Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first part of the motion congratulates the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing on the fantastic aged-care package that he has announced—Living Longer, Living Better Aged Care Reform. I would like to bring to the attention of the House the amount of work that has gone into the development of this package which is going to change the landscape of aged care in our country. The minister commissioned a report by the Productivity Commission which was released in August last year. Since the release of the report, there has been lengthy consultation. The minister has travelled the countryside talking to groups to get their input into the proposal that was put forward by the Productivity Commission. The report, Caring For Older Australians, was well received in the community but, following the consultation, the minister came up with the package that has been introduced.

There was a lot of misinformation put out prior to the release of the final package. I have spoken to a number of groups within my electorate and they were so pleased when they heard the details of the package. It is a package that makes it easier for older Australians to stay in their homes while they receive care. There will be an increase in the number of home-care packages. I am sure members on both sides of the House support this package which was funded in this year's budget and will take effect in 2014. It is going to increase the number of home-care packages from 59,876 to 99,669. It provides tailored care packages for people to receive in their home and there will be new funding for dementia. The packages will be designed to meet the needs of the individual. It will be person-centred care, the kind of aged-care package older Australians deserve. They should be treated with dignity as well as having a package that meets their needs.

There is going to be a cap on costs so that full pensioners will pay no more than the basic fee. This legislation makes sure that people can keep the family home. That was something that older Australians, pensioners, have been most concerned about for a very long time. I am sure that every member of this House has been visited by a family member or an older person going into an aged-care facility who is worrying about the fact that they have got to sell their family home. This legislation will provide choice about how to pay for the care—instead of bonds, which can cost up to $2.6 million and bear no resemblance to the actual accommodation. I know that, even within my own electorate, there is a great variation in the bonds that people pay, and there is really no formula for ensuring that people only pay the level of bond that they need to. It gives a family time to make a decision about how they want to pay. It caps the costs, with no-one paying more than $25,000 a year and no-one paying more than $60,000 in their lifetime—and that is really important. Under this package, there will be $1.9 billion delivered for better access to aged-care services, $1.2 billion over five years to tackle critical shortages in the aged-care workforce, $80.2 million to improve aged-care links with the health system, $54.8 million to support carers, $268.4 million to tackle the nation's dementia epidemic—and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing is currently undertaking an inquiry into that—and $192 million to support the diverse care of Australia's ageing population. Put that together with the My Aged Care website and the dedicated hotline that is going to be set up for any complaints related to aged care. I commend this motion to the House, and I just know that members on the other side of this House will be supporting this motion, because they care about older people in their electorates. On this side, we know how important that is. (Time expired)

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I find myself in furious agreement with the member for Shortland when she says that older Australians need help to be able to stay at home and that the ability of senior Australians to have home care and to be treated with dignity is very important. It is, and I agree with you wholeheartedly on that, Member for Shortland. This government, however, continues to make it tougher for older Australians to make ends meet. The recent budget offered little respite, and the Living Longer, Living Better aged-care reform package does not hide the fact that senior Australians are, with the rest of the nation, about to be lumbered with the world's biggest carbon tax. The Acting Prime Minister today refused to call it what it is—

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The motion before the House has absolutely no reference whatsoever to a carbon tax. I ask that the member be brought to the point.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Member for Shortland. I remind the member to confine his comments to the motion before the chamber.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will, but it strikes to the very core of the fact that senior Australians are facing rising costs in all sorts of ways. They are facing rising costs with electricity and to be able to actually stay in their own homes.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker—

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't interrupt you!

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please resume your seat, Member for Riverina.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. All I ask is that he speaks to the motion. It is about aged care.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will listen. Thank you.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government has ignored self-funded retirees, and self-funded retirees certainly come into the—

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No way in the world!

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say, Member for Riverina, that you are straying. Please confine yourself to the motion. There is plenty of scope for you to discuss the needs of people in the aged-care area, so please confine your comments.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 10 April this year, I was the guest speaker at the monthly meeting of the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association in Griffith, the capital of the western Riverina. All attendees shared similar concerns: how will they financially survive when everything increases but pensions stay the same? They are worried about being able to live in their own homes. They are worried about the cost of nursing homes. They are also worried about how they are going to meet rising costs. I have had many calls to my electorate office from older Australians stating that they are ashamed of what Australia has become and wish they could move overseas to retire, because here in Australia they feel like second-class citizens. When my electorate officer told me that, I quizzed her. I said, 'Are you sure that people are ringing in and saying this?' She said, 'They most certainly are.'

