Barry Haase (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better Bill) 2013, just one of the five bills that make up the suite of bills, which this government has put forward in their attempt to address our aging population. There is a saying: old age is a privilege granted to few. A few Australians has grown to many, and this government needs to take care of our aging society in a manner that provides care with dignity, care with respect and, perhaps most importantly, care that is affordable.

We have endured five years of this government—five years of reform promises—and still there is very little evidence of real change on the ground. During the 2010 election Julia Gillard said aged-care reform would be a second-term priority. I do not expect anyone to be too surprised that very little has been achieved in the aged-care sector by this government. After all,    during the 2010 election campaign the current Prime Minister had to defend herself against claims she had not supported big increases to the age pension because, 'old people never vote for us.' Although the Prime Minister denied she had said 'old people never vote for us', she did admit to questioning the size of the pension rise.

Who knows what the Prime Minister really said—not you, not I—but I do know that the Prime Minister has been caught out fibbing on many occasions, perhaps the most memorable being: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' As the saying goes, a leopard does not change its spots.

We have seen this government undertake a litany of reports and reviews—reports and reviews which were either ignored or responded to with more inquiries. As this government sits on their hands making no decisions to secure aged care into the future, they are neglecting the very people who made this great country what it is today. I wonder if there is something they are not telling us. Are they perhaps on the verge of announcing a miracle anti-ageing pill? That announcement would be the only saving grace for the deplorable behaviour shown by this Prime Minister in her treatment of the elderly.

It was only last week that I was approached by a constituent asking why prisoners were treated better than the elderly. The gentleman claimed the prisoners received three square meals a day, had education and rehabilitation classes provided and enjoyed gym equipment and claimed that some had access to television and the internet. Whether these claims are true or not is irrelevant. Public perception is what counts here and, if the people think Julia Gillard and her cronies treat prisoners better than our elderly. 'Where there is smoke there is fire' I say.

The aged-care sector in Australia is in crisis, and at a time when there is increasing demand for services, providers are walking away from the sector due to the lack of viability of providing high-care beds and the increasing compliance demands of the government. It has been reported that up to 60 per cent of aged-care facilities are operating in the red and providers are handing back licences, causing senior Australians to wait longer or travel further to find a bed, thereby placing extra pressure on the public hospital system and on their families, not to mention the emotional pressure they suffer being displaced from family.

We, the coalition, have been advised that aged-care nurses spend, on average, a third of their time on paperwork. Under this package, things are only going to get worse as one of the great failures of this suite of bills is the missed opportunity to reduce red tape.

Around nine per cent of our population is aged 70 years or older, and this is expected to rise to 13 per cent by 2021 and to 20 per cent—around 5.7 million people—in 2051. With fewer people generating taxation revenue, care options of concessional and assisted aged care residents, those with the least resources, will be jeopardised. Consequently, social structures will be eroded and services we have taken for granted will no longer be a given. The Australia we know will no longer be if we allow this Labor government to continue on their path of destruction. If we allow them to bypass proper structural reform of the sector, the care and wellbeing of senior Australians is at risk.

Currently, over one million older Australians receive aged-care services subsidised by the Australian government, and by 2050 over 3.5 million Australians are expected to use aged care each year. Over-85-year-olds, which are the main users of aged care services, will increase from 400,000—1.7 per cent of total population—in 2007 to 1.6 million—5.6 per cent of the population—by 2047. As you can see from the figures I have just quoted, aged-care requirements are only going to grow, and the problems we have now are going to be compounded if we do not implement a sound structural basis for this sector to grow upon.

We as a population are far more transient than previous generations. Generally speaking, no longer do we have our parents or grandparents living with us, helping us to raise the children. No longer do we have built-in babysitters. Now most families have both parents working with little or no immediate family help. Rather, 'family' has become friends in a similar predicament. Children are deserting the farms and leaving the rural communities in search of better opportunities, leaving behind their aging parents. This is not a criticism of the younger generation; every generation is entitled to seek fame and fortune. It does, however, I believe, create a greater problem in the rural areas of Australia, Durack in particular because of its sheer remoteness.

Aged care in rural and remote areas is, for the most, severely lacking. Take for example the Shire of Northampton, a shire in Durack located about 480 kilometres north of Perth covering an area of 13,738 square kilometres—a shire with no aged-care facility. The Shire of Northampton has commissioned an aged-care plan, and in it they have recognised the catchment area has experienced significant growth in the 85-plus population from 43 persons in 2006 to 64 persons in 2012. This growth will continue with an estimated 120 persons aged 85-plus by 2027—an increase of 98.5 per cent.

The urgency for a residential care facility to accommodate residents in the Shire of Northampton and adjacent areas is of the utmost importance due to the increase in the community's ageing population.

For a number of ageing people, the need to relocate to a residential care facility from the familiarity of the family home can cause unnecessary emotional and financial distress, but to also have to relocate to another town or city away from family and friends is devastating. Ageing in rural areas is a frightening thought for parents and their families alike. Many of us live thousands of kilometres from families, and the only contact with elderly relatives is by phone and email. So frightening are some of the potential scenarios in our rural, regional and remote areas that shires are increasingly employing consultants to provide accurate information regarding aged care in their areas. This proactive approach has been taken by several Durack shires, and I bring to the attention of the House the report conducted by Verso Consulting for Central East Aged Care Alliance--CEACA. This group is:

…seeking to develop a holistic regional solution to allow ageing residents to remain in the region for as long as possible, within the context of Federal and State Government policy initiatives.

