Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 5290:

(1)    Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review

        (1)    The Minister must cause to be carried out an independent review of the operation of this Act within 2 years of the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.

        (2)    The review is to be conducted by a person or persons (the reviewing officers) who, in the Minister’s opinion, possess appropriate qualifications to undertake the review, and must include one or more persons who are not employed by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority.

        (3)    The reviewing officers must consider:

             (a)    the extent to which the purposes of this Act have been attained; and

             (b)    the administration of this Act; and

             (c)    such other matters as appear to the reviewing officers to be relevant.

        (4)    The reviewing officers must prepare a report of the review and present it to the Minister within six months of commencing the review, and the Minister must cause the report to be presented to both Houses of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of receiving it.

Could the parliamentary secretary confirm something for me. Perhaps it is because the bill has been transferred and introduced here in an amended form. I want to confirm that the high dependency care leave has been accommodated, as well as the residential care subsidy during extended hospital leave. Those two amendments have been incorporated into the bill, I understand. I am very pleased that that has happened. They were two recommendations made by the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs in its inquiry into this bill. They are not substantive amendments. They are not going to affect a large sector of the aged-care community, but it was the view of the committee, and certainly the view of the Labor Party, that those two issues needed to be adopted. I am pleased about that.

However, the other recommendation made by the community affairs committee was to request that a review of the operations of the new aged-care funding instrument be formally placed in the bill. That is a reasonable request that the committee made, and it is not without precedent. In 1997, when the Aged Care Act was introduced, it represented a substantial change to aged care in Australia. As part of the Aged Care Act, the resident classification scale—what is now known in the industry as the RCS—was introduced. That was a big change to the way that facilities operated, in that resident subsidies were provided. As part of the Senate debate at the time, there was agreement that there would be a review. In fact, in Professor Len Gray’s review of aged-care reforms, he alluded to that. He said:

... it was agreed in the Senate that a review would occur within twelve months of its implementation.

As a result of that agreement in the Senate, an internal departmental review was undertaken by Cuthbertson, Lindsay-Smith and Rosewarne. They reported in July 1998. This is not dissimilar to what we are requesting here. Professor Gray said:

The review team drew on over 100 submissions, Australia-wide consultations, departmental staff advice, and analysis and data of the operation of the RCS ...

The RCS was, like the ACFI, a big change to the way in which we fund aged care. He went on to say:

As a result of the report, a revised RCS was introduced in November 1988.

What the Labor Party is proposing here is no different from what we did in 1997. It was sensible then and it is sensible now. When you bring in a big change to the operation of such an important system in any public policy, it is important to put in place the appropriate checks and balances. That is what we are asking for here—a review that would occur 18 months from the operation, from March next year.

Initially, we thought 12 months would be appropriate, but because of the transitional nature of this legislation and the fact that there will be a period when people who are currently in aged care will be operating under the RCS—so it will take some time for the ACFI data to be collected—the committee came to the view that probably 18 months out was more appropriate. I remind the parliamentary secretary that this was a unanimous report of the committee. This was not a partisan position. It is a sensible recommendation so that we will have an ability to make sure that ACFI does do what it intends to do—that is, to reduce paperwork.

When the RCS was introduced, nobody knew that we would end up with this paperwork pile—paperwork that has necessitated that the ACFI be instituted. No-one predicted that. Here we are with another significant, major change to what we do in aged care—the way we fund it and the way we provide care to older Australians—yet we are not prepared to say that, 18 months down the track, we should have a proper review to see whether or not paperwork has been reduced. This is a simple, sensible and reasonable proposition. I am quite astonished, to be frank, that the minister did not adopt this recommendation by the community affairs committee.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator McLucas for her thoughtful contribution. The government does not accept this amendment, and let me explain why. In its report on the bill, the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs made five recommendations, as Senator McLucas alluded to. The Australian government has accepted all of these recommendations and amended the bill accordingly. The fourth recommendation made by the committee was that the new arrangements be reviewed after 18 months in order to assess the implications for aged-care providers and to ensure that stated benefits are in fact achieved.

Although the recommendation is accepted, the Australian government does not feel it is necessary to amend the bill—the putative legislation—to incorporate a requirement in legislation for a one-time review, as it unnecessarily binds the relevant future minister in a way that may limit the timing and scope of the review. Importantly, the government does commit to reviewing the new arrangements 18 months after the act takes effect but does not intend to limit the scope or effectiveness of the review by imposing statutory time limits.

