Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

So we had some difficulty with the Aged Care Workforce Supplement. We made clear before the election that if elected we would seek to suspend the workforce supplement. That is what we did when we came into government—Minister Andrews created a legislative instrument that would suspend further applications for that supplement. There were some 18 providers who had already been approved for the supplement, and we undertook that we would continue to ensure that those providers received that supplement, that payments to those people who had applied and reached agreement in good faith would continue.

So we suspended further applications for the supplement, but we did indicate that we were committed to seeing the money that had been allocated to the workforce supplement returned to the general pool in aged care. We thought it was important to take a very different approach to that of the previous government in determining how best to deploy those resources. There was originally, I think, about $1.2 billion in the supplement. When you take into account the money that has already been allocated it is about $1.1 billion that is left.

Rather than seeking to use that money to pursue particular industrial ends, as the previous government did, we want to take—and indicated that we would—a consultative approach with the sector. So we will sit down with the sector and work through how best to deploy that money. It is important to remember that we are talking about a very significant amount of money here: $1.1 billion. It is always important to remember that these are taxpayer dollars. We need to think very carefully about how best to deploy that money and so we will work in a cooperative way with the sector to determine how best to do that.

For the record, I should just read into the Hansard what the coalition said before the election in relation to this funding. We said:

As a first priority, the Coalition will take the necessary steps to put back into the general pool of aged care funding the $1.2 billion allocated to the Workforce Compact and work with providers to ensure that these funds are distributed in a way that is more flexible and better targeted, without jeopardising the viability of aged care facilities.

And that is exactly what we will do.

I should also share with you, Mr Deputy President, the release which explains the rationale for what we are doing. I will just briefly share it with you, because I know you take a close interest in this sector. This release was issued by me and Minister Andrews, and is headed 'Investing in the aged care workforce':

The Coalition Government today announced the first step in delivering on the Government’s Healthy Life, Better Ageing commitments.

The Government recognises that increased pay and improved conditions are essential to attract and retain skilled workers to the sector, while being affordable and sustainable. Recruiting and retaining sufficient numbers of skilled, dedicated workers to the aged care sector is crucial for Australia’s aged care system to meet the community’s increasing need for aged care services.

The Aged Care Workforce Supplement introduced by the former government did not guarantee improved pay and conditions for all aged care workers and many providers could not justify applying because the Supplement would not have covered their additional costs.

I think that is an important point. It continued:

For many providers the funding was also conditional upon the signing of a union-dictated EBA.

This goes to the point I was making before, that the government does not believe that we should use particular sectors, and funding in particular sectors, to seek to achieve particular industrial outcomes that may be important to the Labor Party. The statement continues:

The Government is committed to working with the sector to develop a policy which will ensure that available funding is distributed in a way that is flexible, targeted and ensures the viability of aged care providers.

For this reason, the Government has taken the responsible step of suspending applications for the Workforce Supplement introduced by the former government while it consults with the sector on alternative policy options.

I know that is an unfamiliar concept to those opposite—to actually consult with the sector rather than having a predetermined agenda to achieve an industrial outcome. The statement continues:

Aged care providers that are eligible for the Supplement will have their funding honoured and the Department of Social Services will continue to process applications that have already been received. The Government will consider transitional arrangements for these providers as it develops alternative policy options.

That was the statement of 26 September which was seeking to explain and give effect to our pre-election commitment. And on that day Minister Andrews created the legislative instrument which the opposition are today seeking to disallow. It is yet another example of the opposition not accepting the result of the election.

It is bad enough that the opposition do not accept the fact that the Australian people voted for a change of government. It is bad enough that the opposition do not accept that the Australian people voted to abolish the carbon tax. This is yet another instance where the opposition do not accept that there was change of government, do not accept that the incoming government had a clear policy and do not accept the right of the government to give effect to that policy. What we are seeing here with these disallowance motions is the Australian Labor Party seeking to govern from the political grave. One would have thought they would have heeded the message from the last election and allowed the government to get on with its agenda. So it is disappointing that the opposition have moved these disallowance motions, which will only create unnecessary uncertainty in the aged-care sector. That is extremely unfortunate.

While I am on my feet I think it is important to draw the chamber's attention to Senator Polley's approach when we were in Senate estimates and aged care was before the Community Affairs Legislation Committee. Senator Polley seemed to be of the view that aged-care quality equals red tape, and red tape equals aged-care quality, because whenever this government has stated that it intends to seek to reduce red tape in the aged-care sector the opposition have said, 'What the government really wants to do is to reduce quality, to reduce standards.' I for one do not think we have yet reached some sort of regulatory nirvana in aged care. I think it is prudent for the government of the day, whoever they may be, to always look to see how red tape can be reduced in the aged-care sector. If aged-care workers, who those opposite profess have such an interest in, are spending time on paperwork that does not add to quality and does not add to care, that is time that those aged-care workers cannot be spending doing what they do best, and that is providing care to older Australians. So I take this opportunity to encourage those opposite, in particular Senator Polley, to take a fresh look at the issue of red tape and compliance—