Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Aged Care Amendment (Residential Care) Bill 2006 and to respond to some of Senator McLucas’s comments and quotes. Firstly, I congratulate and thank the members of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs on their report which has been tabled in this place. I thank the chair of the committee, Senator Gary Humphries, and I acknowledge the deputy chair, Senator Claire Moore, and Senator Judith Adams. I had been a member of the committee for a long time until recently. I was a substitute member during the inquiry into this legislation, although I did not appear at the hearings that were undertaken by the committee. I note that the report recommends that the bill be supported, and that is certainly to be noted.

We have a vastly improved aged-care environment and system in Australia today because of the many initiatives undertaken by the Howard government since 1996. Senator McLucas was happy to criticise and attack the government for doing this or for not doing that. She specifically referred to Professor Warren Hogan’s report, which was tabled publicly in 2004. I want to respond to that by saying that, in response to the Hogan report, the government committed $2.4 billion to the aged-care sector, the biggest commitment ever undertaken by an Australian government in support of the aged-care sector. So Senator McLucas’s claim that the response was inadequate and unsatisfactory is entirely baseless.

The government’s response to the Hogan report was provided in the 2004-05 budget. I want to touch on a few of those things, because it was a very important response which now provides the foundation for the excellent aged-care system and arrangements that we have in Australia today. The government’s response carefully targeted and addressed the most immediate challenges, including making more places available; it increased capital investment; it improved education and training for aged-care workers; and it developed a new funding model that streamlined administration and ensured that providers must meet more transparent financial reporting requirements. Of the government’s 31 new initiatives, 28 are already in place—benefiting residents, their families, aged-care providers and nursing and care staff—and the remaining three initiatives are on track for implementation.

I remind senators on the other side—and, indeed, members of the public—of the comparison between Labor’s funding for aged care in 1995-96 and the coalition’s funding for aged care in 2006-07. Aged-care funding under Labor was $3 billion and it is $7.8 billion under the coalition. The total number of aged-care places under Labor was 141,293; under the coalition, the total number of aged-care places was 193,753 at 30 June last year. Residential care funding under Labor was $2.5 billion; under this government, residential aged-care funding was $5.6 billion in 2006-07. There were 138,987 residential care places under Labor; under the coalition, there were 161,165 residential care places at 30 June 2005. Funding for community aged-care packages—and I want to speak a bit more about this shortly—was $33.1 million under Labor; under this government, it is $414 million this financial year, an increase of more than 1,000 per cent. That is one of the benefits of the Howard government, ensuring that families, wherever possible, can stay in their own homes. There were 4,441 community care places under Labor; under the coalition, there are 32,588 places—and the list goes on. The comparisons are ready and available on the public record for anybody who wishes to make them.

The good thing about the Australian aged-care system—and I will speak broadly about this before focusing on the bill and responding further to Senator McLucas—is the fact that we provide quality care. Among the key ingredients are quality care, access to care and ensuring a viable industry across Australia. That is good news for Australians, particularly older Australians, and their families. Across the board—and this is based on the latest figures that I have seen—some 13 per cent of the population are 65 years or over. That figure is of course creeping up. In my home state of Tasmania it is some 17-odd per cent and rising. I know South Australia is achieving the record across the states and territories, and my home state is heading towards achieving that record by 2020. The number of those aged 65 and over is expected to double over the next 40 years, so we must take steps now not only to support older Australians but to prepare for a substantial increase in their numbers. That is why the government is giving priority to quality in both care and accommodation. As I said, that is among the key ingredients, the others being ensuring access to care—that includes the rural and regional parts of Australia, including those of Tasmania—giving people choice, assisting people to remain in their homes and making sure our system is sustainable.

Having made a few comments on that, I want to thank industry participants not only for their feedback on the Aged Care Amendment (Residential Care) Bill 2006 but also for their feedback on the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs report that has been tabled—there were five submissions made to the Senate committee—and the general feedback that we get. Senator Santo Santoro, the Minister for Ageing, is one of the most consultative ministers around. He listens carefully. One of the first things he did when he became a minister was to get together the key stakeholders, the key people and the key participants and say to them, ‘I want to listen to you. I want to get your feedback.’ I congratulate him on his leadership to date in that portfolio with its many challenges. I thank him for his leadership on this bill and on many other respects relating to the aged-care sector.

I refer to Aged and Community Services Australia. Susan Parr is the executive director, Tasmania. I thank her for her feedback and I thank, for their feedback, those people in the aged-care sector in Tasmania that meet with me and talk with me and meet with my Senate Tasmanian colleagues on the government side. I thank ACSA nationally, particularly Greg Mundy for his work over many years in ensuring a close liaison with members of this government and indeed others across the board.

Senator McLucas has referred to Professor Warren Hogan’s report and our ‘inadequate’ response. I think I have adequately dealt with that. She has flagged a Labor amendment which I must say, based on my reading of it, would provide no notice to a residential care provider. It seems to be part of an approach to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. My understanding of the up to 30 minutes notice to a residential provider aspect is that it is appropriate and adequate at the moment, but further discussions and debate will be had about that in the committee stage of this bill.

