Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm delighted the Labor Party have raised this matter for debate because it allows me to, first of all, congratulate all of those community and other aged-care facilities that do such a wonderful job for our older Australians. It allows me to recognise carers in aged-care facilities and those who help with home help, and I congratulate them on the wonderful work they do.

This also allows me to talk about the bill coming before the parliament in the not too distant future, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill. It allows me to talk about the royal commission into aged-care issues that's been announced by our government and it also allows me to remind older Australians about the 'granny tax', as it's called, that the Labor Party propose imposing upon older people. It allows me to talk about the abolition of franking credits, which impact very, very considerably on the incomes of older Australians who are self-funded retirees and who have shares that they get a small income from. They depend on those franking credits, which the Labor Party propose to take away from them.

I think older people well recognise that, from the days when Liberal governments first introduced the age pension to Australia many, many decades ago, it is the Liberal and National parties that have done more for older people and continue to do so. That is because we want to help people who've made a major contribution to our country over many years. We want to reward those who've done such sterling work for our country during their working lives and who now are entitled to their senior years in good care and condition.

I speak with a little authority. My late sister was in an aged-care facility for a number of years in my home town of Ayr, in a facility that was run by the community funded Lower Burdekin Home for the Aged. My mother was there several decades ago, and I still remember the care she got there.

I have an older sister who receives home care, and I'm conscious of what she receives, and my brother-in-law also receives home care. Whilst at times he has some complaints about the service, by and large he recognises—as I recognise and everyone recognises—that it's a wonderful service, supported by the government, which allows people to stay in their homes longer than would have been the case in the past.

A niece of mine actually works in an aged-care facility. I know what a wonderful, caring person she is, and she tells me often about the great experience it is—how it is not just a job but helping people. Most of the staff at the facility have that experience.

I'm also quite well familiar with the Bowen Old People's Home Society, who over the years have provided a wonderful service for that community. Again it's a community run and community funded organisation, with some help from the federal government. I know the one in my own home town. I know the Good Shepherd Home, in Townsville, which does wonderful work there. I know the facility in Ingham. I have had a bit to do with the facility in Tully, further north, and in Innisfail—a great organisation which was the recipient of quite substantial federal government assistance just recently. I'm even conscious of smaller communities to the west of Townsville, out towards Mount Isa, smaller towns whose councils have done wonderful work in providing aged-care facilities—on a very limited status, I might say—to their residents so that those residents don't have to leave the community they've lived in all their lives and go into one of the bigger cities to get care in their advancing years.

I've certainly heard stories of some problems at times, but by and large these facilities, particularly those I mentioned but facilities everywhere, do a wonderful job looking after older people. We should recognise the work that is done and thank those who are involved in that particular line of business.

Again, the Labor Party's approach in getting rid of franking credits would have a huge impact on older people. I'm not quite sure where Labor's current policy is. It changes every day or so, depending on what's popular today and what's not popular. I understand they made some changes to it, but that doesn't address the real problem that the Labor Party's policy of taxing older people has evolved.

I do have some more specific points I want to make, but before doing that can I just respond to the previous speaker. I thought her lettuce-leaf style attack on Senator Scullion in this chamber was most disingenuous. She was asking Senator Scullion—who is not the minister for aged care; he represents the minister for aged care—detailed questions about statistics, and she took umbrage at the fact that he didn't immediately have those in his head. Had the question been on Indigenous affairs, on which he is the expert, I'm sure he would have had all of the figures and statistics and the policies and approaches at the front of his mind. But, as he represents the minister for aged care and a number of other ministers, I'm not surprised that he didn't have these detailed, estimates-type questions immediately to mind. As it's turned out from the speech that Senator Bilyk just gave, she had the information anyhow. It amazes me that she was wasting question time asking Senator Scullion for numbers and statistics which she already had. Clearly the Labor Party have very little to ask about and are just filling in time at question time.

I was amused that a previous Labor speaker spoke about how we, being the government, were concentrating on internal matters of our party, when, except for today, every question asked by the Labor Party at question time this week has not been about jobs, aged care, the economy, workers or infrastructure; they've all been about the Liberal Party. And the Labor Party have the gall in this debate to attack us for looking inwardly at ourselves, when their complete focus this week has been on anything but the issues that are of importance to Australians!

