Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of this Inspector-General of Aged Care legislation and the role of the Inspector-General of Aged Care. The coalition, when in government, embraced this recommendation and pledged to create an Inspector-General of Aged Care. This was done with the explicit intention of offering independent oversight over our aged-care system to ensure transparency, accountability and confidence for all.

The inspector-general will also have the ability to oversee the implementation of policies announced by the Labor government. Like so many other policy areas, this government makes promises in aged care that they can't keep. They break promises. Again, this was one of those really sloppy areas of policy development by this government. Let's not forget that during the election campaign the Prime Minister promised that every aged-care home would have a nurse on site at all times by July this year. Now, anybody who has worked in government or in fact anybody who is in this chamber would have known that was impossible to meet for a number of reasons, least of all that we don't have enough registered nurses in this nation. We would certainly be taking registered nurse away from where they are already a scarce resource, particularly in hospitals.

Now, one year later, under the Albanese Labor government's watch, aged-care homes are closing down because of this election commitment. It's one thing to make promises you know you can't keep. It's another to have the hubris and the stubborn will to not change a policy that is doing great harm. If you talked to any aged-care provider you'd know that 1 July this year was a date they were dreading because so many of them have not been able to meet Labor's expedited 24/7 registered nurses requirement. This has hit the sector as it has a very large shortage of suitable workforce, particularly, as Senator Liddle said, in rural and regional areas.

Tragically, as a result of this government's—I'm not quite sure whether it's just incompetence or whether they just simply do not care, but so far we know of at least 30 aged-care facilities that have closed down as they were not able to meet the government's legislative requirement. Again, is it incompetence or is it the fact that those opposite would rather have aged-care facilities close, particularly smaller facilities in rural and regional areas, rather than admit they were wrong? I suspect it is probably an unhealthy combination of both.

That means that residents who were dedicated community members, who lived close to their families, have been forced to move out of their home simply because this government wouldn't be remotely flexible about staffing requirements during a workforce crisis. Now we are a month on from when this expedited policy came into effect. We now know it wasn't just the rushed 24/7 policy that has forced aged-care homes to close, but the punitive exemption criteria sadly have had the same effect. Again, those opposite just don't care.

The minister's prescriptive exemption criteria only offered an exemption to providers with less than 30 beds in modified Monash model 5, 6 and 7 locations. For providers to become exempt from the requirement to have an RN on site 24/7, they must report every period of 30 minutes or more that an RN was not on site and/or not on duty and the reason—every 30 minutes. Anybody who has ever visited, been to or consulted with smaller residential aged-care facilities knows that they are already almost crippled with administrative burden in terms of time and cost. This is simply ridiculous. Again, it seems designed to have done what it is now doing—that is, closing small community regional aged-care centres.

In the last month we've seen providers like the Carinity Summit Cottages in Mount Morgan and Petrie Gardens in Tiaro close, saying very clearly that this reporting requirement has placed such a high administrative burden on providers they simply cannot do it. That is something that should have been blindingly obvious to the government. It's actually quite shocking that this minister is comfortable with watching homes shut down, not just because of her rushed legislative requirements but because of the niche exemption criteria she has determined. Again, hubris and a complete lack of care. If anybody opposite actually went and visited any of these facilities and talked to the operators and the residents, they would see that they're crying out for help and not more restrictions. It is now time for the Prime Minister and the minister to step in, admit they were wrong and actually ensure that more aged-care homes do not close. On this side, we remain absolutely committed to ensuring older Australians receive the care they need and the care they deserve. Australians cannot afford to see more aged-care providers shut their doors, particularly when and where they're needed the most.