Only last week an elderly woman from Narrandera rang my Wagga Wagga electorate office in tears because she felt she had been so let down by a system which she said was failing the aged. She had scrimped and saved all her life to pay for things and to pay for, hopefully, a very good retirement, but it is just getting harder and harder, she said. This woman is in pain and needs dental work, but she is finding it more difficult to make ends meet. Her story is echoed right across the Riverina, right across regional New South Wales and indeed right across Australia.

The net spending over the forward estimates for older Australians is $284 million, and the net spend of the package in 2012-13 is $55.2 million, down to $26.9 million the following year. The budget refers to caps for means tested home care for part-rate pensioners at $5,000 a year and $10,000 for self-funded retirees and an annual cap of $25,000 for residential care. The government has not released any figures as to the number of older Australians affected by these measures. However, Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that there were 3,103,529 persons aged 65 years and over at June 2011. And you can be sure that many of these people will feel the brunt. The budget has made clear that under this Labor government's aged-care package more means testing will mean more older Australians will have to pay extra for their aged-care needs. That is a fact.

This Labor government will also means test the cost of residential care. Residents will pay a basic fee of up to 85 per cent of the single basic pension, which is currently $15,364 per annum. Residents will also have to pay a means tested contribution to their accommodation and a means tested contribution to their care. An annual cap of $25,000 will apply to a resident's contribution to their care costs together with a lifetime cap of $60,000. Once again, while full-rate pensioners will be exempt, everyone else will have to start paying more for aged-care services. My time has run out but I wish that I could have spoken for longer. (Time expired)

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This aged-care reform package is extremely important not only for electorates in other states but also for nursing homes in my electorate, such as Blue Care Brassall Aged Care Facility, Blue Care Lauriston Aged Care Facility, Blue Care Nowlanvil Aged Care Facility, Colthup Home, RSL Milford Grange and the like. Dean Phelan, the CEO of Church of Christ Care in Queensland, commented in relation to the aged-care difficulties and challenges we face—and we know that from the third Intergenerational report, which said that we will have 2.7 Australians working for every person over 65 years of age in 2050. He said:

At the moment, across Australia, too few people are able to access care and support in their own home when they want it. There are also not enough nursing homes being built and employers are having trouble recruiting and keeping aged care workers. Many older Australians have to conduct a fire-sale of their home to pay exorbitantly high bonds to some providers to get into needed residential care.

I could not have put it better—and that is exactly what the Productivity Commission found in its report. That is why this federal Labor government responded with a package that shows that it is fair dinkum about aged-care reform. The sector has also responded positively, as can be seen in the comments by Dean Phelan in his most recent report in relation to this.

What we are doing here is allowing more people to stay in their home through more home care packages—massively increasing that—and helping carers get access to the kinds of respite and other supports needed. There is also a particular package in relation to dementia, which I think is groundbreaking. We know how important that is. We are strengthening the aged-care workforce. I know that the Australian Nursing Federation has been strong in that regard. Aged-care workers, particularly nurses, are paid on average $300 less than those who work in the public sector. We are also providing a new gateway agency, a one-stop shop, to help older Australians and their families navigate the difficulties of a fragmented and underfunded system of the past.

We have massively increased the funding in the aged-care sector. It is bit rich to be lectured by those opposite, who had seven aged-care ministers in 10 years and one of them famously said he did not like older people. So it is really quite extraordinary that those opposite should lecture us in relation to aged care. This is a package that will make a difference. It will provide additional assistance. There are a million Australians who access the HACC system and about 170,000 people are in residential aged care, but two-thirds of our aged-care budget is actually geared towards those 170,000 people—not the million people who want to stay in their homes with packages like the EACH package and the EACH dementia type packages. What we want to do is give people greater choice and greater options for their retirement.

I think the current system, which has been a problem for quite a considerable period of time, is something that Joseph Stalin in the 1930s would have been very happy with, as it is so centralised. Aged-care providers have for a long time told me that not enough money has been put into it. We have increased funding significantly, and this particular package in this budget adds to it. We are talking about some $44 billion across the forward estimates that we have put into aged care—far more than any other government has ever provided.

We want to make sure that older people are not forced to sell their family home to pay bonds. It is quite variable. Fortunately in my area it is not the case that we see large bonds having to be paid, but certainly it is a challenge for people. I know when I go to places like Nowlanvil and other aged-care facilities around Blair, particularly around Ipswich, there are a lot of older people going in much older. I recall when I was a boy, and my grandmother was the matron of Colthup Home, that people in their fifties would go into aged-care facilities. Now the average age is 84 years old. They are going into high care.

