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

I have some further questions for the minister in the consideration in detail stage. I've liaised with the Council on the Ageing regarding some other issues about which we share some concerns. Will the government move to include an explicit definition of 'hardship' in the bill? The Council on the Ageing advocates that 'hardship' be defined as someone having less than 50 per cent of the basic pension in income after essential services are paid, which is what it is today. The Council on the Ageing also advocates that the assets test for determining hardship be equalised with the minimum asset value in the bill, which is 2.25 times the annual basic pension.

Another question to the minister: will the government amend the bill to ensure that a provider cannot charge any fees if someone is experiencing hardship, as defined? Currently, the bill only explicitly prevents the non-clinical care contribution being reduced if someone is in hardship. Other supplements may offset user contributions to zero for the hotelling contribution if someone has assets less than $206—the accommodation contribution—but there is also no explicit link to the hardship.

There remain two user contributions that appear to have no link to be reduced if hardship is found. The first is for people with assets above $206,000, and that includes potentially a full pension for people who have asset levels and accommodation payments of up to $750,000 in the form of a RAD. The second is the issue of additional services, or higher everyday living services, which have been the subject of some media reports—charges for beds or even for pillows. These fees are not regulated by the act nor included in the hardship calculations, and there is no clause in the bill that would stop these fees from being charged.

While the system assumes that these fees are optional, the experience of many people—as we see from the OPAN presenting issues report released today—is that, if they do not agree to pay these additional service fees, they are not able to secure the bed that they or their loved one so desperately needs. Can we make sure that we don't have a system where people who can't afford a pillow are not given a pillow? Will the government commit to retaining provisions to ensure that the formerly additional services, now higher everyday living services, are truly optional and that older people and their families aren't being forced to pay for things they have no use for or benefit from?

The OPAN annual report indicates that aged-care residents are being charged more than $31 a day for additional services, such as a gym that they can't physically use, alcoholic drinks that they don't consume or lollies that they can't even eat due to diabetes. Some providers are including the person's bed, pillows and meals—which are fairly low on Maslow's basic needs hierarchy, rather than being luxuries. Will the minister please clarify that residents who can't physically use or do not choose to use those items will not necessarily be charged for those items?

Will the government amend the bill to require providers to consider certain factors when setting room prices of $750,000 as a RAD? The government has signalled it intends to allow providers to charge up to $750,000 from January next year. However, a number of stakeholders have raised concerns that the new act needs additional protections around room prices, and any such protections won't start until 1 July next year. One of the biggest concerns is that the median house price in many areas is far below $750,000.

Will the government amend the bill to ensure that we don't have a two-tiered system where providers can cherrypick only the wealthiest of residents? We need to have a sustainable aged-care system that ensures that everybody, no matter what is in their bank account, is provided with high-quality care. I'd appreciate the minister's response to those questions.

See this speech in context