Gavin Pearce (Braddon, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health, Aged Care and Indigenous Health Services) Share this | Hansard source

The responsibility to ensure every older Australian receives the care that they need falls upon us all. It's our duty. It's our duty as sons, as daughters, as caring citizens and as local communities. It's absolutely our responsibility as lawmakers in this place. Whether you live in the city or in one of the thousands of rural communities across Australia, like mine, everyone deserves the right to live their senior years connected to family, loved ones and local community. Our seniors deserve to stay in the communities where they have lived and built their lives. That's what they wish to do. Our senior Australians have the right to feel safe. Our seniors have the right to live their lives with dignity. And our seniors should know that, when it's needed, their care will be of the highest quality possible.

On the back of the royal commission, it was our government that started the journey to make aged care better. It was the Liberal-National government that implemented the largest investment in aged care in Australian history. The core principles of our response were founded in the pillars of respect, care and dignity. Our investment provided an additional $17.7 billion to deliver generational change in the aged-care sector. That was absolutely the right thing to do.

But our government wasn't solely focused on implementing the recommendations of the aged care royal commission. As well as implementing a once-in-a-generation improvement to the aged-care sector, the Liberal-National government focused on the specific aged-care needs within local communities and rural and regional local communities at that.

A great example is within my electorate of Braddon, on the west coast of Tasmania. It's a rugged and great part of the world. It's the resource and economic heart of Tasmania. It's rugged and isolated. In the lead-up to the 2019 federal election, I secured $1 million in order to invest in aged care in a place called Queenstown, a mining town on our west coast. During my time as the federal member, it became apparent that there remained an unmet need in aged care across the west coast of Tasmania. So I worked with the West Coast Council and on behalf of their local community to secure that funding. In the lead-up to the 2022 election, the federal Liberal government pledged to address the shortfall of aged-care beds in Queenstown on our rugged west coast. Our $3 million commitment would have funded the extra beds in the region that are so desperately needed.

Regrettably, this important commitment to aged care on the west coast of Tasmania was not matched by the Albanese, and this decision has left the west coast community without certainty around the provision of these desperately needed services. I promised the west coast community that I would continue to fight for them, and they know that. The aged-care service in their region is important to them. The Minister for Aged Care has repeatedly promised that the safety and wellbeing of older Australians, who rely on these aged-care services, is the No. 1 priority of the Albanese government. If that is the case, I look forward to the Labor federal government matching that $3 million commitment to ensure the west coast receives these desperately needed aged-care services.

The current government's commitment to aged care must continue the once-in-a-generation reform that was undertaken by the former Liberal-National government. Their program must continue the important work of implementing the recommendations of the royal commission. The Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Aged Care Reform) Bill 2022 is part of that process. The first reform under this bill is to legislate that every aged-care centre have a registered nurse on site 24 hours a day, seven days a week, by July 2023. This is a key Labor election commitment. It should be noted that the scheduling brings forward by a full calendar year the royal commission's recommendation No. 86, which was that 24/7 registered nurses be provided in all aged-care centres by July 2024.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I do have concerns. Firstly, I'm concerned around workforce. The aged-care minister has said that she will need just 900 more registered nurses to meet this important election commitment. However, the CEO of the Aged & Community Care Providers Association, Mr Paul Sadler, says it's his belief that it could be double that. Everywhere I go in my electorate, the most urgent need of employers is workforce. It's across all sectors—no exception. It's across hospitality, agriculture, mining, trucking, tourism, public service, health and, yes, aged care as well. No sector can find the workers it needs to do the work that is set in front of it, let alone meet a legislated requirement in 11 months to increase the workforce. If you live in a regional or rural community, that concern is amplified and exacerbated many times over. Where is this workforce going to come from? How will these regional communities across the north-west, the west coast and King Island—in the middle of Bass Strait—find, train and attract these RNs in a 10-month window?

Mr Sadler also calls out the Albanese government's lack of transparency with regard to the workforce numbers that they're quoting. 'I don't have visibility of how the department advised that number,' Mr Sadler said. 'It would be good if they shared that with the nursing colleges and unions and providers.'

My second concern is the lack of detail around the exemption clause contained within the schedule. Again, the minister talks about the necessity for transparency in the aged-care sector, and yet the Labor government is expecting us to vote on an exemption clause about which there is no detail. It's important to note that most of the 34 submissions received by the recent Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry raised concerns about the lack of transparency in the drafting of these exemption clauses. The scope of the exemption forms a crucial part of the schedule, so it makes sense that we must see the detail prior to voting on it. If not, it appears that the government is seeking to retrofit an exemption clause to their election commitment because they know that the commitment is undeliverable without it.

Implementing reform to cap the fees approved home-care providers can charge and the removal of exit fees were matters considered by the royal commission. This schedule is widely supported by the sector and is also supported by the opposition. Schedule 3 of the bill responds to the royal commission's recommendation 88 in order to improve provider governance. This was a recommendation fully accepted by the previous Liberal coalition government and was being processed through a $27 million investment. Again I call for greater transparency in this schedule. The need for better public reporting of data in the aged-care sector is crucial—it's vital—however, at this point we don't know what information will be reported and made public. They haven't said. If transparency is to be the hallmark of this government—and they claim this every day—then these details must be made clear before we vote on the bill.

In conclusion, this bill contains the work commenced by the Liberal-National government and our delivery in response to the recommendations of the aged-care royal commission. There are, however, many questions clearly left unanswered. There is the need for more information, the need for more detail and the need for more costings around schedules 1 and 3 of the bill. How is it going to work? How much is it going to cost? When does it need to happen? There are eligibility concerns relating to the discretionary considerations provided before an instrument of exclusion is granted. What about the hardships regional and rural communities have in order to source, retain and train RNs in their regions? The government hasn't taken into account the discrepancy between the large aged-care providers in the leafy green suburbs of the big capital cities and the small rural aged-care facilities in the bush that still require one RN.

I'd like these questions answered before we vote on this bill. I can guarantee you that there are a lot of caring providers out there that would like to see exactly the same information provided.

See this speech in context