Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

'I'm writing to advise that, on Tuesday 21 March, BlueCare commenced the planned, controlled and respectful closure of Millbank residential aged care, due to a number of issues that make it difficult to continue to deliver a sustainable residential care service and ensure our long-term commitment to aged care in the Bundaberg region.' This is from correspondence to me on 21 March 2023 from BlueCare. To paraphrase, it goes on to say: 'Many regional towns have been forced to rely heavily on agency staff. As a not-for-profit organisation, BlueCare acknowledges ongoing workforce challenges have impacted the viability of our site. With Millbank's age and current design, bringing it to current and future standards is and will be financially unviable.'

On 27 March 2023, I wrote to the Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Sport, the honourable Minister Wells, and asked what action the Albanese government would be taking to ensure that these desperately needed facilities are maintained. We've checked every digital provider, every digital bookcase and down the back of the digital couch. We've looked at snail mail and every other possible manner that we could have been approached, and, to date, I can't find a response from Minister Wells, which is disappointing. I understand that the minister is busy, but the end result is that this facility closed. From memory, it was roughly 49 jobs and 49 beds, and it's not alone. In the last year, 49 aged-care homes have closed in this country. Those were desperately needed facilities.

Whilst this bill, the Aged Care Bill 2024, is being praised highly by many, we need to face facts, and the facts are that it is an increase in costs for those who are utilising the service. It is booked as a budget saving by the Albanese Labor government, and, on top of that, no-one has looked to address costs. It is quite easy to go and find more funding from those who have to pay in a user-pays system. Addressing costs is more challenging, but one of the fundamental reasons that these facilities find themselves in trouble is the policies of this government. You have mandated particular items, such as mandated nursing ratios. All of those things are not based on actual need. In regional areas, this government made commitments to policies that couldn't actually be delivered. There was no workforce to deliver those services, and, as a result, those facilities have closed. Add in interest-rate changes, inflation, cost for food and cost for services—all of which have gone up.

I want to be very, very clear: this is an increase in contributions by those individuals who utilise the service, particularly if they are part-pensioners and self-funded retirees. I have had this variously described to me as a seniors tax and as death duties by stealth, because it will take wealth from older Australians. We need to be clear about that.

These services need to be provided—desperately—but never underestimate the impact that the government has, through the policies that it sets, on the costs to the facility. There has been a one-size-fits-all application, which may not work for a small facility in a regional town that might only have 10 residents who don't need advanced aged care because that is the facility that they put in place through community organisations, through not-for-profits. So, whilst I'm disappointed not to get a response from Minister Wells, I am even more disappointed in the loss of 49 aged care beds in my region, where we have one of the older demographics in the country, significantly older than other areas.

This is not the coalition's bill. We did not develop it. We have obviously worked hard to try and get changes. When you have facilities like BlueCare, a not-for-profit agency, closing their facility in Bundaberg off the back of policy settings that they simply cannot meet, then we need to identify and recognise that there is something wrong with the system.

I'll come back to an even more fundamental element, and that is the application to get into aged care. Almost everyone I know—everyone that approaches me and my office—has to get their lawyer, their accountant or their financial planner to fill in the forms to enable their loved ones to enter aged care or even to apply. It is that complex. In fact, I went to the Parliamentary Library and asked quite a straightforward question, I thought, which was: what will be the increase in costs for the services under this bill? Unfortunately, the library advised that they couldn't model it because of the complexity of the system and how it impacts different individuals differently. It sounds obvious, but they simply couldn't model it.

Self-funded retirees—who have clearly worked hard to save their money, who have worked incredibly hard to not be on the pension and who are quite happy to look after themselves—are the ones who actually get the biggest increase, in terms of their contribution. They will now have a daily limit of up to $101.16. There is a lifetime cap, which I'm sure is a relief—currently, on reaching $130 in total contributions, or four years after making contributions, indexed twice a year at the current inflation rate of between four and five per cent. The maths is pretty straightforward. It's going to keep getting away from you every single year over the four years. It will cost more. Yes, the family home is not included, but my understanding is that once there's no protected person still living in the home, it will become an asset for those who are in aged care.

As was outlined previously by the member for Lyne, Dr David Gillespie, if you live in Sydney and your house is worth a couple of million dollars, the impact on you is not quite as high. But if you live in a regional area where the suburb average is under $400,000, as it is in some suburbs in areas like mine—some are substantially higher, but not by that much—you simply don't have that much money; you just don't have it.

The Parliamentary Library has said that the government estimates, the new arrangement, will result in around half of new residents paying more for residential aged care. They provided a series of case studies, which I won't get too far into. The self-funded retiree that owns their own home and has enough super that they're not eligible for the age pension will contribute $62,800, up from $49,400 on current arrangements. So, clearly, it will cost the consumer more.

We should be upfront about this. This legislation will take more money from part pensioners and self-funded retirees in order to fund aged care because of the policies of the government. That is the reality. The government has had the gall to book a budget saving on top of it. I think, whilst it's absolutely essential that we have aged care facilities that are suitable, they still need to be based on need, not broad-blanket policies across the board for which there may be absolutely no requirement, depending on the model that's used by the home.

I want all Australians to age with dignity—there is no doubt about that—but I also want to be upfront with them about what the cost will be and who will be paying. Clearly, it will be the consumer. If this government doesn't act on inflation, if it doesn't act on the increasing cost of living which is completely out of control, if it doesn't get electricity costs under control and if it doesn't reduce interest rates which are linked to inflation, then it won't matter what is in this bill because it will require more funding and more contributions—more from the taxpayer and more from the consumer—because inflation will continue to spiral. There are some quite fundamental elements in this legislation which I'm very pleased about, such as the security of the additional investment of $300 million in capital funding for regional, rural and remote aged-care providers. But it'd be unnecessary if we didn't lose 49 providers in the last 12 months—many in regional areas and many run by not-for-profit community organisations, with community members on their boards and with small facilities, who simply cannot meet the standards that are now being set, particularly when they have a model which doesn't require it. When it comes to health funding, I agree with Dr Gillespie, and I'll leave my comments there.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 15:25 to 15:36

See this speech in context