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

Yes, have an open mind. In a previous incarnation, in opposition, Senator Sinodinos has done some absolutely sterling work across a range of portfolios on proposals to reduce red tape and compliance. That role has now been assumed by the member for Kooyong, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Mr Frydenberg, who is doing that, as he does all things, with great enthusiasm. I have been keeping Mr Frydenberg updated on the work this government has undertaken to further reduce red tape.

There was an important instance recently where some pricing guidelines drafted by the previous government would have required providers of aged-care services to provide, in excruciating and unnecessary detail in their product offerings, things like the number of lights in a roof, the number of lights in a facility, whether there was carpet or vinyl. There were some important out clauses: they were not actually going to insist that they specify the colour of the carpet. That is what those opposite considered to be taking a light-handed approach to regulatory issues. We determined that, yes, it is important that there be appropriate information for consumers, because it is very important that we have informed consumers in aged care, but we did not want to have such an excruciatingly unnecessary level of detail and to be requiring providers to document at every step how they had reached that point of the information they were disclosing. We decided we are going to have much more simplified guidelines. That is the sort of approach that we will take.

I know I have digressed a little from the disallowance motions that are before us, Mr Deputy President. What we want to do is to work with the sector. We want to seek their views as to how this significant funding can best be deployed. I touched earlier on some of our concerns about the structure of the workforce supplement, the workforce compact. I want to go a little further into our pre-election policy. We said in our policy:

Labor's Workforce Compact appears to be more about boosting union membership than improving aged care and adds to the regulatory quagmire without guaranteeing improved conditions for all workers.

The Coalition believes that Labor's Workforce Compact is discriminatory as it does not apply to all workers. Under Labor, providers with 50 or more beds will need to enter into an Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (EBA) and comply with the conditions of the Workforce Supplement to access funding. Providers with less than 50 beds need not enter into an EBA, but must however comply with the conditions of the Workforce Supplement to access funding.

There is always a little hook, always a little catch. The policy went on:

This aspect of the legislation was the key issue of contention at the … Senate inquiry into the Living Longer, Living Better package of Bills. The evidence was clear that many providers could not justify accessing the supplement as it fell far short of the actual cost of the proposed wage increases with providers having to meet on-costs.

It also went on to say:

Had Labor been serious about improving conditions in the sector, they could have worked through existing frameworks …

and the policy then mentioned some of those.

So we want to take a fresh look at this funding. As I said, it is quite a significant amount. We will look at this in the context of the significant consultation which we are going to undertake with the sector and a big part of that consultation is going to be looking for further ways to reduce red tape.

Aged care and the ageing portfolio is an extremely exciting place to be working on. We do have an ageing population. The number of centenarians that we have in Australia is going to dramatically increase over the next 10 or 15 years. That represents a huge untapped resource in the nation, and not just centenarians but also those older Australians beyond the age of 65. We need to look for ways to harness that great national resource.

But there are Australians who, as they age, obviously need a little more help and that is where the aged-care part of the ageing portfolio comes into play. I am pleased that certainly in the last parliament there was a large degree of bipartisanship when it came to aged-care policy and aged-care reform. Yes, we do disagree with the Labor Party on the aged-care supplement, but I hope that it is possible to have a civil disagreement about one area of policy and that, more broadly in aged care, we perhaps can follow the model that there has been in disability where the various parties in parliament come together to work for a common outcome. I hope that is the case, because just as Australians with disability have little time for petty partisan point-scoring, I think that ageing Australians and particularly those in aged care and their families do not have much time for petty partisan point-scoring in this area either. They just want us to get on with the job, making sure that those who face some extra challenges as a result of ageing get the additional support they need. As I have indicated, Mr Deputy President, we will not be supporting this disallowance motion. (Time expired)