This sector has had problems for a long time. I spent 14 years on the board of Queensland Baptist Care so I know a bit about this sector. My family has been involved in aged-care provision in Ipswich for three generations. I think that what we need to do is have a good look at the sector. We really need to put serious money in. We are going to make the legislative changes and the administrative reforms and we are going to put extra money in. This budget is a down payment, in my view, as we really care for older people and give them greater choice and greater control over their lives, improving the quality of aged care in this country.

I am very pleased to see the money put in to tackle dementia. I think it is such an important place. If you go into dementia wards, particularly in nursing homes, you can see the challenges that are there for all of us. (Time expired)

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the member for Shortland for moving a motion that is related to the wellbeing of our aged in Australia. After all, they created this nation. They made many sacrifices, particularly those in their late eighties who went through the Second World War. I commend the motivation behind the aged care reform motion, but unfortunately I have to agree with the previous speaker; this is only a down payment on what is needed for us to have a comprehensive and adequate aged-care resource. We know a growing number of people will live to a very old age in Australia. A child—particularly a girl—born today might very well live to be over 100, and this package simply will not cope with that.

I want to quote from the expert Judith Sloan, who recently wrote in the Weekend Australian about the Living Longer, Living Better package:

After a bit of slow thinking, reading and discussion with a number of interested parties in aged care, I have now changed my mind about the worth of the overall package. Not only is the package inadequately described, the immediate changes are likely to induce short-term problems that will thwart the realisation of the longer-term structural reform necessary for the industry. The introduction of a form of price control in relation to accommodation bonds and charges arguably makes the situation worse relative to the current arrangements.

She went on to say:

There is a lot of smoke and mirrors to the LLLB package. While the gross size of the package is put at $3.7 billion over five years ($2.2bn over four years), there are very significant offsets, in terms of redirected funding and means-testing.

In particular, she said:

… the alteration to the Aged Care Funding Instrument, which with means testing is estimated to save the government some $2bn over the next five years.

This should not be about cost cutting; this should be about how we can make it most comfortable for many of our elderly Australians, often the most vulnerable sector in our population. The Gillard government's $3.7 billion aged-care package over five years is only some half a billion of new money in each of those five years. Unfortunately there is also a lack of detail and the changes will not start until 1 July 2014, which will be after the next election. You have to wonder why that date was chosen. It sounds a little suspicious to me. Does this government really think they will have to implement what is in fact not an adequate policy?

Comments from one of the CEOs of the largest Shepparton residential retirement village or establishment really put it into perspective for me. My staff spoke with him this afternoon. He is concerned that the government is to reduce industry funding by $1.6 billion over the next five years. For a local provider with his sized agency or institution, this means a reduction of $2,136,000 over the next five years. He does not think he can do it. In relation to low-care retention bonds, under the changes, instead of paying residential bonds, people will pay lump sums or make periodic payments. Unfortunately this is a further cut to providers' incomes from 2014, because they will no longer be able to retain any of the funds from the low-care retention bond. This will have a financial impact on the Shepparton residential facility of some $450,000 that is to be taken directly from their bottom line.

There will be a new My Aged Care website to provide older Australians and their families with centralised information about aged care, including ratings for services. I am very suspicious of these websites. How do you evaluate or enumerate the quality of caring? The interactions, one-on-one between a professional staff member or volunteer and the most vulnerable of our elderly—perhaps someone with dementia? It is very hard to enumerate. It is easier to cook the books and simply refer to how many rooms you have, how many meals you serve, whether you have a pet or not and what your programs look like. I am worried about that website.

There are also to be three new public service bodies created to micromanage the providers: the Aged Care Financing Authority, the Aged Care Quality Agency and the Aged Care Reform Implementation Council. We all know about the stifling red tape already oppressing the sector. We do not need any more of that, but that is what is going to happen. The new workforce compact between government unions and the aged-care providers is also being flagged. We do not know the detail, however, if the provider agrees with the compact and signs up, they will be given additional funding. In other words, they will get back some of their funds that have just been taken away. But is it, in fact, an effort for a new entry point for unions or greater union penetration? We have to watch this very carefully.

