Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Social Services Legislation Amendment (No. 2) Bill 2015 introduces measures from the 2015 budget related to income management and aged care. This bill abolishes matched savings and voluntary incentive payments for people who volunteer for income management within the prescribed location. It amends the 'vulnerable measure' relating to the social worker assessment process and requirements, reducing interactions between the Department of Human Services and participants. Currently there are two groups of income management participants under the vulnerable measure: participants are assessed by a Centrelink social worker on a case-by-case basis, and there is an automatic trigger applying to a class of people—currently a youth-related trigger.

It is assumed that the measures in this bill would apply to the social worker assessment component only, and it is to be hoped that that is the case. Approximately 253 people are currently on income management through being identified by a Centrelink social worker. Evidence from evaluations suggests that the participants who are most likely to benefit from income management are those identified through Centrelink social worker assessment, or through child protection measures. It is of some concern that this is not a move by the government to prevent this taking place. We believe it is vitally important that people be properly identified. Participants placed on income support management through this measure receive regular social worker support that would be reduced under this bill. That is what we do not support—the cuts. The one thing this government is good at doing is cutting services and cutting support to those people who are very vulnerable. It is extremely difficult to understand the performance of this government in the area of providing support to those people that are most vulnerable in our community.

Labor supports income management; we can see how income management can assist people to stabilise their lives and to move forward—it is a way of addressing intergenerational unemployment and extreme disadvantage, and we can see the benefit of it. But we also know that people undertaking income management need support, they need the proper programs to help them move forward—programs that change their life circumstances. It should not just be a move by the government of the day to save money. That is what I have always feared—that this is just another example of cost-cutting and saving. A saving of $11.6 million is projected. When taking a wider view of how you save money into the future, you save money into the future by giving people the right sort of support for them to change their circumstances. I fear that that is not the intent of this government. Income management ensures that income support payments are spent in the best interests of children and families. It ensures that money is available for life essentials and helps to ease immediate financial stress. Labor in government extended income management to five communities across Australia as part of Building Australia's Future Workforce. In responding to calls to help after consultation, Labor introduced income management to help families in the APY Lands. The work of Centrelink social workers is essential in ensuring that income management is appropriately targeted and best supports those in need.

We on this side of the House oppose cuts to vulnerable families. This government is not about providing support for people who need support. It is vitally important that the government not walk away from the fact that if you really want to change a person's life, income management is part of it but you also have to have the proper supports in place; have Centrelink social workers who can identify the problem and change a person's life.

The other component of this legislation relates to aged care. I will share with the House a conversation I had recently with some aged-care providers in the Shortland electorate. They are particularly disappointed about the performance of the Abbott government in the area of aged care—for example, there is no minister responsible for aged care or ageing. That is very disappointing. They are also disappointed that this government constantly changes the rules in relation to aged care.

I find it extremely disappointing that part of this legislation is actually doing away with aged-care planning advisory committees. Planning is imperative when it comes to aged care. We have an ageing population in Australia, and we need to plan for the future of that ageing population. We need to make sure that the proper resources are in place, that the proper facilities are in place and that the proper packages are in place. We need to be able to look at it holistically and we need to know that as a country we are going in the right direction.

I do not have confidence in this government, and what I am hearing from aged-care providers in my electorate is that they are finding it difficult to keep up with constant changes that are being put upon them by the Abbott government. To be quite honest, it is really not good enough.

Part of this legislation also relates to when a person receives an offer of admission into an aged-care facility; it can be very short notice and a timely decision will need to be made about whether to accept the offer or not. Whether or not to accept an offer and move into care is a big decision for a family and for an individual. It is giving up a lot of their independence, and there are a lot of dynamics within a family and a household that need to be addressed. So I was quite concerned when I learnt that up to seven days of social leave could be used as pre-entry. This pre-entry leave gave people time to consider, immediately before they enter a service, all the issues that I just mentioned. It has already been reduced, and the simple fact that the government is looking at reducing it again shows that they are not looking at the big picture. They are not looking at all the issues. They do not care about people that are vulnerable. They do not care about frail aged people that are looking to move into aged care. They are targeting them right at that time; not giving them time to consider all the issues that are involved. It is yet another surprise attack on vulnerable people.

The Abbott government really has shown that older Australians are on their own; they have shown their contempt for older Australians and the aged-care system over the past 12 months. Instead of delivering their promises in the area of aged care, they have reneged on those promises and they have let so many people down. The $10 million cut comes hot on the heels of Minister Fifield's heartless decision to axe the dementia and severe behaviour supplement. This supplement was something that people relied on. It was something that aged-care facilities relied on. And axing this supplement has left elderly people—people who are extremely vulnerable, people who are living with dementia—on their own, without the support that they need.

This is just further evidence that the Abbott government has completely dropped the ball when it comes to aged care. They are ripping millions of dollars out of the system—at a time when we should be making sure it is strong and sustainable for the future, at a time when we should be investing in aged care, at a time when we should be investing in planning, at a time when we need to be looking at planning our aged-care system. We need to be going ahead with the changes to aged care that were introduced under the previous government and making sure that those frail aged people have the support of government. They should not be in a situation where they are feeling insecure. They need to know they have a government that will support them as they move forward; not a government that completely ignores their needs and drops the ball when it comes to aged care, not a government that shows their lack of care and compassion for older Australians.

Comments by the Treasurer last week showed his total lack of understanding of issues around ordinary Australian families when he said, 'If you want to buy a house, then you need to get a good job'. A lot of people have good jobs; they work very long hours; they work weekends. They rely on penalty rates to be able to pay for their house. Saying that it is purely an individual's fault that they do not have the money to put a deposit on a house that costs $1 million-plus in Sydney shows what an out-of-touch Treasurer and an out-of-touch government this is.

Coming back to the legislation before us right now, that example I just gave is an example of the attitude of a government that does not care about vulnerable people, an attitude that leads to a government that is constantly placing cuts on those people that are most vulnerable. This is a government that really does not understand issues surrounding aged care and older Australians. This is a government that is prepared to cut planning and to walk away from people that look to it for solutions.

So, whilst we support the income management, we also oppose cuts to vulnerable Australians.

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context