Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to talk on the suite of aged-care bills and the amendment. Australia is in the process of change. We are undergoing a significant transformation as we experience an ageing of our nation's population. Australians are living longer than ever before and subtly, yet surely, this shift will define the lives of the next generations of our country. We can expect that a fifth of our population will be over 70 years of age by 2051. Our country will have to contend with challenges such as a shrinking of our tax base from six workers for every retiree to 3.2 workers for every retiree by 2047. We will be facing an extraordinary increase in reliance on health services and a far greater demand on aged-care services.

It is critical that as policymakers we are preparing for our nation's future in every way, but specifically in how to face the challenges of an ageing population. It is critical that we have a separate debate about the best possible ways to approach the changes that we will inevitably face and how this can be managed while keeping our nation's economy strong.

This week we will see two very clear and distinctive alternative plans for our nation's future. We will see a government in chaos and confusion, a government that is scrambling at the last minute to redo their homework sums before the deadline. In contrast we will see a strong, united coalition team that is prepared, willing and able to lead this country into a better and brighter future, a team that has a strong vision for Australia and the practical plans to ensure that we get there. These two integral differences—the two choices that Australians will make this year—are illustrated in this debate about aged care.

The Aged Care (Living Longer, Living Better) Bill 2013 and related bills are a ramshackle packaged offered by this government. They have failed to address the key industry concerns and challenges of addressing real reform for our seniors. This is a wasted opportunity for us to have appropriate and real reform in this sector that will provide stability in the years to come. This package of bills fails miserably to do just this. The aged-care sector—which I have been consulting with in my own electorate and more broadly—has faced five years of neglect from those opposite and now definitive action is needed to ensure that aged-care services are providing effective care for older Australians.

Debate on this package of bills is rushed. My question to the minister is: why the rush? This government has spent over a year sitting on its hands after announcing its aged-care plans, but it has failed to bring any legislation before the parliament. The minister is now attempting to rush through this legislation. The minister has brought forward the reporting date of the Senate Community Affairs Committee inquiry, reducing the amount of scrutiny and consideration given to legislation that will amount to significant fundamental changes to the aged-care sector. Already from the Senate inquiry we know that the department is unable to answer many of the questions raised in these bills and that, instead, the minister's department has advised that the detail would not be released until after these bills were passed by the parliament.

Why is this government so determined to avoid proper scrutiny of the finer detail of this legislation? Why is it so determined to push it through the parliament without adequate time for consultation? This is a particularly pertinent question, as most of the legislation does not come into force until July 2014, and that which comes into force in July this year can be dealt with within existing legislation. As I said earlier, this is a policy area that requires significant reform, but it cannot be done on the run. It needs time to ensure that the changes will benefit the sector and the older Australians it cares for. With such an emphasis being placed on aged-care services in the coming years, it is vital that we make well-informed, sound judgements now to avoid ad hoc, bandaid patch-ups later. Might I also refer to a couple of comments from LeadingAge, an aged-care group: every 71 minutes, another older Australian is denied the care they need; $90 million is the recurrent shortfall between income and the real cost of care for those in residential facilities; and 83,000 new beds need to be built in the next nine years, at an estimated $17 billion, to cater for the emerging needs of the elderly.

The Productivity Commission's report recommended a shift from the current ratio system of aged-care licenses to a system where aged care would become part of the health system. It was clear that the amount of red tape and regulation faced by the sector needed to be reduced. Additionally, the Productivity Commission report recommended: the creation of a single Australian seniors gateway agency; that funding be replaced by a single, national care co-contribution regime which would apply across the aged-care system, whether services are delivered in the community or in a residential aged-care facility; greater transparency of care prices; and a range of capital funding options and contributions for accommodation costs.

This package is another example of Labor spin at its best. When the government announced this package, it tried to have us believe that it was putting an additional $3.7 billion toward aged-care funding. Unfortunately, the figure for new funding was closer to $577 million—a small portion of what was promised and what is being called for by the sector itself. This government is attempting to pass off cost-cutting measures and funds shifting as new spending. The most disappointing result of this is that this legislation acts more as a smoke-and-mirrors measure rather than a true problem-solving policy direction. This package of bills does not resolve viability issues for aged-care service providers.