More funds are to be allocated for providing care in homes. However, I have to say that elderly women, in particular, do not have a home. They do not have a carer, particularly in remote rural and regional areas. How are we going to make do with these new regulations and legislation? It is simply not enough— (Time expired)

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Shortland for putting this motion up for debate tonight. In the days following the budget it is easy for important measures to get lost among the headlines and the commentary. Invariably attention goes to a couple of big-ticket items and, in the meantime, the significance of other budget announcements—often those involving long-term reforms—can be overlooked. This motion reminds the House and those listening that aged care was most definitely given the priority it deserves on budget night.

The Treasurer announced in his budget night speech that the government will commit $3.7 billion over the next five years to get started on the important reforms at the heart of our Living Longer, Living Better blueprint for aged-care services. Living Longer, Living Better represents comprehensive reform to an aged-care system that is under severe pressure to meet the demands of a population that is living longer and in greater numbers than ever before, and whose expectations of aged care are very different to those of previous generations.

Although Living Longer, Living Better provides a 10-year framework for reshaping the aged-care sector, we know that there are areas that need immediate attention, so that is what we are doing. Ask any Australian how they see their old age and what they want from an aged-care system, and they will all tell you the same thing; they all want to stay in their own home for as long as they absolutely can, enjoying their independence in familiar surroundings and with the people they love. They want that home environment and they also want to know that they will be able to rely on the appropriate care they need to make that wish a reality. That is a perfectly natural thing to want, and surely not too much to ask.

In response to the unmet demand for in-home services, part of the $3.7 billion in the budget will pay for 40,000 extra home care packages over the next five years. That will take the number of people receiving care in their homes from the current 60,000 to 100,000. We all know people want to stay in their own homes, and we also know, from the people who come to our electorate offices for help, just how hard it can be for people to find their way around the aged-care system, and to know what is available, how to access that care and how much it is going to cost.

One of the recommendations of the Productivity Commission's report into a better aged-care system was to develop a single gateway for aged-care services. This is a key part of our Living Longer, Living Better package, and has also been given priority in the budget, with $192 million allocated for improving access to information and services through that proposed single gateway. From 1 July 2013 older Australians and their families will be able to use the aged-care gateway by way of either the My Aged Care website or a national call centre to access the information they need to navigate the range of aged-care services that are available, and to make choices about their care.

Ultimately, the My Aged Care gateway will be a one-stop shop for information on both home care and residential services in a local area, the relevant fees applicable to those services, quality indicators and ratings. For many people the difficulty of understanding the aged-care system, or even knowing where to start, comes on top of what is already a distressing time of their life, when they are faced with trying to get care for their husband or wife, or an elderly parent. We have to do everything we can to make the process of working out the options and finding the right care as easy as possible. People need to feel like they are making informed choices, that they have control over this next step in their life, and they need to do that without anxiety and without feeling helpless when confronted with the maze that is there at present.

The budget also acknowledges another very important point about aged care. The aged-care system can only be as good as the people working in it. As government we can improve the aged-care system all we like but it will not amount to anything without the workforce to meet the demand for care. That is why a big proportion of the budget allocation is going towards a new aged-care workforce compact. There is $1.2 billion to improve recruitment, training and, crucially, wages for aged-care staff. If we say aged care is important then it has to be important enough that we pay decent wages to the people who provide it.

In the 21st century, when people are living longer and healthier lives, of course there is much more to ageing than aged care. But even while they are enjoying their active senior years, people want to know that support will be there when they need it. That is why these reforms are so important and should be supported by all members. I commend the motion to the House. (Time expired)

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking to the private member's motion by the member for Shortland and while not doubting her sincerity, because she is a good friend of mine, I cannot congratulate her or the government or the two ministers who were responsible for the new package, nor will I call on my fellow members to support the reforms, as the motion asks.

When the government announced its new measures, one particular item, to my way of thinking, gave the whole plan away. That was the increase in the number of home care beds from 60,000 to 100,000 over the next five years. It was even more extraordinary that no home care packages were announced in Queensland in the government's last round of allocations. How could something be so urgent in one year that you have got to announce 40,000 places when, in the previous year, you did not announce one? Quite frankly, the increase in home care packages was the clearest possible signal that the government was winding back on the troubled residential section of aged care.

In the Wide Bay statistical region, which essentially covers the Wide Bay and Hinkler electorates, we have virtually had no residential beds for four years. In fact this year, from a notional allocation of 180 places, not one bed was applied for. That clearly says to me that the government has lost touch with the realities of aged care and the industry is switching off. Since the government has come to power successive ministers have taken their eye off the ball. There will also be a need for residential care regardless of how desirable it is to keep people in their own homes, and in my area we are down 610 beds over the last four years. That is a lot of residential beds to make up. Home care packages are always welcome and they do serve to help people live happy and productive lives in their own homes, but they are not substitutes when people reach that critical time in their lives where they need residential care.

