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

Last week we had a five-minute false start on the debate on this aged care package of legislation. As shadow minister for ageing, I want to place on record the appalling process that this government has adopted. So much for these measures being, as the Prime Minister said, a second-term priority for Labor. These bills will join the 55 bills to be guillotined this week, which is almost double the 32 bills guillotined in the entire period that the coalition had control of the Senate. All up, some 216 bills have been guillotined under the Labor-Green alliance. It is disgraceful that this debate on five complex bills is being guillotined. As late as yesterday the government tabled yet more amendments.

Whilst we may see passage of these bills today, through this very truncated and rushed process, the real detail of this legislation is in the 18 pieces of delegated legislation yet to be tabled, some of which commence operation next Monday. This is political blackmail by a minister showing contempt for the ageing and aged-care sector in general and a real lack of interest in older Australians. The 18 pieces of delegated legislation will no doubt be tabled out of session, thereby precluding proper scrutiny by this parliament. This delegated legislation will include the workforce supplement, which has created so much concern and alarm in the sector.

No move for disallowance of any of these instruments is possible until the new parliament, given that 15 sitting days need to elapse before they come into effect. We would remind the sector that the future of these instruments rests with the new parliament. In the meantime, Minister Butler will no doubt continue to falsely promote that aged-care workers will get pay rises, knowing full well that their future is not certain. I am sure we will see more false advertisements like this one in The Retiree, wrongly asserting:

From July, $1.2 billion will flow into the pay packets of 350,000 aged care workers across Australia thanks to Federal Labor.

That was authorised by Minister Butler himself, with the address being his electorate office in Semaphore, South Australia. This is false. It is wrong. It is a lie. It is a fabrication. In media reports of 6 March, Minister Butler admitted it is unclear how many of the 350,000 aged-care workers will benefit from the $1.2 billion funding. So, Minister, stop peddling falsehoods and giving false hope for pay rises that will never materialise because providers cannot afford them and the on-costs associated with them.

That brings us to today. It is 727 days from the time the Productivity Commission delivered its Caring for older Australians report to the government on 28 June 2011—almost two years to the day. The government took two years and gives us 45 minutes. That is really showing us the value of Labor's 'second term priority' for ageing Australians.

These bills also pave the way for the creation of an Aged Care Pricing Commissioner to oversee and manage the new pricing arrangements that come into effect on 1 July 2014. The original draft bills allowed for the establishment of that position from 1 January 2014, allowing six months to set in place the appropriate new arrangements and to allow aged-care providers to submit applications for the relevant price variations. But, despite the operation of these provisions and those relating to quality issues not coming into force until 1 July next year, the government has advertised the positions.

The government's intention became clear last week when they tabled a list of amendments to their own bills dated 14 June—only eight days after the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing gave assurances about the filling of these positions. Now the commencement date for the pricing commissioner has been brought forward from 1 January 2014 to 1 August 2013. Let me be clear. The government are not changing the commencement of the revised pricing arrangements. They are just giving the new commissioner 11 months to get his or her house in order and have used dubious claims from industry to justify this outrageous slap to the looming caretaker period, which rears its head only twelve days later.

Not only will the coalition seek to amend the bills to restore the commencement date to 1 January 2014; we will also seek to remove any opportunity for the authority of the pricing commissioner to be delegated to an officer of the Department of Health and Ageing. The pricing commissioner should be independent of the department and be able to maintain integrity at all times.

Let me now move on to the very confusing issue of the accommodation pricing issues that are so complex and so convoluted that they will probably create a whole new industry in accommodation pricing consultants. The coalition supports the removal of the distinction between low care and high care and the consequent introduction of bonds across all residential care accommodation for those with the financial means. The coalition also recognises the importance of giving choice to consumers to select the most appropriate location and type of accommodation best suited to their needs. However, the coalition is not convinced that the new arrangements for accommodation pricing will achieve the improvements the minister and the government are spruiking.

The introduction of refundable accommodation deposits, RADs—accommodation bonds by another name—and daily accommodation payments, DAPs, instead of accommodation charges and income tested fees will be a further confusing part of the aged-care conundrum. Further complications add to the intrigue of making the right decision if there are means-testing and asset-testing components to add to the equation. Overlay that with considerations around the multiple choices on what to do with sizeable assets, such as the resident's house and superannuation funds, and you end up with a very confusing situation. This is likely to be well beyond easy understanding by many older Australians and their families or carers assisting them with such momentous decisions.

I now turn to some other concerns of the coalition regarding these bills covered in the dissenting report of the Senate committee, some of which are the subject of our amendments. There were many concerns raised in the Senate inquiry and, given the guillotine, we have been prevented from canvassing them properly and fully. Firstly, there are the ACFI appraisals. The bills change the point at which the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing can intervene when an aged-care provider has ACFI claim errors. The current wording of the section in the legislation requires that a substantial number of appraisals must be involved before invoking the secretary's powers to suspend providers from making ACFI appraisals. The proposed change is to remove the words 'substantial number', providing greater opportunity for the secretary to suspend an approved provider. The potential that this could occur after one simple mistake is overbearing bureaucracy.

