Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in the debate on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 and the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Care Charges (Amendment) Bill 2014 and to support the second reading amendment that was moved by the member for Blair, as a very sensible and wise second reading amendment. I also take the opportunity in so doing to correct some of the unfortunate errors in the talking points that have apparently been provided to members from the government side of the House. We just had a contribution from the honourable member who spoke previously that suggested that somehow the workforce supplement was tied to union members—which of course is absolutely incorrect. You could not get a more incorrect assertion in the House, I do not think. This suggestion that the supplement was tied to union membership is utterly, utterly wrong.

I would say, with respect, that it is quite galling to hear members of a political party which has complete form on tying funding to workplace relations policies come in here and lecture Labor members about promoting collectively bargaining and suggesting that collective bargaining is not good for the 'real' workers—whatever that is supposed to mean. In fact, that is quite untrue; collective bargaining promotes better pay and conditions for workers. It clearly does. That is why, I would submit, with respect, that the Liberals and the Nationals hate collective bargaining so much and have always used workplace relations policies to promote individual bargaining—in other words, the old divide and conquer mechanism aimed at keeping workers less able to exercise power to get better pay and conditions for themselves.

During Work Choices we had some pretty awful provisions in the industrial relations legislation that were about prohibiting content that could be agreed to between workers and employers in enterprise agreements. But, even going beyond those provisions, the Building Code and the implementation guidelines under the Building Code had even more prohibited content and even more restrictions on what employers and employees could agree to in enterprise agreements, and it was, of course, a condition for getting government procurement jobs to comply with those implementation guidelines—not to mention in the higher education sector funding for universities being tied to those universities implementing the then Howard government's radical anti-collective workplace relations agenda aimed at dividing and conquering staff and preventing them from negotiating for better pay and conditions.

So to come in here and somehow suggest that any government that is trying to undermine collective bargaining is the friend of the worker is not only wrong but also offensive. We know that you do not have to be a member of a union to have a collective bargain. Contrary to what the previous speaker just said, you do not have to be a union member to have a collective bargain in this country. The legislation explicitly provides for collective bargains where people are not members of unions. So to suggest that this workforce supplement was somehow connected or related to union membership or that it was a condition of getting the supplement that your workforce by in the union is utterly, utterly incorrect and misleading. The government and the staff who have put together the talking points for members opposite might want to go away and rethink those talking points, because they are wrong and they ought not to be relied upon further.

What we actually know about the workforce supplement is that it was the central part of the Labor Living Longer Living Better package. That Living Longer Living Better package was a 10-year strategy for reform of our aged-care system designed to provide older Australians with the aged care that they want and need no matter where they live and no matter their financial means—in other words, classic Labor policy; Labor policy that cares for people no matter how rich they are, in accordance with their needs. Part of that LLLB package, as it is called—the Living Longer Living Better package—was the $1.2 billion workforce supplement which was aimed at improving pay and conditions and enhancing training and career structures for those working in the sector.

It is important that we actually address workforce planning issues—as the second reading amendment says, we need to deal with workforce pay, conditions and development—because we have, as has been said here today, an ageing population. In fact, members would be well aware of the document, Blueprint for an ageing population, created by a panel led by Everald Compton, in cooperation with Per Capita—the think tank—which looks at some of the opportunities for the ageing population. That blueprint talks about the shift in our demographics towards becoming an older Australia and having a higher proportion of people over 65—having people living longer.

We know that the population generally is ageing and we also know that the workforce in aged care is ageing. I was privileged to hear a presentation from demographer Bernard Salt last year where he told us that, on his review of the census from 2006 and 2011, there had been a change towards an older workforce of registered nurses in aged care. He said to us that, as at the 2011 census, 49 per cent of aged-care registered nurses were aged 50 or older. That is quite an ageing profile for a workforce in itself trying to grow to meet the increasing demands for aged-care services in this country. So we know that there is going to be more demand for aged care, because of the ageing population. We know that we need to do something about workforce planning in aged care, because the workforce is getting older and, because of the pay, conditions, training opportunities and career opportunities, there is a high turnover. One example: if a registered nurse can get paid more in a hospital than in an aged-care facility, the incentive to change is obvious.

We know that aged-care workers work incredibly hard in incredibly difficult and challenging jobs. In my previous life as a lawyer, I represented people in the aged-care industry and so I heard firsthand of some of the pressures, the struggles and the burdens on them. Of course, working in aged care, they are very caring people. It is a lot to take on to go into aged care. We know that there will be more demand, and the Productivity Commission's report Caring for older Australians predicted that we will need three times the existing aged-care workforce by 2050. So the high turnover, the low pay and the increasing demand meant that it was obvious to Labor that we needed to do something to improve pay and conditions in the aged-care workforce. That is why we introduced the $1.2 billion workforce supplement, which was to deliver pay rises for some 350,000 aged-care workers—people who earn very little as it is and who are dedicated to caring for the elderly. Everyone in this chamber will have a grandparent or a parent who needs aged care, and one day we will all need it ourselves, if we are lucky enough to live to an old age. We are quite concerned with the redirection of the $1.2 billion workforce supplement funds. The funds will now be given directly to providers, with no guarantees or conditions that that money will support workers through pay increases, improved conditions or professional and career development.