When you look at some of the government's ideas in its new package, you really start to see how potentially draconian this new program can be. For example, in future only fully funded pensioners will be exempt from the means test and copayments will be charged for other home care packages. So, if you are a part pensioner, you are going to be up for $5,000 and if you are a self-funded retiree, $10,000, and you can be asked to keep contributing to this until you reach a limit of $60,000. However, when it comes to residential care, the government has ducked a serious consideration of methods, including the family home. I know it is not pleasant, but a reverse mortgage might have been a much fairer way of doing this. The means test and charging regime is quite marked, even for residential care. Not only will pensioners be paying 85 percent of their single pension, they will not be means tested, but others will be, and there will be an annual cap of $60,000 again.

The government's lack of sincerity in this matter can be seen by simply reading between the lines. Let me explain. Although the package is sold as $3.7 billion over five years, it is essentially a recycling of the forward estimates, with a measly $577 million of new money being added. The rest is recycled from previously announced programs. The second feature is the appalling lack of commitment to a transitional scheme to boost aged-care places for residential customers. So where will we be in the Hinkler area, in the Wide Bay area? Will we be down 800 beds, 900 beds—who knows? In the most cynical move of all, the new scheme will not come into operation until July 2014, well beyond the scrutiny of the next election.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with real pleasure that I rise to speak on the motion before us. I would like to acknowledge and thank the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, the Hon. Mark Butler, for his efforts, particularly for attending to the needs of the Corangamite community and participating in a forum as a part of an extensive consultation process.

This reform is absolutely necessary. If you get around, as I do, and visit nursing homes and senior Australians, it is clear that there is need for substantial reform in this sector. The Labor government has very much prided itself in ensuring that all Australians are able to access services, whether it be in the aged-care system or in accessing world-class education.

Many people retire to my part of the nation. We have areas such as the Bellarine Peninsula, the Surf Coast and the Otways, which is a haven for people in their later years in life when they retire. As a consequence, I have one of the older electorates in this nation. I know that many people in the electorate very much want to see a strong aged-care system. When I talk to families, when I engage with my community on these very important matters, they very clearly say to me that they want to live in their homes for as long as possible. They have often raised their families in those homes, they are comfortable in that environment and they want to remain there as long as possible. I think any reform needs to enable people to remain in their home for as long as possible. Of course, there are points at which that is no longer a viable option, and moving into a nursing home often becomes the only choice in the last few years of people's lives. We need to have a sustainable system, a system that is affordable and a system that enables everyone to access care in a nursing home when it gets to that point in their lives. This reform and the efforts put in by Mark Butler, as the minister, should be commended because they very much address those issues.

Further to that, we also want to make sure that we have a very well-trained workforce to provide care and support for older Australians and their families. This is an area where we need to continue to strive as a society to make sure we are remunerating those workers, recognising the difficult task they undertake and the support they provide to their clients and the families of those clients. I would like to congratulate the minister and look forward to seeing this package deployed in my seat and right throughout the nation. I think it is a reform that is long overdue.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to speak on the member for Shortland's motion, which concerns the aged-care package. This motion concerns an important but challenging policy area—that of aged care. It is important because already one million people use or receive aged-care services, and this will grow to about 3.5 million people by 2050. It is important because it already costs about 0.8 per cent of GDP and this is forecast to grow to 1.8 per cent of GDP by 2050. It is also important because it concerns elderly, vulnerable Australians, Australians who have built this nation and who deserve dignity in their final years.

As the Productivity Commission report identifies, the current system suffers from many weaknesses. The PC report points out that it is difficult to navigate; services are limited as is consumer choice; quality is variable; the coverage of needs, pricing, subsidies and user co-contributions are inconsistent or inequitable; and there are workforce shortages. So the government's aged-care package must be viewed in the context of these weaknesses which have been identified by the Productivity Commission report.

It is difficult for us on this side of chamber to fully assess the full impact of the reforms at this stage and, with the relatively limited amount of documentation, how the reforms will operate. Let me say some of the positive elements which I think are contained within the package: first of all, the number of home-care packages will increase from 60,000 to 100,000—I think that is a positive move. Secondly, it makes dementia a national priority once again. Thirdly, it appears to give some more flexibility regarding how people will pay for aged-care services. Finally, overall it puts some additional funds into the system.

