Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last week we had a five-minute false start on the debate on this aged care package of legislation. As shadow minister for ageing, I want to place on record the appalling process that this government has adopted. So much for these measures being, as the Prime Minister said, a second-term priority for Labor. These bills will join the 55 bills to be guillotined this week, which is almost double the 32 bills guillotined in the entire period that the coalition had control of the Senate. All up, some 216 bills have been guillotined under the Labor-Green alliance. It is disgraceful that this debate on five complex bills is being guillotined. As late as yesterday the government tabled yet more amendments.

Whilst we may see passage of these bills today, through this very truncated and rushed process, the real detail of this legislation is in the 18 pieces of delegated legislation yet to be tabled, some of which commence operation next Monday. This is political blackmail by a minister showing contempt for the ageing and aged-care sector in general and a real lack of interest in older Australians. The 18 pieces of delegated legislation will no doubt be tabled out of session, thereby precluding proper scrutiny by this parliament. This delegated legislation will include the workforce supplement, which has created so much concern and alarm in the sector.

No move for disallowance of any of these instruments is possible until the new parliament, given that 15 sitting days need to elapse before they come into effect. We would remind the sector that the future of these instruments rests with the new parliament. In the meantime, Minister Butler will no doubt continue to falsely promote that aged-care workers will get pay rises, knowing full well that their future is not certain. I am sure we will see more false advertisements like this one in The Retiree, wrongly asserting:

From July, $1.2 billion will flow into the pay packets of 350,000 aged care workers across Australia thanks to Federal Labor.

That was authorised by Minister Butler himself, with the address being his electorate office in Semaphore, South Australia. This is false. It is wrong. It is a lie. It is a fabrication. In media reports of 6 March, Minister Butler admitted it is unclear how many of the 350,000 aged-care workers will benefit from the $1.2 billion funding. So, Minister, stop peddling falsehoods and giving false hope for pay rises that will never materialise because providers cannot afford them and the on-costs associated with them.

That brings us to today. It is 727 days from the time the Productivity Commission delivered its Caring for older Australians report to the government on 28 June 2011—almost two years to the day. The government took two years and gives us 45 minutes. That is really showing us the value of Labor's 'second term priority' for ageing Australians.

These bills also pave the way for the creation of an Aged Care Pricing Commissioner to oversee and manage the new pricing arrangements that come into effect on 1 July 2014. The original draft bills allowed for the establishment of that position from 1 January 2014, allowing six months to set in place the appropriate new arrangements and to allow aged-care providers to submit applications for the relevant price variations. But, despite the operation of these provisions and those relating to quality issues not coming into force until 1 July next year, the government has advertised the positions.

The government's intention became clear last week when they tabled a list of amendments to their own bills dated 14 June—only eight days after the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing gave assurances about the filling of these positions. Now the commencement date for the pricing commissioner has been brought forward from 1 January 2014 to 1 August 2013. Let me be clear. The government are not changing the commencement of the revised pricing arrangements. They are just giving the new commissioner 11 months to get his or her house in order and have used dubious claims from industry to justify this outrageous slap to the looming caretaker period, which rears its head only twelve days later.

Not only will the coalition seek to amend the bills to restore the commencement date to 1 January 2014; we will also seek to remove any opportunity for the authority of the pricing commissioner to be delegated to an officer of the Department of Health and Ageing. The pricing commissioner should be independent of the department and be able to maintain integrity at all times.

Let me now move on to the very confusing issue of the accommodation pricing issues that are so complex and so convoluted that they will probably create a whole new industry in accommodation pricing consultants. The coalition supports the removal of the distinction between low care and high care and the consequent introduction of bonds across all residential care accommodation for those with the financial means. The coalition also recognises the importance of giving choice to consumers to select the most appropriate location and type of accommodation best suited to their needs. However, the coalition is not convinced that the new arrangements for accommodation pricing will achieve the improvements the minister and the government are spruiking.

The introduction of refundable accommodation deposits, RADs—accommodation bonds by another name—and daily accommodation payments, DAPs, instead of accommodation charges and income tested fees will be a further confusing part of the aged-care conundrum. Further complications add to the intrigue of making the right decision if there are means-testing and asset-testing components to add to the equation. Overlay that with considerations around the multiple choices on what to do with sizeable assets, such as the resident's house and superannuation funds, and you end up with a very confusing situation. This is likely to be well beyond easy understanding by many older Australians and their families or carers assisting them with such momentous decisions.

