Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While he's still here, I just pass on my best wishes to the member for Leichhardt in his future endeavours. I'm sure there will be some great opportunities in front of you Warren, so all the best. It's been fun working with you.

I've spoken before in support of the government's reforms to the difficult area of aged care. During our nine long years in opposition, I was a frequent speaker on the former coalition government's failure to act on the issues in aged care that were outlined in the royal commission's interim report, which was bluntly titled Neglect. The royal commission's reports detail substandard care ranging from food and medication management to skincare. Respondents spoke of the mismanagement of health conditions such as dementia, and they also spoke about abuse, including physical and sexual abuse and quite arbitrary restrictive practices.

This is just a small snapshot of why the royal commission's report had 148 recommendations. It was clear to everyone that the aged-care sector needed a dramatic overhaul to improve the quality of participant care. That report told us that, as a country, we had really let our older Australians down. As a nation, to do so is unforgivable, especially considering what that generation did for Australia.

In the years since the Neglect report was tabled, 136 recommendations have been addressed. I just want to remind everyone that 94 of these recommendations have been implemented by the Albanese government. One of the first acts of the 47th parliament in 2022 was passing aged-care legislation that responded to the royal commission. As a government we understand that we must have an aged-care system that upholds the rights of older Australians receiving aged-care services. Our system must be ambitious and it must be infused with kindness and dignity.

Thus I'm here today to speak in support of the Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024, and I commend the minister for the important work that she is doing. This bill will support the operation of the Aged Care Bill 2024, which will commence from 1 July next year and deliver a rights based aged-care system. This legislation is a once-in-a-generation reform that will shape the way we support people to live independently and with dignity as they age. As the Minister for Aged Care said when she was introducing this bill, the government recognise that everyone will need support to understand what the new changes in this bill will mean for them, what they will need to do and when they will need to do it. That means that the government will support older people, providers and workers to prepare for the changes arising from the new act by providing clarity on what is new, what is changing and what is staying the same. The government is preparing an aged care transition taskforce to help providers manage implementation challenges, including ICT, education and compliance. Eligible providers will also be able to apply for up to $10,000 to assist with the cost of any IT changes needed to prepare for 1 July next year.

This bill will place high-quality, safe and compassionate care and services for older people at the centre of the system. The bill includes provisions that will ensure that individuals can move as seamlessly as possible from the 1997 act, the Commonwealth Home Support Program and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program to the new act. This bill also includes provisions which will deem approved providers to be registered providers under the new act. It will smooth the transition process for providers and ensure that they can continue to provide services to older people uninterrupted.

The bill also includes technical provisions to clarify how provider obligations, governance arrangements, regulatory powers, information management and decision reviews will transition to the new act. It also implements a crucial lawmaking power to allow transition to be managed in a carefully considered way. The scale of this reform means we need to be able to act quickly during transition to address challenges and unforeseen impacts.

This bill repeals the Aged Care Act 1997, the Aged Care Quality And Safety Commission Act 2018 and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997. From its commencement, it will make the Aged Care Act 2024 the Commonwealth's primary aged-care legislation and pave the way for the future of aged care—and probably put a few lawyers out of work! These reforms build on the work that the government has already done to improve the quality of aged care and to increase the wages of our aged-care workers. We know from the royal commission that workers in this industry were systematically underpaid and undervalued. The low wages and poor employment conditions meant that it was hard for the sector to attract and keep well-skilled people. It also led to unacceptable staffing levels, which in turn led to cases of substandard care. We all know from our elderly friends and family how important it is to have continuity of care.

One of the Albanese government's approaches to aged care has been to recognise the value of aged-care workers, which will hopefully help with retention, and we have done so not just by kind words but by investing $15 billion in pay rises to these workers. This aged-care bill also prioritises the training of well-skilled workers to deliver high-quality care, including specialised dementia care, a tsunami that is difficult to face. It also introduces new worker-screening measures, which is an important step towards professionalising the workforce through positive registration.

I've met many dedicated and professional aged-care workers when visiting aged care homes in my electorate and also last year when they were caring for my father. It's important to remember that the workers in this industry care for our aged parents and relatives. They provide the professional support that families cannot. They are there when we cannot be. They provide a unique level of care, and all of us who have had a parent or relative in aged care are filled with immense gratitude for the care these workers provide.

This legislation is also going to deliver a rights based aged-care system, with a new program that will support older people to live independently in their own homes for as long as possible. We know that older Australians want freedom, support and, importantly, the choice to stay in their home and in the community they know and love. I know from my own father's circumstances that he wanted to stay in his home, but unfortunately the medical situation was such that we had to move him, and to this day I still think that that move broke his heart and led to a premature death. Nevertheless, across our country right now there are families having those difficult discussions about when or if their loved ones should be moving to an aged-care facility. The reality is that in some cases moving to an aged-care facility can exacerbate the situation and result in the person's health deteriorating, like in the case of my father, Brian Perrett. That is a dilemma that many families face. Not one person wants to see their family member decline because they need to be in a centre where they can access more care. Not one family wants to experience that for their loved one.

Our $4.3 billion investment in Support at Home will deliver better and more tailored support for more people, with eight levels of ongoing care instead of the current four. It will also cut wait times to receive those in-home aged-care services, giving more chances to keep people ageing in place. It will also mean that those in need of walkers and wheelchairs should gain faster access to this technology. There will also be an increase to the maximum level of support. That will rise from $61,000 to $78,000. In addition Support at Home will provide palliative care support to make sure that older people can spend their final weeks in their home surrounded by their family, friends and neighbours.