The home care industry has over the years had some problems—as I say, in the minority of cases. But, as a result, our government set up an inquiry into that. We got Ms Kate Carnell, a well-known public figure and former Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory, and Professor Ron Paterson to have a look at the industry and make recommendations about what needs to be done. As a result of the recommendations of the Carnell-Paterson review, the government made some announcements in the 2018-19 budget to establish a new commission from 1 January 2019, and that is what is dealt with in the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill, which I understand has been introduced into the other place.

The commission brings together the functions of the Aged Care Quality Agency and the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner. Further work will be undertaken next year to bring the aged-care regulatory functions of the Department of Health into the commission from 1 January 2020. This reform is part of a two-year agenda to strengthen and enhance the care regulation to protect and assure the quality of care provided to aged-care consumers. Consumers, of course, are at the heart of the reforms, and the commission's objectives will be to protect and enhance the safety, health and wellbeing, and quality of life of aged-care consumers to promote confidence and trust in the provision of aged care and to promote engagement with aged-care consumers about the quality and care of services.

The commissioner will take on the functions currently performed by the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner and the CEO of the Aged Care Quality Agency, with specific functions that also set out and relate to engaging with aged-care consumers in developing and promoting best-practice models for engagement and providers, and also seeking and receiving clinical advice in relation to the functions of the commissioner, which is envisaged to occur through the engagement of the Chief Clinical Adviser, with an expert clinical panel to be established to support the Chief Clinical Advisor.

On aged-care funding reform, the Labor Party, in speeches in this chamber during the week, have clearly showed that, regrettably, they cannot even understand the budget papers. In spite of valiant efforts by various ministers during the week to explain this to Labor Party people, it's clear that they don't know how to pick up one of the budget documents and actually read it. If they did that, they would see that the facts of the matter—not their political misinformation campaign but the facts of the matter—are that annual funding will increase to record levels by $5 billion over the forward estimates, going up from $18.6 billion in the current financial year to $23.6 billion in the 2021-22 financial year. Our government is providing record aged-care funding of almost $20 billion this year.

Aged-care spending has increased by an average of more than six per cent each year during the term of coalition governments. That is, on average, $1 billion of extra support for older Australians each year. We're adding an additional 13,500 residential aged-care places and another 775 short-term restorative places. Based on the latest data, in the current financial year the average Australian government payment, that is subsidy plus supplements, for a permanent resident in residential care was $66,000 per resident. This compares with $53,100 in 2012-13, which listeners might recall was Labor's last full financial year. This is an increase of $12,900 per resident, or a 24.3 per cent increase.

I emphasise again that these are the facts. Labor, unfortunately, as I said, can't read the budget papers. They don't really understand what they say. But anyone listening to this debate, and I'm sure there are a lot of people in the chamber and around Australia who would be interested in this subject, will well remember the Labor approach to figures and benefits that coalition governments give. The Labor approach is: tell any lie you like and make up any story you like; say it often enough and advertise it often enough, and hopefully the public will believe it. You've got to look no further than the last federal election where the Labor Party invented this 'Mediscare' campaign, where one of the bright sparks in the back room said: 'Let's go out and say the government's going to sell Medicare and privatise Medicare. Let's do that. That should get a headline.' They made a major campaign on that falsity. There was not a skerrick of truth in it, as evidence subsequently showed and as we tried to say at the time.

The Labor Party work on the proposition that you can tell any lie at all and that if you say it often enough then enough people might believe it, might agree with it, and change their vote at election time and perhaps change the government. That's what the Labor Party is doing with these aged care attacks. They're not supported by facts. The facts are as I've given them and as my colleague Senator Gichuhi clearly enumerated in the wonderful address she gave to the chamber. I'm sure my colleague Senator Fierravanti-Wells will also elaborate on the facts and figures of the good things that the government is doing.

I conclude my remarks by saying I'm delighted to take part in the debate. It does allow us to highlight the good things our government has done. It does also allow us to clearly demonstrate that Labor has no interest in older people except for how they can tax them to bring in more revenue for the crazy schemes that the Labor Party come up with at election time.