I now turn to some other concerns of the coalition regarding these bills covered in the dissenting report of the Senate committee, some of which are the subject of our amendments. There were many concerns raised in the Senate inquiry and, given the guillotine, we have been prevented from canvassing them properly and fully. Firstly, there are the ACFI appraisals. The bills change the point at which the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing can intervene when an aged-care provider has ACFI claim errors. The current wording of the section in the legislation requires that a substantial number of appraisals must be involved before invoking the secretary's powers to suspend providers from making ACFI appraisals. The proposed change is to remove the words 'substantial number', providing greater opportunity for the secretary to suspend an approved provider. The potential that this could occur after one simple mistake is overbearing bureaucracy.

Secondly, the issue of lifetime contribution caps saw many submitters raise concerns that the proposal to set annual and lifetime caps on contributions does not recognise the increasing trends in life spans of older Australians and the benefits to residents from the quality of care and services that are the foundations of these longer stays in residential care. There are also concerns associated with such things as the removal of the retention and the impact this will have on providers. The list goes on. Coalition senators are concerned that these changes have been ill-considered and not backed up with proper financial modelling to ensure confidence in, and certainty of, the economics of the proposals. Coalition senators recommend that the lifetime cap and its specified level be reconsidered, subject to further modelling and analysis of the impact of the lifetime cap on consumers and the industry.

Thirdly, the dementia supplement was intended to cover the 'additional costs involved in caring for people with dementia and other mental health issues'. The coalition believes that further clarification and expansion of the definition is required and that the name should reflect those targeted older Australians who may be eligible for the supplement.

Now, to lost opportunities. Those of us who have wound our way around the maze of illness, disablement and increasing frailty of a parent through the process of ACAT to find a suitable vacant place in a nice home will know how challenging this can be for any family. Instead of taking an opportunity to simplify the process of moving from full independence to community care or to residential care, the government have gone completely in the other direction and created an even bigger, more confusing process. They have completely ignored the opportunity to reduce the confusion and have, instead, introduced RADs, DAPs and combinations of the two, as well as draw-down options, top-up arrangements, time limits and cooling-off periods. Experts will be challenged by these choices. We have to question the rationale of introducing such convolutions for the average Australian family.

I now turn to concerns of coalition senators regarding the impact of the proposed changes in regional, rural and remote areas. Many older Australians indicate a desire to age in place. This is the same for people residing in the non-metropolitan areas of Australia, but this is substantially more difficult for them to achieve, particularly as their care level needs increase. Ageing in a local community is important not only for the individual's wellbeing but also for the stability of community and the cohesiveness of family. Coalition senators recognise the significant role that aged-care facilities play in rural townships by enabling families to remain connected as people age closer to home, family and community. We remain very concerned that the impact of the changes will adversely affect the viability of many providers in regional, rural and remote areas.

I have talked a lot about the impact of these bills on care recipients and their families. I now want to move the focus to the other side of the equation—to the hundreds of approved aged-care providers. Over the last six years, we have seen a major decline in the business confidence levels across all spheres of care operations. It does not matter if I talk to large commercial operators, the bigger mission based providers, the smaller community based facilities or the few remaining 'mum and dad' family-owned homes: they all tell the same sad story that 60 per cent of all nursing homes are operating in negative financial territory.

We know that community care operators across the country are all facing huge increases in demand for services. Those services are also coping with changes in the governance and funding processes that are being thrust upon them, with little care and understanding by the Gillard Labor government. The picture is not rosy with a financially stressed aged-care sector; the ongoing uncertainty created by a dysfunctional government which holds all the money cards; the ongoing conflicts and disconnects with the state and territory governments, particularly in relation to the recent Home and Community Care, HACC, changes; the increasing numbers of older Australians seeking care and accommodations services; and the ever-increasing frailty of those who do manage to get the type of care they need. All of this suggests that the five bills we have before us are just not good enough to assist the many providers that have taken on the challenging tasks of delivering care and accommodation services and facilities in this country.

