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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you are absolutely correct. I refer to the Gillard government and I do not in any way reflect on your good self, because you are obviously doing an outstanding job. Sadly, the Gillard government in this case is not. As a matter of fact, once again they is showing through their process that they are doing a deplorable job. You keep up your outstanding work, Mr Deputy Speaker. I only wish the Gillard government could follow suit, especially when it comes to these bills.

Eighteen months—what have they done in those 18 months? The first thing was the $1.6 billion cut from the aged-care funding instrument under these reforms, so they have placed more pressure on the system and then just let the dialogue dribble along. Then all of a sudden they want to rush this process through. The Gillard government should have learnt their lesson, that process is important to a properly functioning government and, once again, we are seeing the process fail us as a national parliament. Sadly, the impacts are going to be felt, especially when it comes to the smaller not-for-profits in regional and rural areas that provide outstanding services to our elderly Australians.

It is worth noting what the issues are with this package. They are real issues and they boil down to four areas. The first is the workforce compact. Any legislation around the workforce compact needs to be delayed until we can fully understand the implications of it, especially for smaller providers. The workforce compact has the potential to make many facilities economically unviable. The government has not provided the funding to facilities to make sure that they can afford the cost of the workforce compact.

So it is all very well saying that we would like to pay more to those who work in aged-care facilities—very noble and very true in intent. But if it means that facilities are going to close—so, rather than paying people more, you will actually not be providing them with a job—then you have to think twice about what you are doing.

There is a real issue here. This workforce compact could lead to facilities becoming unviable because it is not being properly funded by the government. The government is saying: 'Yeah, sure, we want this. But we won't provide you with the money to do it.' That is not the right way to go about things.

We then have the accommodation payments. Once again: what is the impact of these payments? What impact will they have on the long-term viability of the sector, especially in regional areas? Will the bonds work outside of large capital cities? Once again, there are real questions to be asked here. Has the government thought through this process? Has it thought, 'Okay, it might have one impact in this region; it might have another impact in another region'? No, it has not done that, sadly. There are real deficiencies here.

There is also the red tape, the specified care and services—the continued red tape. Has the government sat down with the sector and really looked at the implications of that? No, they have not. This is why aged-care providers in Mortlake, Cobden, Casterton, Hamilton and Camperdown are terribly concerned by these bills, as they are also in Maryborough and Warrnambool. There are real issues with this legislation.

What would a coalition government do instead, if the Australian people elected us at the forthcoming election? We would have a much better consultative approach. We would actually sit down and discuss, talk, liaise and work with the sector to come up with a four-year provider agreement, which will give the sector certainty for four years and then further into its future.

It is a sensible approach. It is one which gives certainty to the sector. It is one which means the sector is fully involved in how a funding agreement would work. It has worked elsewhere. We have seen this policy work in other areas, so there is no reason why it would not work in this area. That is the approach that we will take. We will make sure through that four-year funding agreement that the specific requirements of different parts of the sector are taken into account.

I would like to thank the shadow minister for coming down to the electorate of Wannon and hearing the concerns that our aged-care providers have about the current government's approach. Those providers understand there are serious flaws there, and the shadow minister understands there are serious flaws there for our part of the country. I would like to thank her for doing that.

I give those aged-care providers in my electorate a commitment that I will work with them to make sure that our four-year approach, our four-year provider agreement, makes sure that their future viability is enhanced and not, as it will be under this package, threatened. I will make sure that I get the shadow minister down again to ensure that the providers' views can be properly heard in how we put the provider agreement in place. As the member for Parkes noted in his speech, it is vitally important for our smaller rural and regional communities that there is the funding there to ensure those aged-care facilities can continue.

Sure, we want to make sure that people can stay in their homes longer—absolutely right. That is where we should continue to direct funding. But where people cannot stay in their homes, where they need care, we have to make sure that it is provided and provided, where we can, in all those towns that need it—especially where there are existing facilities, because they provide employment to those towns.

As a matter of fact, many rural and regional towns, as our population ages, are seeing the benefits of becoming aged-care providers. We want to make sure that the towns can encourage people to come to their facilities and use those facilities. They actually see it as an economic opportunity for the future. We do have great facilities. We do have the workforce that is willing to work in these facilities and that is why we can really make sure that the four-year provider agreement, if we are elected, can really benefit our regions through the good country care that can be provided through those aged-care facilities.

These are very important bills. They deserve the scrutiny that the opposition is determined to give them. We are not just going to wave these bills through; we are not going to let them go through before the Senate inquiry has reported. We want to make sure that the government is held to account on these bills, because they are too important. They have the potential to threaten the ongoing viability of the aged-care facilities in my electorate and in electorates right around country Australia. We will hold these bills to account, we will put the amendments that need to be put, and we will hold the Gillard government to account. The process has been a sham. The consultation has been a sham. And, if we do not hold the government to account, the end result might be a sham.

See this speech in context