The bill is in two main parts. The first part relates to the harmonising of the aged-care and pension requirements in relation to income streams and asset disposals. The second relates to aged-care assessment team delegations under schedule 2. I would like to speak firstly on the importance of consistency under schedule 1. This relates to gifting and income streams. It is basically ensuring that we have a consistent policy across the board that applies to our aged-care residents. It should be a consistent approach as it applies to Department of Veterans’ Affairs policy, to Centrelink policy and to our pension policy. Currently, assets gifted by prospective residents are excluded from assessment for aged-care assessment testing purposes but are included in the pension assets test and may reduce the amount of age pension a person receives. This is the point: if it can affect their pension then surely the arrangement should apply in the aged-care sector as well. As the current arrangements apply until 1 January 2007, people entering or moving between residential aged-care homes up to and including 31 December 2006 will not be affected. That needs to be made clear as we do not want any scaremongering, as has happened in the past on these matters, particularly with respect to Welfare to Work government policy arrangements.

Nevertheless, if you put that aside you will see that from 1 January 2007 people who enter residential aged care or move to another aged-care home and seek an assets assessment through Centrelink or the Department of Veterans’ Affairs will have any gifts that they have made from the date of 10 May this year—10 May being budget night; that is when the announcement was made, so it is entirely appropriate that that is included in the bill—and that exceed the allowable amounts included in that assessment. The allowable amounts are those that currently apply for pension asset-testing purposes as well as for pension and aged-care income assessment purposes. What are they? They are $10,000 in any financial year or $30,000 over a five-year period. That seems entirely fair, just and appropriate. That is why I, like my other colleagues on this side, am supportive of this particular amendment.

In terms of the income streams, currently the capital component—that is, the principal amount of a purchased income stream—is not included in an asset assessment for aged care. And amendments to pension arrangements announced in February 2004 mean that market-linked income streams purchased from 20 September 2004 that satisfy certain conditions are granted complying income stream status, which means that they qualify for the pension assets test exemption. At the same time, the then 100 per cent assets test exemption for purchased complying income streams was reduced to 50 per cent for products purchased on or after 20 September 2004. So complying income streams purchased before the date continue to be fully exempt from the assets test.

As the aged-care assets test only applies on entry to an aged-care home or on moving to another home, existing residents will not be affected by these changes while they remain in the same aged-care home. That seems fair; it is like a grandfathering provision, and it is consistent with the government’s policy of fairness across the board. A minor amendment has been flagged and I will allow other members of the committee to speak to that shortly.

With respect to the role of ACAT—the aged-care assessment team—and that delegation, it is to comprehensively assess the care needs of frail older Australians with complex care needs and assist them to access the most appropriate care services available. The Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing currently delegates the powers of approval for aged-care services under the act to the ACAT members. They have a job to do and they do it, on the whole, extremely well. They do it, at times, under pressure and in challenging circumstances. And I think the aged-care sector across the board also recognises that it is important to have spot checks from time to time. It is of course important that aged-care assessment teams assess aged-care residents with respect to their capacities and so on. Currently, ACAT members assess the merits of respite care extensions but, unlike other care services, do not have the delegated authority to approve any extensions. So there are some very good arguments in favour of the government’s bill and I hope that there will not be too much nitpicking over this legislation.

I also want to say a little bit more about the aged-care assessment team and the respite delegations. As I say, ACAT members have a job to do; it is important for them to fulfil their responsibilities so that we know exactly where the aged-care resident sits with respect to the type of care—high care, low care and the different categories of high and low care—that they receive when they enter the aged-care residence. Residential respite care is limited to 63 days per financial year for a care recipient. However, the secretary may increase the maximum number of days allowed.

Respite care can be particularly important. I have a very dear friend in Launceston who just spent three or four weeks in respite care and I cannot tell you how much that was appreciated. During that time in respite care, his health and wellbeing increased markedly. I thank the home involved for the wonderful care that he received and I know that all those involved were caring and provided tremendous support.

There is a demand—in Tasmania and, I know, in other parts of Australia—for these important aged-care services. This bill streamlines and improves the current arrangements so that there is consistency across the board, and a harmonisation of the aged-care and pension requirements in relation to income streams and asset disposals. It is basically applying a consistent standard across the board, whether it relates to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs or whether it relates to Centrelink. They should be harmonised, and this amendment addresses those two difficulties regarding income streaming and asset disposal.

In conclusion, I would again like to say that I think the government’s record on aged care is almost unbelievable. It has been a substantial and significant effort, particularly since the response to Professor Hogan. In regard to the lead-up to that, I want to acknowledge Minister Kevin Andrews for his leadership and, indeed, Julie Bishop for hers and for her response as Minister Bishop to the Hogan report. A lot of effort was put into that. An amount of $2.2 billion was invested into the aged-care sector. That was the largest single investment in aged care by any Australian government in history and I think the Howard government should be proud of that. I know that the funds that are flowing through now into the aged-care sector are well appreciated. Finally, I thank Senator Santoro for his leadership and his efforts on this bill and the aged-care sector generally. He has my full support and the full support of others on this committee, both on the government side and, I know, the coalition side, and I thank him for his leadership.