CEACA is made up of 11 shires from the Central East Wheatbelt in Western Australia, these are Westonia, Yilgarn, Merredin, Wyalkatchem, Trayning, Nungarin, Bruce Rock, Mount Marshall, Kellerberrin, Mukinbudin and Koorda, as well as the Wheatbelt Development Commission and the wheatbelt group of Regional Development Australia. The report shows quite clearly the projected growth of the aged population in the CEACA area, and will require additional aged-care services and infrastructure to be developed to support the projected increases.

It is believed that the 70-plus-year-old population will increase from 1,019—10.3 per cent of the total area population—in 2011 to 1,196, 11.5 per cent of the population, by 2017, and to 1,616, or 15.9 per cent of the population, by 2027. The report also found that in the CEACA local government areas, the portion of the population that is older is higher than state averages and is projected to exceed the comparable state-wide figure by at least five percentage points in 2017, by 5.7 percentage points in 2022, and by 6.3 percentage points by 2027.

During the consultation process for the report, 15 fora were conducted, with at least one forum held in each local government area participating in the development of the Central Eastern Wheatbelt Aged Care Solution. There was a common view that older people have to move away from the communities when their aged-care needs can no longer be met, and this contributes to the demise of communities. The fora showed that distance is more than kilometres, it is about reduced access to essential services. Some communities have limited access to pharmaceuticals, and there are older people who are disconnected from vital aged-care and health services, especially those on rural properties.

The challenges faced by older people attending specialist appointments are great, remembering that the majority of these appointments are in Perth, hundreds of kilometres away. The fora proved the overuse of volunteer arrangements and the underuse of shire-owned transport.

The report goes on to show the lack of services for people who have been in Perth hospitals and who are returning to the community, the consistently inadequate lack of information regarding services and the significant workforce shortages impacting on the capacity to deliver services.

More importantly, the report shows there is a severe shortage of aged cared facilities in the region. I could go on, but I am sure you understand the gist of the report. The 11 shires that make up the Central East Aged Care Alliance are not orphans in their predicament in Western Australia. I imagine you could visit any of the 46 shires in my vast electorate of Durack and hear the same problems this group is facing. Ageing in any of the rural, regional or remote areas that make up Durack is a frightening thought. We do not have public transport that will take us to the specialist in the next suburb, we do not have super pharmacies at every street corner and we do not have enough beds to put the elderly in.

The Living Longer Living Better aged-care reform package was announced on 20 April 2012, and these five bills give effect to that package. It has taken the government a year to bring legislation to parliament and now it wants to ram these bills through without proper consideration. Such is the seriousness with which we, the coalition, consider aged care, that we referred these bills to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee to examine the full impact of how these changes would affect providers, older Australians, their families and carers. A majority of Labor and Greens senators have voted to bring forward the reporting date of the Senate Community Affairs Committee on the five Living Longer Living Better package of bills from 17 June 2013 to 31 May 2013. We, on this side of the House, opposed this change of reporting date, because of the reduced time it affords for consideration of the legislation, and in particular because of important regulatory instruments that will affect the operation of the reforms would not be available for consideration.

Submissions received were quite critical of the government, primarily over the key issues of workforce, financing, bonds and information access. The inquiry heard evidence that facilities with 60 beds or fewer would be worse off financially and may be forced to close or amalgamate. The inquiry raised many issues about the complexity in the bills.

Given that most of the provisions do not come into force until 1 July 2014, I question the haste to get these bills through. The provisions which come into force on 1 July 2013 can be enacted by the government under existing delegated legislation, so once again the question is valid. These hurried bills are a sure sign of a government determined to make the impact of its dying days felt by all Australians.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill and the related bills. Aged care is, of course, an issue that affects all of us. We may have parents or other older relatives and friends needing aged care either now or prospectively. We may ourselves be at a stage of life where we need such care, either in our own home or in an aged-care facility. All of us have an interest in living in a civilised nation where those who have worked and contributed, and after being young and active now come to a stage of their life where they need care, can get the care they need.

The package of bills before the House today deals with a very important subject area. Unfortunately, as is so often the case with this government, the details of the measures in the bills before us do not live up to the soaring rhetoric which we have heard from this government about its plans in this policy area. In the time I have available to me this afternoon I want to make three points. Firstly, the changes contained in this package have a major impact in my electorate of Bradfield, where we have many fine aged-care facilities. Secondly, this bill is in essence a framework and much detail is left to regulation. That puts the parliament in the position of being asked to sign off on a set of policies when the details of those policies are not known. Thirdly, while there are very serious issues facing the aged-care sector, this package leaves most of those issues inadequately addressed.

I want to turn firstly to the impact of this package on my electorate of Bradfield where there are many fine retirement villages and aged-care facilities and services. I will mention just a few that I have had the good fortune to visit in recent times: Fernbank Retirement Village in St Ives; Christophorus House retirement village in Hornsby; the BUPA retirement village in Roseville; KOPWA aged care in Roseville, which used to be the Ku-ring-gai Old People's Welfare Association, KOPWA, but it is now just called KOPWA; the Presbyterian Aged Care Northern Sydney Community Care Service; the Adventist Retirement Village in Normanhurst; the Southern Cross Residential Care Retirement Village in North Turramurra; and the Rohini retirement village in Turramurra.

