Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

As many speakers before me have noted, the Aged Care Bill 2024 proposes a refined means-tested user-pays system for co-contributions to everyday living and independent support. It also goes to the systemic issues within the current aged-care system that are forcing aged-care providers out of business, which reduces options for aged care. Only a few months ago, Aged and Community Care Providers Association Chief Executive Officer Tom Symondson said the aged-care system was in crisis and half of residential aged-care providers are losing money. I know that some in this House will argue that this bill should be about only quality and standards of care, but we also need to be practical and acknowledge that aged care needs to be sustainable.

As with the recent NDIS bill, I agree without reservation that we need to provide human centred services, and that the rights of the person accessing the services should be paramount, but we also need to make those services affordable enough that we can continue to provide them. This is particularly important as our population ages and more Australians start to move into aged care. I support the concept of those who cannot afford to pay making greater contributions, but the feedback from those who have contacted my office is that they don't want to pay more for services. They've made decisions based on the current situation, and this should be recognised. I'm glad to see that current users of aged care will be guaranteed to be no worse off. Those who have yet to enter the aged-care system want to limit the amount they must pay but, overall, they recognise that the system needs proper funding.

A few weeks ago I visited St Ives Retirement Living in Jolimont, during one of my regular community visits, and I was delighted to have 30 residents come to chat with me about a range of topics, including the new act. While there were concerns about having to pay more and about the amount of detail yet to be disclosed, there was general acceptance that, with an ageing population, aged-care services need to be sustainably funded from somewhere. While much of the detail remains to be seen, I'll be tracking implementation to confirm that the funding changes do not leave anyone in financial hardship, and advocating for change if they do.

I want to express support for the way in which this legislation has focused attention on ageing in place through the Support at Home package. Surveys consistently show that the vast majority of older Australians want to live in their own home as they age so that they can remain connected to their community and services with which they are familiar. A survey conducted by Anglicare Australia in 2022 found that 87 per cent of people want to remain at home. Similarly, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute recently found that between 78 and 81 per cent of older Australians aged over 55 want to live in their own home as they age, which is why this part of aged care must be addressed comprehensively. I am pleased to hear that the new act will include 30,000 new packages, but this will not guarantee support for everyone who requires it. I appreciate that the maximum annual amount of funding available for in-home clinical aged care is increasing from $61,000 to $78,000. I also support the provision of additional funding for home modification, palliative care and short-term restorative care. I worry, however, that access to short-term restorative care is not always available.

Unpaid carers—those spouses, siblings, children and other family members providing support and care to older people living in their own homes—make an enormous contribution to the lives of older people, and the act does not acknowledge this role. The act should reflect the role of carers and their importance to the older people they support while acknowledging the carers' individual needs. Having sat on the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs during its recent inquiry into the recognition of carers, I've heard plenty of evidence about the important role that carers play and the need for their appropriate recognition in our service systems.

The availability of adequate respite so carers can take a break is of particular importance to my constituents. Access to respite is required for people like 69-year-old Joyce of Doubleview, who lives with her 90-year-old mother and provides much of her care. Last year she wanted to take a holiday, but she couldn't find respite for her mother in order to do this. Joyce has provided many years of care for her mother and deserves to take a break. The act does not improve the availability of respite. It should include incentives for residential aged care to make respite beds available.

I also worry about the timeliness of decision-making for Support at Home packages. The statement of rights in the act could include an obligation to provide home-care services to those eligible within a six-week period and an obligation to undertake timely assessments. In the absence of these changes, my office will track how long these decisions are taking under the new act.

The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety shone a light on some of the neglect which has taken place in the aged-care system and showed that we need reform in the way our aged-care residences are managed. I'm hopeful that the creation of a statement of rights and a statement of principles will protect the safety of users of our system. I support a positive duty on providers to uphold these rights and I support the creation of an independent complaints commissioner of aged care.

In the bill's first iteration I was concerned about the inclusion of criminal penalties for providers who breached aged-care standards. We need providers to continue to be incentivised to provide care, and I'm glad that provision has been removed from the bill. I know that some in my community were disappointed by what they saw as a reduction in penalties for systemic neglect within aged-care facilities, but I do think we need to balance the need for appropriate care with the need for provider services. I believe the civil penalties for providers who step out of line, including fines of more than $1.5 million for serious failures, adequately recognise the seriousness of breaches while also recognising that scaring off providers would have a negative effect on the quality and provision of aged care. I would support reviewing the act in three years to determine if it's fit for purpose, as the five-year review period seems a bit long.

In conclusion, we need this updated aged-care act, and I support it generally. It has taken some time to get to this point, and whether it succeeds will be determined in its implementation. As my office continues to support constituents negotiating the system, I'll be looking out for how simple, accessible and user friendly the new system is; for how transparently people can find out how they'll be affected individually; for how funding changes affect individuals, ensuring that they do not create financial hardship; for how we protect the humanity of the new system; for the ease and availability of access to Support at Home packages and short-term restorative care; and for recognition of the role of unpaid carers and for availability of respite for people like Joyce. Any large shift can take some time to bed down. My office will be working with constituents to bring any teething issues to the attention of the government and the department so that they can be resolved. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context