about these bills before us: the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013 and cognate bills. In the consultations that I have had with the aged-care sector in my electorate I have not heard that there is a unanimous approach to these bills being passed. As a matter of fact, I have heard the opposite. I have heard that they have real concerns about these bills. I have wonderful aged-care providers right across the electorate of Wannon—whether it be in Maryborough, Ararat, Hamilton, Portland, Warrnambool, Mortlake, Casterton or Cobden; you can go on and on. A lot of them are small aged-care providers. A lot of them are not-for-profits. A lot of the aged-care facilities were built through community fundraising.

People in these communities are committed to seeing these aged-care facilities continue into the future, because they have a real belief that in country areas where you grow up, where you live, if it is your desire, that is where you should be able to spend the last part of your life. You should be able to do that within your community where your family is and your friends are. This is vitally important to these communities, and they want to make sure that there is a future for their facilities.

I am not certain that this bill provides that, and the aged-care providers in my electorate are not certain that these bills provide that. They have real concerns with these five bills. They have concerns, to start with, with the process. Like everything the Gillard government, and before it the Rudd government, has done, there have been process issues. There has been a real lack of proper consultation. There has been the idea that: 'We know best, Canberra knows best and we will just dictate how it will work and consultation will work. These are the bills that we want to introduce. This is the program we want to introduce. These are the policies that we want you to follow and you will abide by them. We might allow some minor tinkering around the edges but we will dictate to you what our approach will look like.'

It is not a proper, ground-up policy approach where you consult with industry. You do not only consult with those big providers in the major capital cities; you venture out into the regions, into the country, into the rural heartland of our nation and ask those who are providing services, often in difficult circumstances: what could it look like for you as well? What would help you and your facilities? How can we guarantee that you have a future as well? The government sadly did not do that.

The process has been flawed—and the process in this place has been flawed. We have a Senate inquiry still to hand down, and yet the government are trying to rush these bills through. What sort of a sham is that? Why couldn't they at least wait for the Senate inquiry to finish? Eighteen months we have been going through this process and, all of a sudden, we have got to hurry on. All of a sudden the government is saying: 'Oh no, we must expedite this.' Why can't we wait? We have been waiting 18 months; wait a few more days for the Senate inquiry to hand down. You never know: there might be something in there that you should listen to, government. You have been out and consulted again with the industry. I have had aged-care providers in my electorate who have gone to a lot of trouble to make submissions to this inquiry and, once again, you want to treat them with disdain. You go through the process but you are paying lip-service to it. You will not do the right thing by the sector. They are burdened by red tape, and yet you say to them: 'Report. Give the information that you want to give to this Senate inquiry.' Now it is absolutely clear from this process that you are not interested at all in hearing what that Senate inquiry has to say.

See this speech in context