I regularly find myself very impressed by the quality of the facilities I visit: the caring staff, the cleanliness, the high physical standards in the facilities, the activities, the therapy and the outings available for residents. But achieving this outcome is not easy. I regularly hear from those who operate aged-care facilities in my electorate about the difficulties they are facing in maintaining the economic viability of those facilities. I also hear regularly from families, spouses and others who find themselves urgently looking around for a place in a suitable aged-care facility or nursing home for an elderly relative.

The Gillard government first announced its new approach to aged care, which today's package of legislation is supposed to give effect to, in April 2012. Once the Living Longer Living Better package was announced I started to very rapidly receive expressions of concern from those operating aged-care facilities in my electorate. It soon became clear that the immediate effect of the package was to reduce funding to many aged-care facilities. In fact, there was a total reduction of $1.6 billion in the aged-care funding instrument. I have received complaints that this occurred without a cost-of-care analysis being done. I received complaints about the fact that the government sought to achieve savings of $500 million from this instrument in one year, starting from 1 July 2012. And I received complaints, as have many others, that in the industry's view these changes created a two-class funding system, with a resident arriving in an aged-care facility after 1 July receiving less funding.

The aged-care funding instrument is essentially a formula, into which key parameters are inputted and therefore generates a figure per place in the relevant facility. What the government did at very short notice was to change the formula so that a given facility with a given number of places suddenly received a lower amount of funding. This occurred with very little notice in the middle of the 2012 calendar year. The changes were announced on 21 June and took effect from 1 July. The practical impact was that aged-care facilities, which had budgeted for their operations during the calendar year on a particular basis, now found that their in-year funding was unexpectedly reduced. In one relatively small facility in my electorate, for example, the CEO told me he budgeted on the assumption of indexation of 1.9 per cent, which would have generated an annual surplus of $12,000. But the impact of not having indexation when the funding instrument was suddenly changed was to change his result to a loss of $24,000.

In terms of its broader impact, analysis conducted for the industry by accounting firm Grant Thornton found that these changes were likely to result in funding cuts of between eight and 15 per cent compared to the subsidies that would have applied using the funding instrument in its previous form. Grant Thornton also found that the cuts appeared to be weighed most heavily towards high-care and dementia facilities. So this change at very short notice had a very significant detrimental impact on the profitability of operators of aged-care facilities.

Let me turn now to the proposition that this bill is lacking in key detail and comprises mainly a framework. Largely these bills set out broad principles with detailed rules left to be made by bureaucratic agencies or by the minister on advice from those agencies. For example, under proposed section 52G-4 the Aged Care Pricing Commissioner can approve certain higher prices, under proposed section 96-1 the minister will determine the fees and payment principles, under proposed section 52K-1 the secretary will determine cases of financial hardship and under proposed section 52M there are to be new prudential standards forming part of the fees and payment principles dealing with, for example, the way that approved providers must provide information about their financial management. The point is that these are all issues of great importance but the details will be left to be determined by bureaucrats, and the parliament is unable to assess the full impact of this package. There is, however, every reason to suspect that this is going to be a mechanism for even more detailed, expensive and burdensome regulatory oversight of a sector which is already very extensively overseen.

Let me turn now to the third proposition I want to advance, which is that there are serious issues facing the aged-care sector but, unfortunately, this package, despite the soaring rhetoric from the Gillard government, leaves many of those serious issues unaddressed. The fundamental problem facing the aged-care sector is one of economic viability. It is estimated that only 40 per cent of residential aged-care providers are operating in the black, and that includes both for-profit and not-for-profit operations. The inevitable and unsurprising consequence is that the supply of aged-care places is severely constrained. Providers are in many cases handing back licences because it is simply not viable for them to operate. In each of the last three to four years of funding rounds, a proportion of allocated beds were not taken up or were handed back. In consequence, senior Australians are finding it harder to find a place in an aged-care facility. They need to wait longer or they need to travel further from their present home. It is curious that this is the case when the stated objective of the policy, which this package of legislation purportedly gives effect to, is to expand the number of aged-care places. Certainly based upon the feedback I have received from many operators of aged-care facilities in my electorate, there is very little reason to be confident that this package will achieve its stated objective.

One of the features of this legislative package which is conspicuous is the range of recommendations made in the Productivity Commission report which are not included in the legislation the government has put before the parliament. Labor has ignored the bulk of the Productivity Commission report; it has merely cherry-picked a few recommendations. Let me quote, for example, from a letter I received from the major aged-care provider BUPA, which has a number of facilities around Australia, including a facility at Roseville in my electorate, which I visited last year. BUPA had this to say:

In our view the Living Longer Living Better reform package ... largely ignored the Productivity Commission's recommendation for a personalised care entitlement system that would enable improved customer choice and flexibility. We believe our Older Australians and their families should be able to pick and choose where they receive their care. We therefore urge the Government to proceed with a single entitlement based funding system and to start this process of reform now; not 5 years hence as suggested.

We have the government purportedly introducing a set of reforms designed to address the very serious problems facing the aged-care sector. We have a government purporting to do that in reliance on advice from the Productivity Commission. But those in the sector who have analysed the details of what the government has actually brought forward have pointed out that the measures do not address many of the fundamental problems which are faced by the industry and do not to a very large extent give effect to the recommendations of the Productivity Commission. What we have seen, however, in this package, which is not at all surprising given the track record of this government, is the introduction of extensive new mechanisms for detailed bureaucratic regulatory oversight. We have seen the addition of new bureaucratic machinery, such as establishing the Aged Care Funding Authority.