Secondly, the issue of lifetime contribution caps saw many submitters raise concerns that the proposal to set annual and lifetime caps on contributions does not recognise the increasing trends in life spans of older Australians and the benefits to residents from the quality of care and services that are the foundations of these longer stays in residential care. There are also concerns associated with such things as the removal of the retention and the impact this will have on providers. The list goes on. Coalition senators are concerned that these changes have been ill-considered and not backed up with proper financial modelling to ensure confidence in, and certainty of, the economics of the proposals. Coalition senators recommend that the lifetime cap and its specified level be reconsidered, subject to further modelling and analysis of the impact of the lifetime cap on consumers and the industry.

Thirdly, the dementia supplement was intended to cover the 'additional costs involved in caring for people with dementia and other mental health issues'. The coalition believes that further clarification and expansion of the definition is required and that the name should reflect those targeted older Australians who may be eligible for the supplement.

Now, to lost opportunities. Those of us who have wound our way around the maze of illness, disablement and increasing frailty of a parent through the process of ACAT to find a suitable vacant place in a nice home will know how challenging this can be for any family. Instead of taking an opportunity to simplify the process of moving from full independence to community care or to residential care, the government have gone completely in the other direction and created an even bigger, more confusing process. They have completely ignored the opportunity to reduce the confusion and have, instead, introduced RADs, DAPs and combinations of the two, as well as draw-down options, top-up arrangements, time limits and cooling-off periods. Experts will be challenged by these choices. We have to question the rationale of introducing such convolutions for the average Australian family.

I now turn to concerns of coalition senators regarding the impact of the proposed changes in regional, rural and remote areas. Many older Australians indicate a desire to age in place. This is the same for people residing in the non-metropolitan areas of Australia, but this is substantially more difficult for them to achieve, particularly as their care level needs increase. Ageing in a local community is important not only for the individual's wellbeing but also for the stability of community and the cohesiveness of family. Coalition senators recognise the significant role that aged-care facilities play in rural townships by enabling families to remain connected as people age closer to home, family and community. We remain very concerned that the impact of the changes will adversely affect the viability of many providers in regional, rural and remote areas.

I have talked a lot about the impact of these bills on care recipients and their families. I now want to move the focus to the other side of the equation—to the hundreds of approved aged-care providers. Over the last six years, we have seen a major decline in the business confidence levels across all spheres of care operations. It does not matter if I talk to large commercial operators, the bigger mission based providers, the smaller community based facilities or the few remaining 'mum and dad' family-owned homes: they all tell the same sad story that 60 per cent of all nursing homes are operating in negative financial territory.

We know that community care operators across the country are all facing huge increases in demand for services. Those services are also coping with changes in the governance and funding processes that are being thrust upon them, with little care and understanding by the Gillard Labor government. The picture is not rosy with a financially stressed aged-care sector; the ongoing uncertainty created by a dysfunctional government which holds all the money cards; the ongoing conflicts and disconnects with the state and territory governments, particularly in relation to the recent Home and Community Care, HACC, changes; the increasing numbers of older Australians seeking care and accommodations services; and the ever-increasing frailty of those who do manage to get the type of care they need. All of this suggests that the five bills we have before us are just not good enough to assist the many providers that have taken on the challenging tasks of delivering care and accommodation services and facilities in this country.

The third 'corner' in this triangular playing field is the government. Any government in Australia today, or the one that will exist in another 80 days, will be challenged by the continuing high costs of our ageing population. There is simply very little 'new' money to perform miracles and tackle these problems.

The government cherry-picked from the landmark Productivity Commission's report Caring for Older Australians, ignoring the majority of the report and committing little in the way of innovation to supplement and support those few recommendations it has been inclined to tackle.

While these five bills introduce some worthwhile improvements, older Australians deserve greater consideration. Their families and carers deserve support and assistance at a time of great stress. Decisions to relinquish independence, even if it is in decline, are difficult for all involved. While the government may assert that the arrangements in its package may give greater choice, these choices are now harder to fathom, harder to make and harder to live with over time. This is a very poor effort after such a long gestation period. The government itself has recognised the need for amendments and is joined by the coalition, the Greens and the Independent Senator Xenophon.

The coalition will oppose all government and Greens amendments that relate to the early commencement date for the Aged Care Pricing Commissioner. The government has other amendments on various issues, such as people with special needs and home care, as well as amendments of a technical nature. The coalition will not oppose those amendments. The Greens have proposed amendments relating to a homeless supplement, information requests from the Aged Care Commissioner and the formalising of the establishment of the Aged Care Financing Authority. The coalition will not oppose those amendments. Senator Xenophon has proposed changes to the review processes set down in the bills. The coalition agrees that earlier evaluation is appropriate and will not oppose the amendment from Senator Xenophon.

In conclusion, this has been an appalling process. After such long delays and holding patterns over the last two years, we now have a ridiculously rushed process with far less time for sufficient, appropriate and confident scrutiny by the parliament. In the last two weeks the Living Longer Living Better bills have been thrust into a race, competing with hundreds of other bills and legislative business. Today we will suffer the guillotine simply to get this legislation to the next step. The government and the minister have only themselves to blame. The government has wasted time. It has now run out of time; Australia has simply run out of patience. This is not real reform. It is just more regulation, more bureaucracy and more red tape. In the end, it will not achieve the end objective which is to give older Australians the care they need, when they need it and where they need it. So while our older Australians are living longer, under this regime they will not necessarily be living better.