Russell Broadbent (Monash, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on aged care once again, after many, many times. I support the member for Barker's remarks in full, in total, absolutely. Personally, I don't have a problem with where the Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill is headed, and the coalition have already announced that they will be letting this bill go through on the voices. Having said that, I have a major problem with the implementation of the bill and the processes we've come to, to this point.

The last thing Prime Minister John Howard said to me before his government was defeated and he was defeated was, 'Russell, don't come and ask me for more money for aged care,' because the exponential increase of moneys put into aged care from the time I was first elected in 1990 until this time has been astronomical. So every government has had to increase the funds it outlaid on aged care. But I would put this to you: the implementation has always been the problem, and it is a problem today.

John and Betty came into my office. He's now in his 90s and is living at home with his wife. All he wants is his lawn mowed, nothing else. He has a package, but the package can't be implemented because the agency that has the package hasn't got the staff to do it. We found out recently with another inquiry we had that the agency that is charged with the responsibility of delivering the package has 88 people on its waiting list to get their lawns mowed or their gutters cleaned or whatever it is; there are 88 people just for lawns. It may not seem like a big thing to get your lawn cut, and, yes, his son comes in sometimes and does it, but there are other times John would like the place looking nice. We as a government have outlaid funds for them to do that, which was the old HACC, the Home and Community Care, program. That program has been transferred into private hands, and the private people are in it for profit; therefore, there are less funds for the end users.

I'm disappointed that I asked for a meeting with just an advisor to the minister at the start of this session, and nobody has come back to me from the minister's office. My question is this: if the provider is allocated that particular individual as a client of theirs, are they paid an administrative fee for the 88 people on their books who are not receiving the benefit? If someone has been given an aged-care package which has been agreed to by the government, the government thinks it's done the right thing; it has put the packages out there for the people—'Look what we've delivered'—yet the end user is not getting the service that the government believes it has provided.

This is not my only request of providers. I've actually had them in my office, and they've said: 'Everything's fine. We're getting around to it. We'll get there. We'll do it when we get the staff'. One provider said, 'But we don't really provide into your area,' but they have the responsibility for our area, for Gippsland. They don't have the people in Gippsland to do the jobs that need doing for the people that live there, in my area. But the government believes that they've provided the packages. The government's done the right thing; it's provided the package. But where's the connection with the government response? One of the things I spoke to former prime minister Scott Morrison about was the number of people that have been taken out of the department that used to provide a direct service for troubleshooting in aged care. They're no longer there. A member of parliament like me gets an 1800 number to ring, or they're told to ring the minister's office, or they get a ministerial response, which can take ages. These people need the help now, not in the future sometime when someone gets around to it.

When you have been given a package and that's been given to a provider to deliver, I want to know whether—I say again—that provider is getting an administrative payment for that package when they are actually not delivering the service. That's my message today. How can we as parliamentarians be responsible for government outlays, which the government has outlaid in good faith, right across this nation, so people can still live in their homes? Direct aged care in the home could save the government millions. Those people could still live at home and operate because we could make every service we have available to them, which would make their lives in old age better than they otherwise would be. But if those providers are receiving a benefit from government without providing the service, that has to stop, and it has to stop today. If, after a reasonable period—say, a month—they've been unable to provide the service, that package has to be withdrawn and given to another provider who will deliver the service. I don't think that's unreasonable. You can't keep someone's package in your hands if you are receiving a benefit—and I'm guessing they are, for the package—and not deliver the service. That's my point today.

I know that every member of this House cares about older Australians, none more so than myself. I started volunteering and fundraising for an aged-care facility, and we called the program 'A cry from the heart'. We raised the money and built an aged-care centre that's connected to our hospital. It's not new for me. It's been ongoing. I won't give up. I will continue. Thank you very much.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context