Let me quote from one local aged-care provider responding to the statement in the minister's press release of April last year that the new package would 'set stricter standards, with greater oversight of aged care'. He had this to say in a letter he wrote to me:

The aged care industry is one of the most highly regulated industries in Australia. The requirement to meet the 4 accreditation standards and 44 outcomes, with two annual audits and a major one each three years; and with numerous regulations and requirements at all levels, begs the question, why even more scrutiny? What is prompting these kinds of statements?

The frustration which is evident in that letter speaks volumes for the mismatch between the approach that this government has taken and what is likely to be required to solve the difficulties that we all agree are facing the aged-care sector, with a significant constraint on the availability of places in aged-care facilities where Australians of older years can go to receive the care that they rightfully expect and that we would all want them to have.

The inept approach of this government on this complex issue stands in contrast to the clear principles which have been articulated by the coalition both at the previous election and in remarks made and policies laid down, principles articulated by the coalition spokesman in this area, Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells. We have made it clear that we have a very different approach. We intend to establish a four-year aged-care provider agreement with the intention of providing greater certainty over a longer period of time. Because what we on the coalition side of this parliament understand is that the crucial thing is to create an environment in which those who are operating aged-care facilities have the right incentives and right support to go out and do the good job they need to do to serve the interests of older Australians.

The government's performance in this area, regrettably, shows a gulf between reality and rhetoric. This is an important policy priority and, should we win government, it is one we will give clear attention to. (Time expired)

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

I certainly echo the sentiments expressed by my colleague and good friend the member for Bradfield in his speech to the House this afternoon. I rise today to also speak on the package of bills, including the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013, the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency Bill 2013, the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013, the Aged Care (Bond Security) Amendment Bill 2013 and the Aged Care (Bond Security) Levy Amendment Bill 2013.

In amongst the bickering and the quarrelling that sometimes take place in this House—and the somewhat more elevated debate—there is one thing that I am very confident that each and every member of this place can agree on. We can agree that we have a duty to ensure that senior Australians live their lives in security, with access to quality care, and to make sure that they have real choice in that care. Every Australian should understand and respect the service and dedication that previous generations have given to build this great nation. If not for the sacrifices of older Australians, we would not be in the position that we are in today. That is why we must do all that we can to provide for our older Australians to make sure they get the dignity and respect they deserve so that they may live out their retirement years in peace and security.

However, no matter how meaningful or profound those sentiments may be, it matters very little if the detailed plan is not in place to put those words into action, and that is where this government has failed so dramatically. It talked big, but its rhetoric does not match the reality. The government has been in power for coming on six years. The Treasurer has delivered his sixth and, hopefully, his last budget—I say this not out of arrogance or hubris but rather out of a very deeply held belief that Australia cannot afford another budget that delivers more debt, more deficits, more taxes, more spending promises and more uncertainty all round. Yet, despite this extended period in government and despite all of the talk, there has been very little advancement in the aged-care sector. If anything, there has actually been a regression. It has been reported that, despite increase in demand, only 40 per cent of residential aged-care providers operate at a profit, meaning more than half are unsustainable in the long term. This in turn has seen a number of providers handing back their licences, which in turn has put extra strain on the public system.

A significant factor that is contributing to this decline in viability is the ever-increasing regulatory burden placed on aged-care providers. I find it somewhat ironic that this government has a minister for deregulation yet, in its time in government, has increased regulations by over 21,000 and repealed a tiny fraction of that. Many of these regulations apply to the aged-care sector. I can only imagine what it would have been like if there had been no minister for deregulation. The coalition has committed itself to a realistic reduction of red tape and regulation based on actions, not words. We have committed to cutting $1 billion of red tape and regulation. We will ensure that we keep the standards and safety levels but allow the aged-care sector to get on with doing what it should be doing: concentrating on looking after our senior Australians.

It is because of the crisis in the aged-care sector that the Productivity Commission were engaged to conduct their report Caring for older Australians, which was released by the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing on 8 August 2011. It then took this government 250 days to respond to the 58 recommendations in this report. With much fanfare, the government announced a moderate increase in funding and the Living Longer Living Better package of bills, which is the subject of this debate. As with all of the initiatives of this government, they managed to coin a creative name but it lacks substance and detail. It is the detail that always concerns us on this side of the House.

The reason we are concerned over the detail of this bill is that the government is trying to force through the bills in this House prior to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee completing their report. Already concerns have been expressed during the Senate inquiry—concerns that pertain to home care user co-payments, residential care pricing arrangements, rural and remote services, the homelessness supplement, the dementia supplement, the amendments to the bond security legislation, the pricing authority, faith-based sex discrimination, the Productivity Commission's approach as an alternative and, finally, the consultation processes as to how we are at this point today.

Specifically, though, we are concerned that, under the Living Longer Living Better package, there will be cuts in the order of $1.6 billion to ACFI funding due to assertions made by this government that the system is being rorted. To date we have yet to understand specifically where those accusations are coming from and the substance and details of those assertions. It does sound somewhat similar to the assertions that were made more recently by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship on 457 visas. He admitted that he made up some assertions and forecasts but said in his defence that everybody makes up forecasts, so why can't he? I suppose he was taking a lesson from our current Treasurer.