I'd like to remind those in this chamber about the coalition's record in government. Those opposite are very quick to point out on pretty much everything that apparently it's almost like year 0 every time they come into government, 'Everything was stuffed. Nothing happened.' They've come in to fix things. I'll tell you what, it is absolutely not the truth in most policy areas, and it is certainly not the case in this area. In government, it was actually the coalition who called the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety to ensure our oldest and our most vulnerable Australians received the care, support and also the respect of their dignity and that we recognise appropriately the contributions they have made to our society. The final report of the royal commission that those on this side of the chamber commissioned makes 148 recommendations following 23 public hearings over 99 days, 641 witnesses and over 10,000 public submissions. The recommendations are the product of wise and compassionate scrutiny of Australia's aged-care system. The coalition's 2022-23 budget delivered just over half a billion dollars in funding for aged-care reform, which built on previous funding that we delivered, contained in the 2021-22 budget and also that year's MYEFO. This brought the coalition's total investment in response to the final report to more $19 billion. We delivered a once-in-a-generation reform of aged care and provided respect, care and dignity to our senior Australians. Our 2022-23 budget responded to 10 recommendations of the royal commission specifically and built on our existing five pillars for aged-care reform.

We delivered a record investment across the aged-care system over the forward estimates, from $13.3 billion in 2012-13 under Labor—when Labor was last in government, it was $13.3 billion—to $30.1 billion in 2022-23. We actually grew the aged-care budget in our time in government by 126 per cent. We on this side of the chamber called the royal commission, and we did a lot of reform, including an 126 per cent increase in the aged-care budget. By 2025-26, funding in aged care, in our forward estimates when we were government, was growing to an estimated $34.7 billion per year. Also in government, we remained committed to providing our older Australians with support to live in their own homes for longer. This is why the coalition increased new home-care packages from 60,308 under Labor ,when they were last in government, by 357 per cent. It went from just over 60,000 to 275,597 new home-care packages. We didn't just talk about it. We delivered the care that people wanted to stay in their homes for much longer.

To support our aged-care workers, we provided an aged-care workforce bonus of up to $800 for eligible aged-care workers. We did that on 1 February of 2022, which cost $210 million. Additionally, approximately 265,000 workers benefited from the age-care workforce retention bonus, and this was the fourth workforce bonus that the coalition government had delivered, which was valued at over $600 million. But we also listened to the experience of the Australians who gave evidence to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, and we took wideranging and decisive action to implement those recommendations.

Our response included a five-year implementation plan, which, as I said, was underpinned by five pillars. And those five pillars that we introduced when in government included home care, providing those Australians who choose to live in their home with support. The second was residential aged-care services and sustainability to improve and simplify residential aged-care services and access. The third was residential aged-care quality and safety, improving residential aged care and safety in all facilities. The fourth was we implemented a wide range of measures to support growing and better skilled aged-care workforce. The fifth was we implemented comprehensive measures for governance, to provide new legislation and stronger governance of the sector and of individual aged-care facilities.

It is absolutely imperative now that the Albanese government get this right. They've already, through their pre-election promises, made promises they knew they couldn't keep. As a consequence, over 30 aged-care facilities have already closed. Hubris is a very ugly thing in politics, and it is even worse in government, and sometimes you have to admit you got it wrong and start again—or at least fix your mistakes.

Another mistake with a huge impact by an intransigent minister, who will not admit he was wrong, was that he pulled out a policy that, five years ago, the Department of Health put to the then coalition government who rejected it as bad policy. But Minister Butler has intransigently supported the 60-day dispensing policy. I think anybody in this chamber would say there's absolutely nothing wrong with a 60-day dispensing policy, but the problem is that they're getting the pharmacists to dispense it for free. I don't know how much those opposite know about market economics, but you cannot ask any small business—and most pharmacies are small businesses—to get paid for one service and provide the second service for free. It boggles the brain to think that those opposite do not realise you cannot do that to small businesses.

Not only is it already starting to send some community pharmacies to the wall; it will also have a very significant and negative impact on residential aged-care facilities. There has been some subsidy for the support that pharmacists have been providing to homes, through homecare packages, and also to residential aged care, but most of them have been doing Webster-paks and home delivery to residential aged-care facilities for free. For something that people in aged-care facilities have been getting for free, under this Labor government's proposal it will actually cost pharmacists, small businesses, $151.7 million a year for the 188,288 people that will need the administration aids. They will have to start charging people in residential aged care, and in aged care it will cost on average $806. So this apparent saving will actually cost people over $800—and $400 for people in home care. Shame on you, Labor!