I think all four of those things identified are positive steps, but there are also some serious downsides which we believe are inherent in this package, and I would like to identify some of those in the time I have available. To start with, there is considerable smoke and mirrors in relation to the funding of this package. I know we hear a lot about it being a $3.7 billion package but that is the gross size over five years. Underneath that figure, there are significant offsets in terms of redirecting funding and means testing. Over five years, the net cost of the package to the government is only $580 million, and over the forward estimates is only $285 million. There is very little new spending over the next two financial years, which is probably what is most important for most people in the sector.

My second concern is that considerable means testing has been introduced through this package. The implication of the means testing is that the government believes that some aged-care providers are already receiving too much funding. I am concerned that, if we means test and they receive less funding, there will be less incentive for those providers, particularly the private providers, to reinvest. I also have a concern about the means testing creating a disincentive for people to save and to think about caring for themselves in their old age. There is now such a strong incentive to be on the aged-care pension, because you are the only ones who will receive aged care for free. Thirdly, there is not enough to reduce red tape in this reform package. This was a big area identified in the Productivity Commission report and, far from reducing red tape, this package actually creates three new agencies to oversee the aged-care sector.

Finally, my concern is that the package starts too late. It does not start until 1 July 2014. That is over two years away and after the next federal election. If it is that urgent, it should be starting immediately.

To summarise, let me quote the economist and academic Judith Sloan. She says:

There is little new money, with significant clawbacks in terms of means testing and reduced payments to providers. Greater consumer choice will be achieved only if providers are given appropriate incentives to invest and innovate. The package fails to achieve this balance—the pieces will be left for the next government to pick up.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Aged-care reform is long overdue in Australia, so I am absolutely delighted to support this motion. With an ageing population, it will not be long before we have a generation of baby boomers who will begin to place more pressure on our aged-care services. In fact, I understand that Canberra is ageing at a higher rate than any other metropolitan capital in Australia, so it is very much at front of mind for me as the member for Canberra. Our current aged-care system is ill-equipped to deal with the needs of an increasing number of retirees and their parents who are living longer and healthier lives. That is a good thing; that is a great strength for Australia. But it is also a challenge for us: to make sure that we live longer but we also continue to lead happy and active lives.

Last Friday, I was at the COTA national policy forum at the Manuka Oval, and the motto for the day was that people were wanting to live longer, live better and live stronger. I am strong believer in active ageing—that is, the process of optimising opportunities for health, participation and security to enhance quality of life as we age. Flexibility and transitional care are the keys here. With that in mind, I too congratulate the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing on the aged-care reform package.

On the weekend I was privileged to attend the 100th birthday of Mrs Dot Gordon, who was celebrating with her family and the caring staff at Goodwin Village in Monash. Visiting the residents there highlighted to me just how important it is to ensure our older Australians are comfortable and are receiving quality care in our community as they age. The Living Longer, Living Better package will make it easier for Australians like Dot Gordon. It will help them sustain their own homes or give them greater choice when the time comes to move into some form of aged care.

This reform package is a turning point. It places older Australians at the centre of a policy that will improve their lives and deliver better outcomes in health, both physical and mental. We are backing up our commitment to reforming aged care with a $3.7 billion investment. This investment will help older Australians so they can stay in their homes while they receive care. It will also ensure more people can keep their family home, and it will prevent anyone being forced to sell their home in an emergency fire sale to pay for their aged-care place. Also, for the first time, we are also introducing a system that is fairer and based on the capacity of people to pay.

These reforms are important and they are designed to ensure senior Australians can have peace of mind as they get older. Alongside these improvements to the way the aged-care system works, we are also increasing residential aged-care places. We are improving the aged-care workforce through a $1.2 billion workforce compact, and we are providing more funding for dementia care and more support for services. In fact, $268 million will be invested to tackle the nation's dementia epidemic, which is growing at an exponential rate. We are also establishing a single gateway to all aged-care services so they are easier to access and navigate.