These cuts will have a real and significant impact on aged-care providers. In a media statement released in 2012, Leading Age Services Australia, or LASA, stated:

Aged care providers face a revenue black hole of more than $750 million over the next two-and-a-half years …

It also outlines research findings as follows: 89 per cent of aged-care facilities will face unrecoverable losses of revenue under the ACFI changes of 1 July; the average reduction of care funding for each affected resident each year is between $20,000 and $23,000; and the average loss per aged-care facility is more than $125,000 each year, with some facing revenue shortfalls of up to $560,000 and smaller and rural facilities potentially being the most affected.

We are also concerned that the Living Longer Living Better package will increase the regulatory burden rather than decrease it. These bills will establish the Aged Care Funding Authority, a new bureaucracy which will act outside the remit of parliamentary scrutiny and dictate prices, bonds and other measures. The justification for this super-regulator was once again predicated on some pretty spurious assertions—again, the claim of rorting through the issuance of superbonds of more than $2 million. Yet it is my understanding that only one person in Australia has a bond in excess of $2 million, and this is because highly specialised equipment was needed in that case.

However, most concerning to the coalition is the $1.2 billion workforce supplement, which will supplement the wages of some in the industry. To access this funding, providers with more than 50 beds will have to enter into EBAs and meet certain obligations in order to gain access to the government's supplement. The cuts to ACFI, followed by the introduction of this access measure, clearly indicate that the government only wants to reward those providers who have workers with union memberships.

That is quite wrong. It will not help our older Australians more broadly but will simply pander to special interest groups. This measure will force up the wage costs of all providers and, as I mentioned earlier, many are already operating at a significant loss. This particular concern was highlighted in a number of submissions made in reference to the package of bills. I read from some of those concerns that were expressed. Mr Ray Glickman on 29 April said:

There are four reasons why the workforce supplement should not go ahead. First of all, it is wrong in principle. To take away funds from ACFI, which essentially belong to our residents, and then transfer them to workers, is wrong in principle. And it is particularly wrong in an environment where consumer direction will be the future. Also it is futile, because robbing Peter to pay Paul does not generate more money in the system, sustainably, to pay higher wages.

This measure is secondly wrong because it industrialise what is essentially a funding issue. It centralises industrial arrangements and takes away the outcomes that one negotiates individually as an enterprise. It also seems designed to promote the interests of the union by driving clauses that have been rejected by many employers in their own enterprise bargaining arrangements. Many of the initiatives that had to be included are also costly and do not directly benefit residents, or clients.

Thirdly, it should be rejected because the proposition is not fully funded. So, in addition to recycling existing funds, so we have no more money, it does not cover on-costs. That includes numerous expensive expenditure items that will be part of the overall deal. Our calculation suggests that the cost will outweigh income by two to one. That seems extraordinary, but it is true once you add up all the elements. We have an example from the bush, where to gain $17,000 will cost $30,000.

The fourth reason it should be rejected is that it is discriminatory. The majority of regional, remote and rural providers will not be able to comply with the requirements – and they are the organisations who are most in need.

To summarise those points: this supplement is very poor piece of public policy. Let us not call it a compact, because it certainly has been agreed with provider organisations. It takes money from care to return to some employers who can strike a deal.

Ms Marie-Louise MacDonald, a board director of Masonic Care Alliance, on 30 April said:

The workforce subsidy … is a major concern. We as an organisation and all of our alliance have EBAs which pay above the awards. We all want to do well by our staff and in our own way we put in place a number of things around family friendly environments and rostering around those needs and such to retain our staff. We would love to give them more money as well. The problem is that subsidy is a shortfall for what we actually need. In WA an average worker would have six weeks annual leave – that is a carer. If they are a registered nurse or an enrolled nurse they can have seven weeks if they work a rotational shift, and if they were lucky enough to be moving from a state award into the federal they would get an extra week on top of that – so that is eight weeks. The accruals that relate to that workforce are substantial. Any subsidy that comes through has to recognise the flow on of the accrual cost that goes with that. For organisations like mine it can be millions of dollars that you have in accruals.

Why is this all so important? Why is it essential that we look after our senior Australians, those people who have raised our parents, who have in turn raised us?

It is critical that we get this right because we know our population is ageing. In fact, around nine per cent of the population is 70 years or older and this is expected to increase to 20 per cent by 2051. By the same year, 3.5 million Australians are expected to be using aged care, accounting for around three per cent of GDP. If we do not address this issue now it is going to be more difficult in the years ahead.

A government that is so much in chaos—that perverts the proper course of government in a vain attempt to win the headline of the day and does not do its homework properly to address these real and critical issues facing our nation—is not a government that can be trusted. After six long years this government has still not realised the fundamental truth that good policy makes good government. If the government actually implements real change that improves the lives of people, not makes it more difficult, people will respect it. But this will not occur while it is simply chasing the media cycle and a headline and not doing the detailed policy work.

I support the amendment before the House to defer these bills until proper scrutiny has been applied and we can see the full and complete report of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs. This issue is too important not to get right. It is too important not only to the senior Australians of today but for all of us who will become senior Australians in the future. We have a responsibility and we need to honour that responsibility.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Living Longer Living Better package of bills. It is fair that we would all like to live longer and better. Every single one of us desires to live a long healthy and prosperous life. As we age our needs change and it is important to be assured that we will be cared for and treated with dignity when we can no longer live on our own. The ageing of our population is one of the biggest social issues facing Australia. We are all living longer and have a rapidly ageing population as a consequence. Statistics show that approximately nine per cent of our population is aged 70 years or older and this is expected to rise to 13 per cent by 2021 and to 20 per cent by 2051, which equates to 5.7 million people.