We went to the 2022 election promising to lift the standard in aged care, and I believe that we are delivering on this commitment. We've made aged care more transparent with star ratings for residential care. This has helped older people and their families be empowered to make more informed decisions about the care facility that they're entering or already living in. The statement of rights outlines what older people can and should expect from aged care. This bill will ensure that all older Australians in the aged-care system will continue to receive high-quality care, and I particularly thank all those who help provide that care.

As the Minister for Aged Care said:

The passage of the aged-care bill and its consequential provisions has the potential to provide a new and enduring foundation for the Australian aged-care system from 1 July 2025 and for years to come.

There has been an incredible body of work done by the minister and others, and I thank them for what they have done and how they will make so many Australians' lives easier. We owe it to older Australians and all who rely on aged care now to get this done. We owe it to the growing number of people who will rely on the system in the future. It is how we judge ourselves as a nation. Let's make sure that it's a system that has at its core freedom, kindness and dignity. I commend the bill to the House.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With the passage of the Albanese government's Aged Care Bill through the Senate, the coalition has upheld our commitment to a rights based framework for older Australians to guarantee a world-class aged-care system into the future. The Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 makes technical transitional and consequential provisions to support the commencement of the Aged Care Bill 2024. This legislation contains three schedules. Schedule 1 amends the Crimes Act, the Freedom of Information Act and the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act to align the aged-care worker screening requirements with the established disability and childcare requirements. Schedule 2 transfers administrative and legal requirements to ensure existing services delivered under the old act are conveyed into the Aged Care Bill. Schedule 3 repeals existing aged-care legislation from 1 July 2025, including the Aged Care Act 1997, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Act 2018 and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997.

Although these technical changes are required, what is most disappointing about this bill is the fact it lacks clear transitional arrangements to support the sector to implement the government's Aged Care Bill. Throughout the important Senate inquiry into the Aged Care Bill, witnesses consistently gave evidence that the absence of a clear transition or implementation plan will make the implementation timeframes, particularly for the new Support at Home program, unachievable. This could negatively impact the care that can be delivered for older Australians.

An overwhelming number of witnesses emphasised the lack of information in the Aged Care Bill, combined with the uncertainty about the content of subordinate legislation and delegated instruments, making it exceedingly difficult for stakeholders to prepare for the upcoming changes. Mr Tom Symondson, CEO of the peak body for aged care providers Aged & Community Care Providers Association, stated that there are serious concerns across the sector regarding the preparedness for implementation and the need for 'a sensible transition'.

Importantly, it is not only providers who recognise how crucial it is to understand the transitional arrangements before these changes can be implemented. During a lived experience panel, older Australian Mr Peter W, who lives with heart failure and severe respiratory disease, stated:

Providers, financiers and those ensuring in-house governance cannot prepare new systems without a profound understanding of all the rules comprising grant subsidies that will not be fully available until February 2025. The earliest that Support at Home can start is 1 July 2026, not 2025. So don't rush. Let's get it right.

But this government continue to ignore the voices of the older Australians that their Aged Care Bill seeks to support. This government continue to put an election cycle before the needs of older Australians and the broader aged-care sector.

It has become overwhelmingly clear that transitional and implementation arrangements must be in place to mitigate the legitimate risk of unintended consequences from the Aged Care Bill coming into effect on 1 July 2025. The coalition will continue to call on this government to address the need for transitional provisions. That is why the opposition last week in the Senate moved an amendment that sought to include transitional arrangements within the Aged Care Bill. In doing so, we sought to ensure that the government put in place clear implementation provisions and grace periods for up to 12 months from the date this legislation comes into effect. It would have ensured the significant package of reforms could be implemented without perverse impacts for older Australians and the sector. Worryingly, the government did not support these amendments. Labor voted against the inclusion of a transitional provision and, in doing so, they voted against ensuring providers are prepared by training staff, adapting budgets and IT upgrades.

We need to ensure that unique operations of small, individual and regional providers have a clear transition timeline so that they can adapt while maintaining high standards of care. And while the bill establishes the framework for transitional rules to modify provisions of the new act for a period of 12 months, there is no guarantee that the minister will actually provide for any transitional arrangements. We do not believe that transitional provisions should be optional, particularly when it comes to reform of this size. They should be mandatory.

We will continue to stand up for the sector, which has made it loud and clear that transitional provisions must be in place. We believe there must be an obligation on the minister to prescribe transitional rules. Because while the government believes there is a one-size-fits-all policy option to implementing its reforms, the coalition knows that's not what it looks like on the ground. Given the diverse landscape of the aged-care sector, it is vital that policy decisions reflect the realities faced by all types of providers, particularly those in regional areas that may experience unique challenges.

As the coalition, we will always stand up for older Australians living in the bush to ensure they are not forced to move thousands of kilometres away, leaving their loved ones behind, because of this government's rigid regulations. The government must ensure changes are not stressful for the community and are easily understood by the residents within aged care. That's why we also need flexibility in legislation to ensure it is appropriate for aged care right across Australia, not just those in inner-city suburbs. And that's why, most importantly, transitional provisions must be in place to implement the aged-care bill in a way that recognises the diverse landscape of the aged-care sector across our nation.

The coalition will support this bill in line with our commitment to the new rights based framework for our aged-care sector, but we condemn the Albanese government for putting at risk older Australians and the aged-care sector by neglecting to provide a clear transition period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debate adjourned.