Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Hansard source

Minister, you know that it is wrong. Let me tell you this.

Senator Ludwig interjecting—

I withdraw 'lie' and replace it with fabrication. Let me tell you why it is a fabrication. It is misleading, it is wrong and it is something that those opposite continue to parrot. The assertion that funding for public hospitals decreased by $1 billion under the coalition government is false.

Australian government funding for health, including public hospitals, increased significantly under the coalition government. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australian government expenditure on public hospitals increased every year from approximately $5.2 billion in 1995-96 to over $12 billion in 2007-08. Annual spending on health and aged care by the Australian government more than doubled from $19.5 billion in 1995-96 to $51.8 billion in 2007-08. Australian government funding to the states under the Australian healthcare agreements was $42 billion between 2003 to 2008, compared to $31.7 billion between 1998 to 2003 and $23.4 billion between 1993 to 1998. The 2003 to 2008 Australian healthcare agreements provided a 17 per cent increase in funding compared to the previous agreement.

The government's claims are untrue. They are wrong, they are misleading. Minister Ludwig, they are a fabrication because in 2003 the coalition government provided an extra $10 billion for public hospitals in the Australian healthcare agreements. Funding for public hospitals from 2003 was 83 per cent higher than under the previous Keating Labor government. A change in the growth rate of the Australian healthcare agreements due to higher private health insurance coverage and other demographic changes was reflected in the forward estimates of 2003. Some public hospital expenditure continued to increase by 17 per cent in real terms in the 2003 to 2008 Australian healthcare agreements, contrary to the false accusations that those opposite continue to peddle. Let me repeat that: from 1993 to 1998, it was $23.4 billion; from 1998 to 2003, it was $31.7 billion, and from 2003 to 2008 it was $42 billion. It is important that those opposite stop peddling this fabrication for some political gain. It is absolutely, totally untrue.

There are some important examples of where the government has broken its promises in health. We have just seen one example through the Extended Medicare Safety Net. But I would like to focus on a couple of areas in my own portfolio which have recently demonstrated yet again this government's incompetence and its mismanagement. It was with great fanfare that we saw mental health in last year's budget. Mental health has been done. We had Get Up! out there with the candles; we had the Prime Minister out there with various people, including Professor McGorry, making comments about mental health and spending. I say to the Australian people that it was an absolute illusion. Where has the money been spent? Do not just take my word for it. Why are we starting to see eminent people like Professor McGorry and Professor Hickie in the press making these comments? I want to raise in particular in article that appeared in March 2012 in Hospital and Aged Care. Here we have Professor Hickie being very critical of the government.

I want to quote from this article. In one part of it Professor Hickie is very critical of the progress that this government has not made in terms of meeting its mental health promises, and he makes this comment:

As a result of the mess left at the end of the Rudd era, key structural issues in mental health services remain unresolved. There is no commonly agreed service model, particularly for out of hospital and ongoing community care. Due to the unholy horse-trading between the Commonwealth and the states, the first good idea that was discarded was a Commonwealth takeover of the funding of state-based community health.

In this article, in which he makes a series of very critical comments against the government, he also makes this comment:

A whole range of other essential services also awaits clarification as to who has the responsibility to fund or deliver. Much has simply been left for later dialogue or worse, potentially, to be delivered via Medicare Locals at some future (unspecified) date.

I could go on, Mr Deputy President, but what is this telling you? This is telling you that this government, in whatever area it is in, is all about spin and no substance. We are dealing with one in five Australians with mental health issues, and here we have leading people like Professor Hickie, Professor McGorry and Professor Mendoza, who resigned so spectacularly from the government's own national health advisory council, criticising the government for its lack of action in even the most basic of ways in relation to mental health. It is a very, very sad indictment of those opposite.

Indeed, we even have the chair of the National Mental Health Commission, Professor Allan Fels, for whom I have great respect, writing an article in the Australian on 1 October under the headline: 'This commission will help mentally ill or I'll quit'. It is very clear that the framework that Professor Fels has had imposed on him in relation to the Mental Health Commission will, in my view, in no way allow him to do what really needs to be done in mental health in this country. Here we have Professor Fels hoping, I think, that the Mental Health Commission will make a difference; but, as he said in his article:

… if it doesn't, I'll be the first to call for it to be closed.

I want turn to some recent events in my Ageing portfolio which demonstrate this government's total lack of transparency and bad faith in its dealings with providers in this country.

Again, we had the fanfare—and Minister Butler is very good at lots of fanfare—with the release on 20 April of the so-called aged care 'reform' package. Certainly, when that package came out, the coalition was, I think, justified in being cautious in its response. We said the devil would be in the detail; and, indeed, the devil has been in the detail. Of course, we did have the peak bodies immediately endorsing the package, but I think they are somewhat regretting that now because they have seen that the devil has been in the detail and they have been short-changed to the tune of $1.6 billion. It is very clear that these changes were done administratively and, therefore, not done with the opportunity of their having public scrutiny. At this stage, we do not know how much of that so-called reform package will require legislation—and, when it does, we will certainly give it proper scrutiny.

I want to take the Senate to the issue of the changes that were announced on 1 July. Again with little or no consultation with the sector, suddenly the sector finds $1.6 billion has been taken out of the aged care funding instrument that was released. I take the Senate to some comments that were made and a report that was commissioned by Leading Age Services Australia. It is revealed that there will be a $750 million shortfall over the next 2½ years in this analysis, which the Centre for International Economics undertook for Leading Age Services Australia. It predicts that 89 per cent of aged care facilities will face unrecoverable losses of revenue under the revised funding model, which came into effect on 1 July. The head of Leading Age Services Australia, in a media release on 10 August 2012, states:

This ultimately means an average reduction of between $20,000 and $23,000 in care funding for each affected resident every year …

…   …   …

The average loss per aged care facility is more than $125,000 each year, with some facing revenue shortfalls of up to $560,000.

I agree with Mr Mansour, who says:

Smaller and rural facilities are potentially the most affected.

He states:

As running costs continue to rise, aged care providers—unlike most businesses—cannot increase care fees—

because they are pre-set.

Recently we have seen comments made by Grant Thornton that $3.5 billion worth of development has been taken and will be affected in the aged care sector. I conclude by saying that the coalition does not oppose the changes in this bill. (Time expired)