With this increase, there are a number of things we need to consider, including more complex health conditions and changing disease patterns resulting in increasing and changing aged-care needs. Almost 321,000 Australians are currently living with dementia, which is projected to increase to some 900,000 by 2050. Our culturally diverse population is growing. It is also worth considering the increase in dependency ratios. By 2047 we will be almost halved to 3.2 people of working age supporting every person aged over 67. As a consequence, there will be fewer people generating the tax revenue necessary to support our older Australians. Social structures will be eroded and things we have taken for granted will no longer be a given. As we head into a future with an increasingly ageing population, will our aged-care system be able to provide the care that all Australians expect?

Currently, over one million older Australians receive aged-care services subsidised by the government. As I said earlier, by 2050 some 3.5 million Australians are expected to use aged-care services each year. It is fair to say that, for all Australians, quality aged care should be a priority. Even the Prime Minister herself, during the 2010 election, said that aged-care reform would be a second-term priority. But, despite this aspiration, we have seen very little evidence of real change on the ground. There are literally pages and pages of reviews and reports into the aged-care sector; some 20 reviews and three Productivity Commission reports. Despite all of this work, and all of the recommendations, no decisions were made to secure aged care into the future. After five years of Labor's neglect, the aged-care system urgently requires change to provide Australians with the certainty that their lives will actually be longer and better. This is an important issue for my constituents in the electorate of Forde. Australians, including the many aged-care providers, aged-care workers and residents, would like to see real action to get things done. Real action which, to this day, has been neglected.

I think it is worth just having a look at what this package of bills contains. The Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013 is the main bill of the package. It includes changes relating to residential care, changes to establish a new type of care—home care—changes relating to governance and administration, and minor administrative and other consequential changes. We also have the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency Bill 2013, which establishes a new Australian Age Care Quality Agency as a prescribed agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act and replaces the existing Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency from 1 January 2014. We have the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013, which replaces the existing Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency and allows for transfer of custody of records and documents and the transfer of office holders and staff. We have the Aged Care (Bond Security) Amendment Bill 2013, which amends the existing Aged Care (Bond Security) Act 2006 and changes its name.

These bills were referred to a Senate inquiry, and during this inquiry the Department of Health and Ageing disclosed that there were some 19 pieces of legislative instruments that will affect the operation of these five bills. Once again the government has failed to provide us with those instruments, making it extremely difficult to thoroughly assess before these bills are voted on. These bills are typical of the government's practice of enacting a framework legislation and leaving the bulk of the detail to delegated regulation, thereby expecting the parliament to vote on bills when the full impact is unknown.

It is disappointing to have to point out that, despite the government's promises of reform, many outstanding viability issues for providers still remain. Instead of releasing pressure on this sector, this government has cut $1.6 billion from the Aged Care Funding Instrument. In addition, within these bills, more uncertainly surrounds the establishment of the framework for the $1.2 billion workforce supplement. This could be quite costly for providers relying on cuts to ACFI, and looks suspiciously to be a political mechanism to unionise the sector. Stakeholders are also concerned about the establishment of the Aged Care Funding Authority. Furthermore, these five bills seek to add more pain and pressure to what is already a highly regulated industry, by adding even more red tape. Unsurprisingly, we see the government once again cherry picking only a few of the recommendations of the Productivity Commission report.

When I speak to aged-care providers in the electorate of Forde, they tell me that red tape is one of their biggest issues, and we see this as a missed opportunity to reduce red tape in this industry. This is particularly relevant when I go and speak with organisations such as Seasons at Waterford West, The Lodge at Upper Coomera, Blue Care Wirunya Aged Care Facility and Connolly Court Hostel. These are some of the great aged-care service providers in our electorate. They all have that common story: red tape is strangling their ability to provide quality care for the residents in those facilities. As I mentioned in February this year when I spoke on this issue in the Federation Chamber, this is a sector that is absolutely buried beneath regulation and red tape. It is possibly one of the most regulated in our country. The coalition has been advised that aged care nurses spend on average a third of their time on paperwork. Under this package, that is only going to get worse.

The coalition wants to see reform in partnership with the aged care sector. It does not believe that fundamental reform should be imposed from above. If successful at the next federal election, the coalition will immediately commence consultation with stakeholders in the aged care sector on a framework for the first ever four-year aged care provider agreement, including consideration of a broad range of the recommendations contained in the Productivity Commission report. We will honour our senior Australians by giving them the care that they need now and in the future, because of their valuable contribution to our country.

We have support from the likes of the Campaign for Care of Older Australians, who said in response to our 2010 ageing policy: 'We commend the idea of a four-year industry agreement to focus on cutting red tape and addressing staff shortages as a plan to provide an effective and efficient system of care, and support older people's needs now and into the future.' We in the coalition will always support measures to assist the senior members of our community.

Our agreement will deliver better and more affordable aged care by seeking to reduce red tape and enable nurses to get back to nursing and looking after residents, providing certainty for older Australians underpinned by a high-quality framework. It will deliver value for money through revised subsidy arrangements, ensuring certainty for the aged care workforce. It will establish a more flexible and viable aged care provider network to meet care needs now and into the future. It will ensure that the comfort and safety of older Australians are maximised.