This package of legislation effects changes in four key areas: residential care, home care, governance and administration, and the administrative and consequential changes. The bills will mean that those who enter residential care from 1 July 2014 will face a new means test calculator combining income and assets tests. There will also be new annual and lifetime caps on means-tested care fees under this plan. Under these bills, those in home-care situations will face changes to the way that home-care subsidies and fees are calculated. Many care recipients will be required to contribute more to the cost of their care under income-tested care fees. New annual and lifetime caps will also apply to income-tested care fees. Additionally, a new Aged Care Pricing Commissioner will be established to make decisions on pricing issues.

These bills will add even more regulation to an already overburdened sector. The biggest failure of this package is its failure to address the already over-regulated nature of the sector. The current structure of the aged-care industry already flags some serious concerns about the ongoing viability of service provision. This is an issue that providers have been extremely vocal about. With a major reform of the sector, it was assumed that it would be one of the fundamental points addressed by the government. Unfortunately, the minister has glossed over this concern and has even gone so far as to introduce new red-tape measures, which will make it even more difficult for service providers. Up to 89 per cent of aged-care facilities are set to face 'unrecoverable' losses of revenue under these changes. Anecdotal evidence suggests that aged-care nurses are spending a third of their time on paperwork. This is an incredible regulatory burden that is directly detracting from their ability to provide care to patients. This legislation increases the red tape, which will result in even less time for patient care and much more time on paperwork.

Service providers in my electorate have contacted me regarding these bills to express their deep concerns about the implications for the industry. Already, we are aware that 60 per cent of aged-care facilities are operating in the red due to the increasing compliance demands of government. Providers are handing back their licences and walking away from the sector, because aged-care service provision is simply no longer viable. Under these changes, as revealed by the Senate inquiry, aged-care facilities with less than 60 beds will be so severely impacted that they will be forced to either shut down or amalgamate with other facilities. Even those with more than 60 beds will be under increased pressure with less funds for patient care. Take this example from one service provider: under the changes, they will receive $31.92 less for a patient each day, amounting to $220 less a week. Couple this with increasing wages and it becomes very difficult for a service provider to continue to provide the same level of optimum care to patients. While we are already calling out for additional aged-care beds, the last thing that we can afford to be causing through policy implementation is a further shortage of aged-care beds.

Senior Australians are finding it more and more difficult to obtain places in aged-care facilities. Not only this, but they are finding it more difficult to access the services they require in the context that they desire. There is a pervading opinion held by both older Australians and health professionals, and supported by a growing body of evidence, that the aged-care sector is unable to adequately provide for the complex needs of Australians. This is adding momentum to a growing trend that Australians want to spend longer in their own homes and receive care while remaining in their own homes.

The fear that more Australians are having about being able to access aged-care services should be of serious concern to the government, which is simply not doing enough to address these concerns under this legislation. The government has not listened to what the sector is calling for. Despite its protestations, this government has not undertaken appropriate consultation with industry to determine what is needed. Instead, this government is attempting to ride roughshod over the industry and force changes that are not practical.

We are aware that the proposals the government provided to industry were rejected by providers. Rather than true reform, we now know this is no more than a move to unionise the aged-care sector. Another particularly concerning factor about the way that this legislation has been shaped and the compliance that it intends to thrust upon aged-care service providers is the way that it is seeking to underhandedly increase the union presence in this sector. These bills will mandate a workforce compact and this compact is not supported by aged-care service providers. It will force them into enterprise-bargaining agreements that will effectually subsidise union membership in the industry.

The workforce supplement will see aged-care providers with 50 or more beds required to enter into enterprise-bargaining agreements simply to access funding. This is no less than a blatant attempt to increase union interference under the guise of legislative reform. Further, the minister cut $1.6 billion last year from the Aged Care Funding Instrument in order to finance this $1.2 billion workforce compact. In the words of one of my local aged-care service providers, it is 'taking funds from direct care and placing it into a pool set aside for wage increases without allowing anything to go to on-costs; furthermore, it is totally unaffordable because for every dollar received, the employer has to find another $2 on top of whatever we have committed to in our EBAs.'

This legislation is taking money out of service provision and redirecting it to union dues. This is not a good outcome for the thousands of older Australians whose care will be jeopardised through the loss of funding from services. It is the thousands of Australians who will be adversely affected through these changes for whom we need to be making the right decisions. This is our opportunity to have reform of aged care done well, in a way that assists providers to ensure the best quality of care is provided to Australians in the context that they wish to receive care.

These bills simply do not have the detail about what these changes will be and there is a very short-sighted attitude from those opposite, who are trying to push through these changes without seeing the outcome of the Senate inquiry into what the implications will be for the industry itself.

See this speech in context