Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I think there is a degree of unanimity among all participants in this debate, and that is that the longevity tsunami that was referred to earlier is coming towards the Australian community. We are all living longer. We all live much longer in retirement. In fact, some of us will live as long in retirement as we do in the workforce. So it is very, very clear that there is an issue. It is also very clear that whilst we may be living a lot longer there is no real evidence that we are living any longer without disability. In fact we are probably living a lot longer with disability than we have in the past.

I really need to take issue with Senator Fierravanti-Wells's comment that it could all be solved if we did not have an EBA. The reality is that this is a growing sector of the economy. It employs many thousands of short-term casual employees and will employ many thousands more. They do incredibly difficult work in circumstances where they may visit people in a house and work for two hours giving a shower or they may work casual hours in a nursing home on a weekend delivering showers or critical needs for someone in that facility.

It is absolutely disgraceful to say that they should not have the minimum protections of the industrial relations regime that we operate under. What sort of an employer seeks to have short-term casual employees on less than the minimum award provisions? I think Senator Fierravanti-Wells's ideological bent was well to the fore in her diatribe about Minister Butler attempting to put in place some sort of protective regime for unions. The simple fact is that workers in Australia are best suited to collective bargaining and best protected by an EBA. Most reputable employers recognise that and pursue that as a fundamentally efficient way of delivering the outcomes that they seek—that is, good quality care by committed, caring people delivering an excellent result for the recipients, our aged care people.

The reality is that a number of changes have been made. As Senator Stephen said, that is not to diminish the amount of funding in the area but it is actually to return the rate of growth of funding to trend. It is important to realise that research by the leading body for aged care services, Aged and Community Services Australia, shows that providers are facing a revenue reduction of several million dollars over the next 2½ years. Points made in rebuttal of that by the minister's office are: (1) this research is based on some assumptions which are disputable in that residents would be replaced by others with exactly the same needs whereas data consistently shows that new residents may have different needs; (2) the small sample is representative of the entire sector which is questionable; and (3) nearly 25 per cent of residents will be reappraised each year whereas the figure is under two per cent. There is some dispute about the report which has been widely quoted by members of the opposition to say Labor is doing a terrible thing in respect of this sector.

The reality is that we are about putting in place a stronger aged care system with a $3.7 billion package entitled Living Longer. Living Better to look at more choice, easier access and better care for older Australians and their families. What aged care recipient would not want that? I finish on the issue with which I started. The opposition always goes back to industrial relations. But if one in 20 are going to work in aged care then why wouldn't those one in 20 Australian workers be entitled to a fair and reasonable return on their investment in looking after some of the most valuable people in our community, aged care recipients?