Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I was not intending to speak on the report of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee into the Living Longer Living Better package of bills—although it is a very good report—but I felt that I needed to make a couple of points. Senator Fierravanti-Wells was arguing that the community affairs committee's process had somehow curtailed debate. In fact, we had several days of very effective evidence. The committee took evidence for as many days as we do for many of our inquiries.

If you look at the report, you will see the number of submissions we received, the detailed evidence we received in our public hearings and the extent of the consideration of that evidence. It is a large report and that is because there are many issues involved in the changes in aged care being put before parliament. Senator Fierravanti-Wells is quite right—it is a very complex area.

The issue of delegated legislation has again been raised. We do have all the delegated legislation which impacts on the changes to take place from 1 July. The implementation period for this series of changes in the aged-care acts extends across three years. Yes, it is true that we do not have the delegated legislation for things which will happen next year. In a perfect world, I would like to have all that before us. That is a point I have made many times in this place and I have been fortunate enough to be on the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs since the second week I came into this place.

On every inquiry into significant legislation which has come before this committee—both under previous governments and this one—there has been an issue about getting the core legislation and all the delegated legislation in front of the committee, and then in front of the parliament, before the core legislation is considered. I think it is worthwhile to continue making that point. But to imply that this is the only time it has happened under our government is just untrue. I will not go into any further discussion about what 'untrue' might mean, but it is untrue.

When we consider this legislation next week, we will have before us the core legislation and the delegated legislation which will come into effect, should the core legislation pass, from 1 July. That is in front of us now. We raised the issue of delegated legislation with the department both when they came before the committee as well as in a number of discussions we had as we pulled the committee report together.

We have said that all the delegated legislation will be disallowable. These instruments will therefore all come into this place for consideration. If people have a problem with them, there will be time to debate those issues then. That process occurs in the Senate regularly.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells interjecting—

As Senator Fierravanti-Wells is saying, we do not have all the delegated legislation in front of us, but the instruments we do not yet have in front of us it will come through this place in the future. That process is in place.

The report covers a range of views put forward on a range of issues. The consultation process on this batch of legislation has been going on for over two years. This final stage was the point when our committee had the chance to look at the draft legislation. We consulted with people from the providers, people from the consumer network and people from the various worker groups involved. If you read the Hansard transcripts of the committee's hearings, you will see that it is quite clear that Senator Fierravanti-Wells has a particular issue, as do some of the witnesses, with the workforce supplement. That is an area of disagreement.

But some things are clear. No-one is being forced to join a union by this legislation—no legislation could do that of course. All that is being said is that enterprise bargains involving the appropriate unions should be a mechanism to look at wage rises, wage security and entitlements for workers in the industry. It was generally agreed that there were significant workforce issues in this industry. That has been a major complaint over a number of years.

The model which the minister has put forward—indeed, the minister has put this forward—is the workforce supplement. To access the workforce supplement, you need to have an enterprise bargain which involves the union. But you do not have to access this funding. There is no compulsion to access the funding. In fact, if you are a smaller facility—and we did hear about the particular issues facing smaller facilities—you are not required to go through this process at all.

So it is not as black and white as has been presented. I urge people who are interested in aged care in our country—and I think that should be all of us—to have a look at the issues which were raised with our committee, the information which came before the committee and, in particular, the clarification points which were included specifically to respond to the workforce supplement issues.

It is clear how this supplement will operate. It is not compulsory. No-one has to use it and we understand that some providers will not use it. That is their choice as it is their choice now. If they choose to access the extra funding, they will need to meet the criteria. This model is intended to ensure that the extra funding which will flow from this legislation will, in fact, go into wages. I think there are a number of people who are sitting around this chamber who know that one of the key complaints over many years has been that, when money is provided to the industry, it does not necessarily flow through to the workers in the industry. That has been a major gap in the way we secure trained professional people in aged care.

We do not have time to talk about all the issues of aged care in a short period. I thank Senator Fierravanti-Wells for taking up the opportunity to discuss this matter, because it was not something I had thought of. I do want to make a couple of points about the state of the industry. It is truly sad that there is a view in the wider community that the aged-care system is under deep stress and that it is not responding effectively to the needs of people who are seeking aged care now, let alone the numbers that we know are going to be flowing into aged care over the next few years. We all know the demographic position in our country—we are an ageing community. We are ageing as we sit in the Senate tonight. Not only do we have the need for greater services as we grow older; the community itself has greater demands. There is an expectation that people in our community will receive effective services no matter what region they live in and no matter what their incomes are.

Changing the culture around both the people who are providing aged-care services in our country and the people who are seeking them has been a huge exercise. I want to congratulate the industry for the way it has been prepared to be involved in these significant changes. One thing that people have agreed on is that there needs to be change. I did not hear one skerrick of evidence from the time we started this process that said we did not need change. Certainly there were different views about what would be the best way to go forward, but there was agreement that the current system was not working. We have an absolute need in this parliament to consider the changes that have to take place. We can look at changes for the future but anyone who pretends that these current changes came from nowhere, that they have been forced on people who did not know about them and that there has not been an opportunity to be involved in the process, has simply deliberately chosen not to be involved.

There will be major change in this industry—there has to be. The way into the future is going to have a new balance, with people across the community being expected to put more into the funding of their own aged care. That is a huge step forward. We have to make sure that there is an effective system that carefully scrutinises the changes and that gives people the security that they will be able to have their own needs serviced and they will not be sacrificed in the process. That is our job—we need to be part of the process.