We would like to see the agreement in place within a year of taking office. We will commence by establishing a high-level aged care provider agreement committee of key stakeholders to oversee the administration and implementation of the agreement and provide advice to the minister. We will also establish an aged care provider agreement working group, which will undertake the detailed design and project work required to give effect to the agreement, including taking account the recommendations of the Productivity Commission inquiry and other relevant reviews. Once again, it will be a coalition government that will seek to do more to reform the aged care sector in Australia, reduce regulation and red tape and provide a positive vision to ensure that older Australians in our community are properly cared for and looked after.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight on the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013 and cognate bills, which concern so many older Australians. I remember when these bills were foreshadowed in a number of reports some years ago. They were trumpeted loudly. So many in the industry, unfortunately, were prepared to stand with the government for the government's photo opportunity. Unfortunately, all were deceived, as what the reports of the past promised has not been delivered in these bills.

As we know, in 2010 the federal government engaged the Productivity Commission to look at the aged care system and their report, Caring for older Australians, was released on 8 August 2011 by the Prime Minister and Minister Butler. It was then around eight months later that the government responded with Living Longer, Living Better. As I understand it, there were 500 submissions to the Productivity Commission and another 500 in response to the draft. Despite this huge volume of submissions and responses, the government picked up fewer than 10 per cent of the recommendations. It really does say something, doesn't it, about the feeling or the concerns within the sector, that so many are prepared to make submissions regarding this important sector? It was, however, highly unfortunate, given that the Productivity Commission was well-supported by the sector—those who are involved in the day-to-day operations of the industry and know it best—that whilst the report was so well-received, so little of it came to fruition in this legislation before us.

To take up the realities of this government's failure in aged care, I begin by questioning the cut of $1.6 billion last year from the Aged Care Funding Instrument. As I understand it, that $1.6 billion was justified by the Gillard government on the grounds that there was widespread rorting by providers. There was a bit of media on that; the ABC's 7.30 ran it. And despite allegations being made I have not actually heard of a single prosecution that has been made in the last five years. The ABC has, however, allowed the government to withdraw that money, yet amazingly the Workforce Compact was then introduced—funding to the tune of $1.2 billion supporting a union membership drive in aged care. So they take away from the sector and give it away to the advantage of the union movement. To me it looks more like shoring up support for the Prime Minister through the faceless men of the union leadership. Of course, Minister Butler also has links to one of the beneficiaries of the compact, that being United Voice. It is a win-win situation for the Prime Minister and the minister, because, as we know, those opposite are beholden to their pre-selectors—the union movement—and are increasingly paying back that support by using the tax dollars of every Australian to pay for that support.

So, what has happened as a result of this so badly and falsely named Living Longer, Living Better Gillard government policy? The government should pat itself on the back for presiding over $3.5 billion in shelved aged care development projects! I am being facetious of course, because in August last year it was suggested by a peak aged-care body that over the following 2½ years the providers will face a black hole of $750 million and that only 40 per cent of providers are now even making a profit. The government should not congratulate itself for backing their union preselector mates and sending the industry into a crisis. It was on 5 March this year that the Workforce Compact was announced and required providers with 50 or more beds to enter into union agreements if they wanted access to a share of the $1.2 billion of the compact. Yet in reality many providers will be unable to pay these wage increases and ongoing costs such as administration and superannuation. Smaller providers in country and regional areas are the worst hit and are becoming even less viable due to this Labor government, yet it is also the case that providers operating in my electorate are struggling more and more. Given the low take-up of bed licences in Western Australia, you would have thought the government would acknowledge that there was actually a problem and at least try to put in place a solution to address that problem. But no: yet again, the Gillard government has made it worse by its 'we know better' attitude and response.

We should recall that back in 2007 Kevin Rudd campaigned on a new direction for frail and older Australians. However, just like the WA infrastructure fund, he failed to deliver it—just like this Gillard government has failed older Western Australians, preferring to back their union bosses at the cost of older people in Cowan and elsewhere. The providers in Cowan tell me that they are suffering and that their ability to provide services for the elderly is being reduced. Elderbloom, who operate in Wanneroo and in Kingsley, Bethanie in Warwick and Meath in Kingsley are all doing it tougher due to this government and its priority of their personal political careers over the interests of the aged and infirm in Cowan. It is of course not surprising that the Gillard government acts this way. As was leaked out of cabinet a few years ago, the now Prime Minister was against pension increases because 'older people never vote for us'. No wonder she redirects money out of the sector to the benefit of her union mates.

I do also want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the efforts of one man in Ballajura, in the East of Cowan, who is trying to create an aged-care and independent living facility to meet the desperate needs of one of Perth's biggest suburbs. I speak of Councillor Mel Congerton of the City of Swan. A local in Ballajura, he has been working hard on meeting the needs of the people in the area. He has been working up plans, while the Labor councillors and the Labor MLA in the area periodically seek photo opportunities on the site without doing the real work that Mel does. As Mel tries to get this project up, the viability-sapping policies of increased costs and regulations—the Labor way—will make the challenge even harder. I wish Mel all the best and I will continue to back him strongly as we try to get Ballajura looked after, in spite of the obstacles Labor puts in the way.

