Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on the sheet revised 4 November 2024, as circulated in my name together:

(1) Clause 600, page 540 (line 25), omit "31 January 2029", substitute "the third anniversary of the commencement of this Act".

(2) Clause 600, page 540 (line 29), omit "no later than 31 March 2030", substitute "within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister".

Providers will newly be able to charge a maximum refundable deposit for residential aged care of $750,000 indexed over time, up from $550,000, without seeking separate regulatory approval. Depending on when each person enters aged care, a couple could be required to pay deposits of up to $1.5 million between them, as well as significant ongoing fees for each person.

I won't detain the House for too long, but I would just like it to make it clear that this will have profound impacts on people's lives. My constituent, Betty, whose husband is living with dementia has written to me. She said: 'Many people have mentioned that my husband should be in a nursing home, and I realise that this will be necessary, but I cope as long as I can. My concern is that the ridiculously high entrance cost proposed will force carers, many women like me, to struggle on as a carer at home, largely invisible. To me, this is a feminist argument—a carer role for children and then for aged relatives, with a token reward. I've been saving hard to have the nursing home upfront fee, but there's no way I could save $750,000. This is a ridiculously high amount. I don't have to pay, apart from private insurance, when he is in hospital, as he is ill. I can't see a difference, to be honest. It is not a universal service that we will all use when we are deemed old. It is for those who need specialist care. It's not a hotel. Comparisons of that with being the normal cost of living is highly offensive. I also wonder if I should place him in a nursing home earlier rather than later, before July next year, which is very soon, as soon as he comes under the new rules—a cruel decision to have to make.'

I note that if Betty and her husband were able to save the $750,000, which is what it potentially could be—this will no doubt, I think, become the default minimum refundable deposit—it will be expended on her husband's refundable deposit. This will likely leave Betty with few savings should she later require high-level care, and I suspect, as Betty has said to my office, that this burden will be borne predominantly by women. I think this is very true.

Over a five-year period, at a conservative six per cent rate, a provider of residential aged care will earn $253,669 in compound interest on the refundable deposit of $750,000, and providers will newly be permitted to retain two per cent of that refundable deposit. That's up to $75,000. So, as well as the compound interest, we're looking at a contribution of potentially $328,000. The parliament is being asked to provide a huge windfall for operators on an understanding that the additional capital will be spent and maintained on improving facilities, but it's not exactly clarified exactly how the government intends to monitor that. What we need to make sure is that it's not spent on Lamborghinis or Birkin bags—and we have seen media reports of that—and that it's actually spent on improving facilities. That is why I am moving these amendments. I commend these amendments to the House.

See this speech in context