We know there is no silver bullet with respect to aged-care reform, but we can be certain that cutting aged-care funds, as this government has done in its budget, is certainly not going to help. We are going to continue to hold this government to account about what it is doing to deal with those workforce planning issues for the aged-care sector. Of course, this government is doing all it can to make it harder for people to, for example, get a higher education but rather are making it more expensive to get a higher education. The idea of real interest on university degrees will mean that if you go into a lower paid occupation rather than a higher paid occupation, it will take you longer to pay off the same degree, because it is income contingent—depending on your taxable income. Also, because you are taking longer to pay off the same degree, you will pay more because of the higher interest rate—in some cases substantially more. So it is yet another imperative for graduates when they leave university to take the highest-paying job that they can. That is going to contribute to workforce planning issues for the low-paid industries, like the caring industries. People already take a penalty for going into lower paid industries. They already take the penalty of lower take-home pay. To make that worse by making it more expensive to have the same degree as someone who might go into the same type of occupation in a higher-paid workplace is reckless. It is contrary to good workforce planning proposals.

Given that there are already difficulties for aged-care providers in terms of workforce planning—high turnover of staff in the sector—it is quite disappointing that there are other measures that are going to affect aged-care providers. The first budget of this government, of course, provided a surprise hit for the for-profit aged-care sector. It is reeling from the cessation of the aged-care payroll tax supplement from 1 January 2015, which is a cut of $653 million over four years. We know that the aged-care sector is not exactly known for massive profits. The Aged Care Financing Authority reports that the average net profit before tax margin across the sector is just 5.6 per cent. So it is a slender profit margin as it is. This hit, with the $653 million cut in the budget, is going to cause some difficulty for profitability for the sector. It is obviously going to mean higher prices for consumers as providers scramble to recoup. It may have other ramifications as well.

I was at a meeting of community carers, including aged-care sector providers, last week convened by the Camp Hill Healthcare practice, a multidisciplinary practice led by GPs in my electorate in Camp Hill. The community nurses had convened a round table, and I have got to say there was a lot of discussion about some of the pressures facing aged-care providers today and some of the confusion that this government's approach has been causing. There are a number of issues, but one of the issues that was raised was the difficulty in providing respite beds in caring facilities. With slender profit margins, with some very, very uncommercial things that aged-care providers would like to be able to do—such as provide respite care—it is something that is crucial but quite uncommercial for providers, as I understand it. The last thing that governments should be doing is making it harder for aged-care providers to turn a profit, and that is why it is a disappointment that this massive cut is being levied on aged-care providers in the budget.

Labor has expressed concern not just with the cut in the budget with respect to aged care but also with what has happened since the budget with the cut to the Dementia and Severe Behaviours Supplement. We introduced the supplement on 1 August last year as part of the Living Longer, Living Better package to tackle dementia. We all know that dementia is quite a challenge for aged-care providers, and those of us who have family members who have been affected will know just how much of a challenge it can be for the family. The Dementia and Severe Behaviours Supplement provided additional financial assistance to approved providers in recognition of the additional costs of caring for people with dementia and severe behaviours associated with a diagnosis of a relevant medical condition. Approved providers could claim an extra supplement of $16.15, annually indexed per day in respect of an eligible care recipient. But, on 26 June 2014, the Assistant Minister for Social Services announced during a dorothy dixer question in question time that the supplement was ceasing as of 31 July 2014. So not only was it a surprise—a post-budget announcement—but it was a surprise that had no consultation and was announced with very little notice to the sector. In spite of the assurances that he had consulted with the industry, providers had been kept in the dark and were really shocked with the decision. I know that people in my electorate have been concerned about this change as well. As I understand it, there has been only one roundtable discussion about the issue but no resolution. The Prime Minister's ministers could have been working with the Department of Social Services and aged-care stakeholders to address the issues around the original design or compliance and validation of the assessment instrument for the supplement, but they just axed the supplement, after the budget process, in a complete surprise move.

It really gives the lie to the pre-election promise to be a no surprises and no excuses government. We should not be surprised about that because before the election the now Prime Minister said basically whatever he thought it would take to get him elected. We heard him say that there would be no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no changes to the pension and no cuts to the ABC and the SBS. None of those promises has been honoured; not a single one of them has been honoured. It is very disappointing to see a first-term government bring in a budget that not only is an attack on the living conditions of Australian people but is going to make medical assistance more expensive. (Time expired)

See this speech in context