More broadly, I will take this opportunity to speak about the challenges to the aged-care sector in Western Australia. I thank Steve Kobelke of Aged and Community Services WA, Ray Glickman of Amana Living and Beth Cameron of Leading Age Services WA for coming to see me about these bills. I also thank the local providers for letting me know their views.

Clearly, from all these reports the best interests of my constituents are being undermined by this government. The industry has come to a standstill through the inaction of the Gillard government. I have been told of the stagnation in both development and provision of services. An example of the terrible situation is that there are now 3,500 bed licences that have not been taken up in Western Australia. The need remains strong, but the capacity of industry to take up the licences is just not there. They also tell me that this year, 2013, saw Western Australia allocated 80 in-home care packages out of 5,835 across Australia. Although the introduction of bonds for high care was appreciated, the sector is unhappy that so many of the Productivity Commission's recommendations were not taken up. The sector was hoping for a situation whereby consumers would have an entitlement to care, allowing providers to innovate to meet demand, all of which was to take place in a less regulated environment. I also understand that, currently, about a third of a nurse's shift in aged care is taken up with paperwork.

On the matter of the workforce wages compact, the sector does not support taking money from care and channelling it into supplementing wages. This was never agreed to by the peak bodies, and those peak bodies know that no new funding was involved. It was just ripped out of care subsidies. The Western Australian providers tell me that 75 per cent of the increased wages still have to be paid by the providers, as well as putting in place new workplace conditions. They say that if they could they would pay more in wages, but this Labor government just imposed upon them a requirement to pay an additional 2.75 per cent in wage increases. I find it absolutely bizarre that this government can make it harder for providers and still expect them to pay higher wages. The only thing this government is good at is spending other people's money—but the light at the end of this tunnel is a fast-approaching train.

I recently read a letter sent by the Standing Committee on Community Affairs to the department of health about the inquiry into the aged care package of bills. I was staggered to discover that despite the recent Senate inquiry the committee has been unable to obtain adequate information regarding the 'content of regulations and other instruments to be made under the legislation'. However, despite this the committee has decided to present its report on the legislation on 31 May 2013, rather than the date originally set by the Senate, 17 June 2013. The coalition senators on this committee opposed this change of reporting date, because they identified that this would result in reduced time for consideration of the legislation and, importantly, because key regulatory instruments that will affect the operation of the reforms are not available for consideration. The coalition senators tried to stop this report being rushed through the system but, in their usual manner, Labor and the Greens linked up to prevent thorough examination and consideration of the facts and happenings of what they are investigating.

I honestly cannot decide which is worse: the fact that the department is not able to provide the Senate inquiry with the information it needs to make informed decisions, or the fact that Labor and the Greens are effectively saying they do not need the information from the department, because they know what is required and what is best. Either way, it is a scary situation for all involved in the aged-care sector.

Having talked about how the Gillard government has chosen to betray the aged-care sector and older Australians, I do want to speak about a better future, which I hope we will have the chance to deliver after the federal election. Before doing so I would like to thank my friend and colleague Senator Fierravanti-Wells for her leadership in aged care. The senator has a depth of understanding built on years of involvement in the sector, well before entering the Senate, and that understanding and the years of involvement and experience are certainly acknowledged by the providers and the peak bodies in Western Australia. I can assure the House that our approach will be different from the Labor way. We will form a partnership with the aged-care sector. We will work with them to achieve reform. The industry can look forward to properly negotiated agreements rather than having inquiries and then an imposed decision from above. They can look forward to the first ever aged-care providers agreement framework. It will be about respect and acknowledging not political advantage but national responsibility.

As part of this process the coalition is committed to establishing a high-level aged-care provider agreement steering committee of key stakeholders to oversee the administration and implementation of the agreement and to provide advice to the minister. We will also establish an aged-care provider agreement working group which will undertake the detailed design and project work required to give effect to the agreement. The coalition understands that there is no-one else who knows the daily workings of the sector better than the aged-care providers themselves. The agreement framework will create the opportunity for the minister, government and stakeholders to more closely and effectively consider ongoing issues regarding timely and appropriate access to aged care. Our approach will help meet care needs now, and in the future we will ensure that the comfort and safety of older Australians is not compromised.

Although the future will be brighter for the industry and those older Australians that are affected, to deal with these bills I support the amendment of the opposition to defer debate until the Senate committee has reported and to then seek amendments based on the outcomes of the Senate inquiry. It is the job of committees to make sure, particularly in this case, that the information is there and that the impact of bills such as these can be properly assessed. It is not the case that there is some time frame within which the legislation has to be gotten through before the implications are known, because then the outcomes could also be entirely negative. And, as we have talked about already, so many speakers have said there are implications that are not negative and that the industry does not want.

In any case, in the future it will fall to a coalition government to clean up this Labor legacy of waste, mismanagement and, unfortunately, nepotism that defines this terrible Gillard government. The reality is that the sector will continue to go backwards until there is a change of government. I just hope that the crossbenchers will put older Australians first rather than continue to side with the government. It is clear, however, due to their lack of interest in this bill, that they will not do so. I hope that the Australian people see that Labor, the Greens and the Independents are in lock step, having betrayed older Australians and the aged-care sector. I do not think that there is any doubt that they are all the same: a threat to the sector and to the increasing number of Australians in need of aged care across this whole country. It is important that, when the time comes, Australians look at what affects them and look at the results of this parliament to make sure that they know who was responsible for what happened, and I hope that they support the right team. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.