Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It gives me pleasure to rise to speak on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 and the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Care Charges (Amendment) Bill 2014. I wish the member for Blair every bit of luck with the amendment that he has moved. Indeed, he referenced the Living Longer Living Better initiatives by the previous government. If I remember rightly they were a response to a Productivity Commission report on the aged-care sector called Caring for older Australians. The tragedy is that, whilst Australians are living longer, it is no thanks to the Living Longer Living Better proposals that were put forward by the previous government. The Productivity Commission's Caring for older Australiansreport was a fine review. Unfortunately, the previous government dropped the ball on their initiatives.

There was a lot of time spent by the member for Blair talking about the Aged Care Workforce Supplement, but much of the workforce supplement was nothing more than a union drive. On this side, we have put the money that was allocated for the workforce supplement back into the hands of the providers. We have put that $1.5 billion back into the hands of the providers, because it is in our DNA to believe that the local providers at the local level tend to know what is best. It is not up to government to be dictating who should be getting what. The quantum of money is there, and we believe that those at the coalface, the people working in the sector, are best placed to decide how that money is to be allocated. That is exactly what we have done. One and half billion dollars was allocated by the previous government to their workforce supplement, which was, for all intents and purposes, a flawed and inequitable system, with the clear objective of coercing union membership within the sector. Unlike Labor, we do not believe in a central planning system. It has been proven around the globe not to work. Indeed, allowing those providers to allocate the funds in the way that they see fit is a far better alternative.

I want to touch on a number of aspects of these bills before the House, and on the dementia supplement in particular. As to the dementia supplement, and the shrill cries from those opposite in terms of the changes that we have made: this was akin to and of NBN proportions; it was akin to pink batts; it was akin to the Australia Network. It was a program—well intentioned, no doubt—that blew out tenfold. The incapacity of those opposite! And to be lectured by those opposite about managing money really is quite farcical.

But the bills at hand are important bills and the changes that are proposed are far-reaching and go to the demographic challenge that we face as a nation, because Australia's population is ageing rapidly. We are all looking to develop a fairer and more sustainable system. It is the responsibility of government, in the context of the funds that we have available—funds that come from the taxpayers of Australia—to make sure of planning, and that we develop a sustainable system that is able to be funded into the future.

I would like to touch on the area of the ageing population and the changes that we are seeing in our nation. These things are true nowhere more than in my home state of Tasmania. Indeed, Tasmania has the largest and most rapidly growing aged population of all the Australian states. We are talking here about how to address this issue, as we age.

I reference also the good work that has been done by Natalie Jackson, formerly the chief state demographer, at the University of Tasmania; Brendan Churchill; and also Lisa Denny, who is undertaking the work previously done by Natalie. They have conducted extensive research into the challenges that Tasmania's ageing population presents us with, and that has led to an informed conversation on how we tackle this. And there are not necessarily negatives but opportunities that come with those changing demographics that we are all about to be confronted with. It is happening right across the country. In a relatively short period of time, Australia has transformed from a comparatively youthful population to an accelerating ageing population, resulting in a growing level of government dependence and support.

Countries like Australia have enjoyed a period of economic prosperity led by the social and economic changes of the post-war baby boom. Our society was transformed into wealthy, healthy, educated and prosperous communities, due mostly to the young age of the largest sector of our community. But, as the baby boomers enter retirement age, the advantages that that generation provided us with are starting to be reversed. In 1960 there was one person aged over 65 for every 10 people of working age. Today, it is roughly five people of working age for every person aged over 65, and it is predicted that by 2050 there will be only 2.8 people of working age for every person aged over 65. These are challenges, but they also opportunities. Spending on health and ageing as a proportion of GDP is projected to rise from 22 per cent in 2015-16 to 27 per cent of GDP in 2049-50.

Lisa Denny and her Tasmanian demographer colleagues have a far more positive outlook on the challenge of this ageing population than some others. Indeed, Tasmania and Australia will need more people in the workforce and increased productivity. We should be encouraging higher skilled migration numbers to boost the workforce. But there are also demographic and economic opportunities for young Tasmanians—and other Australians, as well—facing the challenge of dealing with our ageing population. Within seven years, the last of the baby boomers will start to leave the labour market. But the effects of that huge loss to the workforce and the economy will be tempered by the arrival of the new baby boom of the mid-2000s. We should never forget that the baby boomers will continue to consume. They will continue to be an opportunity. They will continue to be, as they have for all of their lives, a major economic driver for our country.