Specifically, paragraph 4 of the amendment moved by Senator McLucas imposes a six-month time limit on the person or persons who conduct the review. The government believes that it is not possible, prior to commencement of the new funding arrangements, to predict with any degree of certainty the scope and complexity of the review to be conducted. The imposition of a time limit may therefore place the reviewer in the difficult position of either failing to meet a legislated time frame or of performing an inadequate review of this important change in order to meet that time frame.

Additionally, the proposed amendment would require that the review commence two years after the act is granted royal assent. The bill commences on a date to be proclaimed, which is likely to be 20 March 2008 or a date 12 months after royal assent. It would be possible for royal assent to be granted in July this year and the provisions in the bill to take effect as late as July 2008. The proposed amendment therefore could require the review to commence as little as 12 months after the new arrangements commence. Instead, the Australian government is committed to reviewing the new arrangements 18 months after the act takes effect, when some mature consideration can be given, but it does not limit the scope or the effectiveness of the review by imposing statutory time limits in the legislation.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It seems that we are dealing with two separate amendments. The one I have is not that specific and I am actually not sure how we got to this point, to be frank.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McLucas, can you just draw the attention of the Senate and of the parliamentary secretary to the part that is different in the amendment you are referring to?

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The amendment I thought I was moving says, ‘The minister shall cause to be carried out an independent review of the operation of this act 18 months after its date of commencement.’ Paragraphs 2 and 3 seem to be the same, but my paragraph 4 says, ‘The reviewing officer shall prepare a report based on the review and, as soon as practicable after its preparation, shall cause the report to be presented to both houses of the parliament.’ I really do not know how this amendment has been circulated under my name.

The Temporary Chairman:

I will seek clarification, Senator McLucas, as to whether you have provided a copy of the amendment that you have to either the Clerk or the Senate.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that they have the same number, I am somewhat bemused, to be frank.

The Temporary Chairman:

Do you have a spare copy of that amendment?

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have given it to the assistant clerk. Parliamentary Secretary, while we are waiting, I could tell you about how the RCS was a disaster and we needed to have a review and how the review was helpful—and that is why we need to have a review. Alternatively, I could say that I am pleased that we do have on the record a commitment from the government to undertake a review within 18 months of the start-up date, which is in March of next year. That is useful to have on the record. I acknowledge the points you made about timing and I am not sure how we got to that point where it was that specific. But, in terms of the scope of the review, I think it is reasonable to ask whether the achievements, the stated aims of ACFI, have been achieved. I wonder whether you might advise the committee of what other areas would be relevant to be reviewed, when the review is undertaken.

The Temporary Chairman:

Parliamentary Secretary, I just indicate that we are obtaining copies of the amendment that has been moved by Senator McLucas so that you can review it and consider your position. I appreciate that you would want to know the full details of that amendment. Would you like to make further comment?

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Temporary Chairman, thank you for your assistance. I am certainly looking forward to receiving a copy of the amendment. I also thank Senator McLucas for her courtesy again.

I simply say that the government feels that incorporating this in legislation would limit the scope of any potential review. The government believes that a ministerial review 18 months after the act takes effect is the right way to go and that it should not be incorporated into legislation, because that would potentially limit the scope of the review. I can say, as I think Senator McLucas noted, that the government does commit to undertaking that review and it would be broad ranging, as indicated. In fact, I believe that including such a review in legislation would limit the scope of the review. It is important that governments commit to reviewing, but incorporating a review into legislation is not necessarily the best public policy outcome.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I amend the amendment that I previously moved in the form that is currently being circulated in the chamber and in the form that essentially I provided to the chamber a minute ago. I move:

(1)    Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review

        (1)    The Minister must cause to be carried out an independent review of the operation of this Act within 2 years of the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.

        (2)    The review is to be conducted by a person or persons (the reviewing officers) who, in the Minister’s opinion, possess appropriate qualifications to undertake the review, and must include one or more persons who are not employed by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority.

        (3)    The reviewing officers must consider:

             (a)    the extent to which the purposes of this Act have been attained; and

             (b)    the administration of this Act; and

             (c)    such other matters as appear to the reviewing officers to be relevant.

        (4)    The reviewing officers must prepare a report of the review and present it to the Minister within six months of commencing the review, and the Minister must cause the report to be presented to both Houses of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of receiving it.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.