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

I rise today to speak on a matter of great importance to my electorate of Ryan: the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 and the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Care Charges (Amendment) Bill 2014.

The electorate of Ryan, which I am honoured to represent, has 13 nursing homes and care facilities within its boundaries. As you can imagine, this high number of care facilities makes nursing homes a valuable and necessary part of the community in Ryan, and this bill seeks to address a shortfall in wages for this sector by reprioritising $1.5 billion in the Aged Care Workforce Supplement.

Since it was introduced by Labor, this supplement was only paid to those workers who were covered by an enterprise bargaining agreement; with those workers who were not covered by such an arrangement left out in the cold and more or less forced to join a union in order to access a better pay rate. This is yet another example of union bullying of workers—many more cases of which have been outlined at the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption. Join the union, pay your fees and get the pay rise—which will just cover the cost of the union fees, leaving workers in the same position they were before the supplement was paid. Yet again, Labor and their union masters are looking after their own nests and turning their backs on the real workers—the party for the workers having a party on the workers.

However, the coalition government believes all workers should be given the opportunity to access better wages in the aged-care sector, regardless of whether they belong to a union or not. This is why it is vitally important to reinstate this money stripped away from some workers and packaged as a wage supplement when all it really was is a way for the union to get paid out of the government coffers.

And of course, where does that money end up? In the campaign war chests of Labor candidates all over the country—

Ms Butler interjecting—

like those interjecting now. And how do we know this is where this dubiously appropriated money came from? The political donor registry kept by the AEC.

In the year before the introduction of the supplement, United Voice, the union for aged-care workers, spent more than $214,000 for their Labor mates. In the year after the introduction of the protection racket called the Aged Care Workforce Supplement, that figure increased a staggering 513 per cent. Yes, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Broadbent, you heard that correctly: 513 per cent, to more than a million dollars—all money funnelled from aged care funding via a clever little device called the aged care workforce supplement tied to union membership. Those opposite care so little for the real workers of this nation that it beggars belief that they can even mouth the words 'party of the workers' when evidence like this is tabled in this place.

Fortunately, the workers in the aged-care sector have a good friend in Minister Andrews who is looking to make a real difference to the actual wages of those in the front line of aged-care delivery. By returning the supplement money to the general revenue stream for aged-care providers, an extra $1.5 billion dollars will be available for wage increases up to 2018.

While we have seen unions bleat about the inequity of this measure—no doubt because their bottom line will take a hit—aged-care providers have applauded the move as necessary to better wage outcomes for all aged-care workers. But of course this money for the supplement had to originally come from somewhere. This wasn't new money allocated to the sector by the reckless spending of the former Labor governments. No, it was ripped from the care provisions for older Australians. That is right: the Labor Party actually took money from those in need of quality care in order to funnel it back into their own campaign funds by intimidating aged-care staff into joining a union or otherwise they would not get the pay rise.

The best word I can use to describe this act is despicable. It is not enough that they held a gun to the head of workers; at the same time they were dangling older Australians off a cliff. I am reminded of the valiant and hardworking horse, Boxer, in Orwell's Animal Farm, who, after years of hard work, was sent to the knackers rather than into the happy retirement he had been promised by the pigs. That is the promise given to workers by those opposite: if you work hard, you can enjoy your later years, but they will not hesitate to take away the money for your care to distribute amongst their cronies by whatever means necessary to make sure they are looked after first. Perhaps in Orwellian tradition we should amend the names of the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition to Napoleon and Squealer.

Under the amendments proposed by this bill, aged-care workers will be better off in actual real terms with more money in their pay packets and with no need to pay protection money to a union. No wonder unions oppose these amendments. Their relevance is again being brought into question as they seek to fleece the Australian taxpayer.

In short, Minister Andrews is at the forefront of fighting for workers in aged care to get the pay rise they deserve by stopping a supplement that channelled money into unions and Labor. Now that money will go into the pockets of the workers who very much deserve it.

Coupled with the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 are minor changes to the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Care Charges (Amendment) 2014 which make it easier for the Commonwealth to recoup expenses for the care of people in their own homes should that person receive a compensation payment. This already occurs if a person is in a care facility but not if they are in home care. This change seeks to address that imbalance.

To each individual, the cost of this reimbursement of government funds is not paid for by them but by the party paying the compensation. It will be incumbent on solicitors and legal firms representing their clients to ensure the cost of this recovery is accounted for in their final claim. While the amount of savings is only small—$500,000 to a million dollars per year—this is about addressing the inequity of people in a care facility having to pay the costs of their care while those who are cared for at home do not.

In closing, I can understand the groans from those opposite at the thought of their campaign funds being $1½ billion worse off. But, of course, those groans are not out of concern for the aged-care workers, nor indeed for those residents of an aged-care facility, because those opposite are concerned not with the wage outcomes for workers or quality care for older Australians but with feathering their own nests and the nests of their puppet masters. The sensible changes in these bills will benefit those who need it the most—the aged-care workers of Australia. I commend the bills to the House.

See this speech in context