Living Longer, Living Better shows that Labor has a real plan to reform aged care. Our plan will give every Australian confidence that they will be able to get safe, secure, high-quality aged-care services, either in their home or in residential care, when they get older. Our plan will also ensure older Australians have better access to safe, secure, quality care no matter what their background or their economic circumstance. This is a good plan, which also has the backing of the aged-care sector. COTA's Chief Executive, Ian Yates, said that COTA welcomes the package as it delivers on many of the issues that older people have been raising for many years. Others have described the plan as helping older Australians receive aged care in their own home while improving the sustainability of aged-care services, such as through Catholic Health Australia. These are just some of the comments from organisations who understand what it will take to improve aged care in Australia. I know the government will work closely with them to achieve better outcomes for the sector. Again, I commend the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing for this important reform and call on all members to support this step towards better aged care for all.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to talk about the government's so-called attempt at aged-care reform—and it is 'so-called' because, once again, they seem to be talking the talk but not walking the walk. We have already heard how the funding for the package will not start until after the next election. If they are serious about reforming this sector they should have got started straight away. Everyone knows that we need reform in the aged-care sector. The government know that, they have known it since 2007, yet they have continued to delay reform. We have now had the Productivity Commission do a thorough report that shows clearly what needs to be done with this sector. And what is the government's announcement? Let's postpone it all till after the next election. It seems that every time there is a hard decision to be made, unless the Greens are there behind them forcing their hand the government just walk away from the serious priority issues which the Australian community are calling out for work on. When it comes to the carbon tax, they are quite happy to put extra costs on the aged-care sector. But when it comes to reforming the aged-care sector so it can continue to grow and develop and meet the ever-growing demands on it, this government postpones.

The member for Aston in his speech identified some positive things which were identified in the Productivity Commission report and which the government have talked about—in particular, the existing number of home care packages which will be boosted from 60,000 to 100,000 over five years. Both sides of parliament recognise the need for in-home care and I think that initiative will deliver that. It is just a pity that it is not starting tomorrow, because that is what should be happening. The government should have been able to look at the Productivity Commission report, grab it, use the budget to deliver the money and get started on this important reform work. Instead, what did we get? We got procrastination. Sadly, it will mean that the aged-care sector suffers for another year or so.

There is a real need for action now, and I have seen this firsthand. I would like to take my hat off to the shadow minister for aged care, Senator Connie Fierravanti-Wells, who came down to Wannon last month and met with the aged-care sector there. It was interesting to hear the wide variety of views and opinions from across the electorate. We met some of the small, more isolated aged-care providers, the not-for-profits, and we heard about their fears and anxieties about where the system is at the moment. Then we met some of the larger players in the bigger regional centres and heard about their issues. What they want is certainty. They want certainty that the smaller not-for-profits will be able to continue within the system laid out by the government and, in particular, they seemed to be very, very perturbed that this government was not going to be putting any additional money into the system until after the next election. We were able to tell them that if the coalition wins the next election we will not wait, we will not leave them hanging—we will get straight on with implementing this reform package. From the small not-for-profits to the larger aged-care providers, they were very glad to hear that.

We like the idea of getting the packages for home care increased, but apart from that there is not much which the government has to offer in what it is doing here. I, along with the aged-care sector, hope that we will win the next election so that we can start the reform process immediately with this important work that needs doing.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the private member's motion moved by the member for Shortland. The quality of life for elderly Australians is particularly important in my electorate, being one of the most multicultural and diverse electorates in Australia and having one of the largest ageing communities. Aging an integral part of the lifecycle and nothing is quite so complicated by cultural and linguistic sensitivities as caring for elderly people and their complex needs. Helping older people to stay in their own homes is an important aim of the government's aged-care reform package. That very much accords with the cultural practices and preferences of the many communities that make up my electorate of Calwell.

Many of my constituents live in multigenerational households where care of all family members, from babies and young children to elderly grandparents and great-grandparents, is considered a natural function of the extended family. However, in our modern, time pressured and finance pressured society, this is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain without proper support and quality community services. Sometimes it is not possible to maintain, and aged-care facilities that can cater to the needs of people from different cultural backgrounds are a vital community resource.

As we all know, ageing brings with it a returning emphasis and reliance on the mother tongue. Older people, no matter how fluently they have acquired a second and subsequent language during their lifetimes, tend to feel most comfortable in their original language as they grow older. It is vital that we are sensitive to this fact when planning and providing services to older Australians of non-English speaking backgrounds. How much more important is it when we are caring for Australians who migrated to this country, often in traumatic and difficult circumstances in their later years, never having had the chance to acquire fluent English? Their needs for culturally and linguistically specific services are even greater.