Remember, the generation born in the early- and mid-2000s—this other little hump that is an anomaly if you look at the declining birth rates in this country—will be bigger in total than all the baby boomers. It makes for a very interesting context, if you consider it. It is an opportunity that, as a nation, we just cannot miss. Between 2003 and 2012 there were some 2.85 million children born in Australia, representing an increase of 13 per cent over a decade. This generation will enter a workforce demanding tertiary educated and highly skilled professionals to stem the economic and fiscal impacts of population ageing. They will enter a workforce not only waiting for but celebrating their arrival. That is why the changes that our Tasmanian state government is making in high school education are so important, encouraging more young people to continue on from year 10 and into year 11 and year 12. It is why the changes that the Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne, is proposing around deregulation of the higher education system in Australia are absolutely critical to the opportunities for our country over the next 20 and 30 years.

I want also to highlight one of the real success stories in my state of Tasmania, and I have mentioned it before in this place. The work done by the University of Tasmania is an absolute example of where universities are going to be able to compete in this space—that is, when they identify a gap in the market and when they respond to that appropriately. The University of Tasmania offers a Bachelor of Dementia Care, and it comes off the back of a MOOC—a Massive Open Online Course—that it offers in dementia care. It sets all of the records. It breaks the records for the completion rate, as far as MOOC is concerned, because there is no cost and it can be accessed by anybody. Generally speaking, MOOCs only have a very small completion rate. In the case of the dementia care course offered by the University of Tasmania, the completion rate of the MOOC is almost 50 per cent. The conversion from those that do the MOOC to the Bachelor of Dementia Care, which now has over 1,800 students studying the bachelor course at the University of Tasmania and is the third largest course in terms of enrolments at the university, is off the charts in terms of what typically happens for these sorts of conversions.

Women born after World War II tended to wait until their children grew up before they returned to the workforce. Young Tasmanian women are returning to the workforce much sooner after the birth of their children—and that is true right around Australia. The generation which will need to look after our post-World War II baby boomers will have the opportunity to become highly educated and to meet the demand of aged-care services. The potential for this new generation to alleviate the economic challenges of an ageing labour market is great. This is our challenge but it is also our opportunity, with that demographic bump that we see in the mid-2000s. It will be the responsibility of the existing and future governments to invest in this still-untapped resource of people, particularly during their years of further education and training.

The government reforms, such as we are debating in this place today, are, indeed, of immense importance, and lay the groundwork for that. The bill seeks to make amendments to the Aged Care Act 1997 to reflect the implementation of the 2014 budget measures to re-purpose the aged care workforce supplement. I think I have explained why we need to make these changes. The key elements cover a range of areas in terms of residential care. In this debate, of course, there always is a very big focus on residential care, but the reality is that only about five per cent of Australians use residential care. The majority of Australians surveyed—I think, 70 per cent—would choose and would prefer, given an opportunity, to stay in their own homes. I think that is very understandable. That is why it is important that the policy around aged care also focuses on a whole range of other services that older Australians might access, including in-home care and other things.

First and foremost, nothing changes for those people that are in residential aged care at the moment. We are asking those people that can afford to contribute to the cost of their residential aged care to do so. Nobody would think that unreasonable. It is important, also, to remember that there are caps within the system—the annual cap being $25,000 and the lifetime cap for anybody being $60,000. Those contributions to that lifetime cap include contributions that were made to home care—any time spent using home care services. If, in future years, somebody decides to go into a residential aged care facility, that lifetime cap of $60,000—in terms of a contribution to their own care—will be those credits. The credits for the payments that they have made in home care will be able to be used. Fairer assessments in terms of means-testing capacity to pay is an important part of this legislation, and there is greater choice. On this side of the House, we believe that people should have the choice. One of the benefits of a consumer driven system is improved choice. This is the direction that we would like to see aged-care going. In the same way that you see with the NDIS and the fine work that Minister Fifield is doing in this space, it is about giving consumers choice. This is fundamentally what we believe is the best thing, that local providers not big government are the ones that can make the very best decisions about what people need increasingly as they age.

See this speech in context