By way of example, I wish to draw the House's attention to the needs of the Arabic-speaking communities in our country, a significant number of whom live in my electorate. Arabic is, according to the ABS data, in the top five most common languages other than English spoken in Australian households. It is spoken not just by people who have migrated from Middle Eastern countries but also by people from a number of African nations, such as Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somalia. Arabic speakers can be Muslim, Christian and other religions as well, each with their own specific cultural needs. Many families from the Assyrian and Chaldean communities in Iraq, who themselves are quite recent arrivals, have sponsored their elderly parents and grandparents to be with them in Australia and have very immediate needs for aged-care services and support. To this end, I would like to commend the Victorian Arabic Social Services, who have done a great job with fairly limited resources in bringing together existing mainstream aged-care services with a wide variety of Arabic-speaking communities to ensure a mutual relationship of trust and understanding. I hope that they will be able to continue to work into the future.

Under the Labor government's well-pitched aged-care reform package, needs such as I have outlined above are recognised and support made available under the Aged Care Service Improvement and Healthy Ageing Grants Fund. These grants are intended to help community organisations ensure that quality services are made available to all those who need it so that they can grow old with dignity and with as much independence as possible and with a quality of life that befits all of our community elders. Importantly however, I want to reiterate the importance of the Living Longer, Living Better aged-care reform package which makes it easier for older Australians to stay in their homes. I also want to acknowledge the very important work that the government is doing in developing appropriate aged-care policies for the large ageing migrant communities, particularly the Italian and the Greek communities which are amongst the largest of those ageing communities. For too many years the previous federal government had been absent in this policy area, so I welcome this government's focus and commitment.

And just to illustrate the importance of the ageing of the Italian and Greek communities, on Saturday I was at the National Institute for Social Assistance Conference, which is a service provided for the Italian community, and I can inform the House that the Italian community in particular is looking very, very closely at the government's formation of policy in relation to caring for the needs of the ageing Italian community. I would like to commend the work of Mr Pino Migliorino, who is the chair of FECCA and an executive member of INAS, who will play a central role in representing and advocating the needs of elderly Australians with an Italian background. (Time expired)

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the member for Shortland's motion about the importance of aged care for our community. The one thing that on both sides of the chamber we can readily agree on is the fact that we want older Australians to have the security and dignity of proper, efficient, sustainable quality aged care. We acknowledge here in this place the great work that so many older Australians have contributed to our country to make our country the great country that it is. Most importantly though, on this side of the chamber we believe very strongly that choice is critical in providing that dignity and that quality of care for older Australians.

Why though is the issue of aged care so important? You only need to look at some of the statistics to understand why it is so significant we focus our minds and attention on this important issue. Today there are about a million people receiving aged-care services. By 2050 there will be 3.5 million people who will require aged-care services. In 2010 there were around 400,000 people aged 85 and above, but by 2050 there will be 1.8 million. It is important that we get it right. It is important that we make the decisions today that will last into the future to ensure quality of care. We know that by 2050 government spending is going to significantly increase in terms of healthcare costs, which will more than triple, and the aged-care costs will quadruple according to the latest Productivity Commission reports.

There have been a number of reviews since 2007 and there have been over inquiries relating to ageing and aged-care issues including an excellent report by the Productivity Commission. In August 2011 the final Productivity Commission report was presented to the government, but we received a response only a number of weeks ago to that report, a response from the government that left many unanswered questions. I just want to go through a couple of very quick issues in the time available tonight.

Firstly, I will go to the funding issue. There was much self-congratulation and acclamation from the other side about the $3.7 billion package over the five years. However when you look closely at the detail, only $577 million of this is new money. Most is actually redirected or means tested. In fact, when you look carefully at the figures, means testing will allow the government to collect $561 million over five years and $183 million for home-care packages and $378 million for residential aged care. What does this mean? It will mean that with means testing, unless you are a pensioner your home and residential care will cost more.

These changes though, will not start until after 1 July 2014, well after the next election, which is why the government will avoid quite a significant degree of scrutiny, because the impact will not be directly felt until that time. We believe it is very important for older Australians to have choice in aged care. Many older Australians now want to be able to have home care and stay in their home for as long as possible before, in some cases, they require residential care. It is a good thing to increase home care packages, but it must be sustainable and we must ensure that those home care packages are available in a cost-effective way for all Australians.

What is very significant about the latest announcement by the government is that nothing was said about red tape. I know, as Deputy Chairman of the Coalitions Deregulation Taskforce, that red tape is a significant issue for the aged-care sector and much reform needs to occur. In fact, the government is increasing red tape, as shown in the announcement it recently made, through the new Aged Care Financing Authority that will approve accommodation charges. There are so many unanswered questions and we need to find the right solutions.

Debate adjourned.