The third 'corner' in this triangular playing field is the government. Any government in Australia today, or the one that will exist in another 80 days, will be challenged by the continuing high costs of our ageing population. There is simply very little 'new' money to perform miracles and tackle these problems.

The government cherry-picked from the landmark Productivity Commission's report Caring for Older Australians, ignoring the majority of the report and committing little in the way of innovation to supplement and support those few recommendations it has been inclined to tackle.

While these five bills introduce some worthwhile improvements, older Australians deserve greater consideration. Their families and carers deserve support and assistance at a time of great stress. Decisions to relinquish independence, even if it is in decline, are difficult for all involved. While the government may assert that the arrangements in its package may give greater choice, these choices are now harder to fathom, harder to make and harder to live with over time. This is a very poor effort after such a long gestation period. The government itself has recognised the need for amendments and is joined by the coalition, the Greens and the Independent Senator Xenophon.

The coalition will oppose all government and Greens amendments that relate to the early commencement date for the Aged Care Pricing Commissioner. The government has other amendments on various issues, such as people with special needs and home care, as well as amendments of a technical nature. The coalition will not oppose those amendments. The Greens have proposed amendments relating to a homeless supplement, information requests from the Aged Care Commissioner and the formalising of the establishment of the Aged Care Financing Authority. The coalition will not oppose those amendments. Senator Xenophon has proposed changes to the review processes set down in the bills. The coalition agrees that earlier evaluation is appropriate and will not oppose the amendment from Senator Xenophon.

In conclusion, this has been an appalling process. After such long delays and holding patterns over the last two years, we now have a ridiculously rushed process with far less time for sufficient, appropriate and confident scrutiny by the parliament. In the last two weeks the Living Longer Living Better bills have been thrust into a race, competing with hundreds of other bills and legislative business. Today we will suffer the guillotine simply to get this legislation to the next step. The government and the minister have only themselves to blame. The government has wasted time. It has now run out of time; Australia has simply run out of patience. This is not real reform. It is just more regulation, more bureaucracy and more red tape. In the end, it will not achieve the end objective which is to give older Australians the care they need, when they need it and where they need it. So while our older Australians are living longer, under this regime they will not necessarily be living better.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013 and accompanying legislation. Before I commence my speech, I seek leave to table three pieces of correspondence from the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Mr Butler, which I have circulated to the whips.

Leave granted.

The Australian Greens are strongly supportive of responsible and much needed reform within the aged-care sector. As our population continues to age, the already significant challenges faced by the sector will increase. They can only be addressed through comprehensive reform. We see this reform as being part of that process. This reform has been sought by consumers, aged-care providers and workers. Instead of whipping up hysteria around these changes, we actually listened to what people had to say. We know that people support these reforms and that, in particular, the majority of aged-care providers support these reforms, although they want some amendments, which I will address in my contribution to this debate. Aged care has not dominated the agenda in the way that other major reforms have this year, but it is vitally important reform that will touch most lives at some point, whether it is they are helping a loved one access the services and care they need or whether they are accessing that care themselves.

I know that many organisations have been working on this reform over a long period of time and have successfully put aged care onto the political agenda, firstly with the Productivity Commission process and then through the NACA blueprint. It is because of this tenacity that there will be more options for care, particularly in home care, which will help Australians be able to age in place for as long as possible with flexible care that can change as their needs change.

The Australian Greens believe that all people should be supported with high quality services, regardless of their capacity to pay, so it is particularly pleasing that funding is available to support vulnerable people who are unable to meet the costs on their own. For this reason we have particularly addressed the issue of homelessness, as indicated in our contribution through the committee process where we highlighted this issue, and my colleague Adam Bandt spoke of this issue in the lower house. There are services such as Wintringham Specialist Aged Care—and I acknowledge representatives of Wintringham in the gallery now—and these organisations do absolutely amazing work in providing care and support to some of the most marginalised and disadvantaged members of our community. Individuals who have experienced homelessness are highly likely to need specialised support to address complex behavioural and mental health needs. While facilities such as Wintringham have managed to cobble together some of the mainstream funding available, evidence presented to the inquiry clearly demonstrated that the service had lost about $20 a day per resident with the new ACFI arrangements. Given that these services are not likely to be collecting any fees from their residents, their long-time viability is in question.

Our preference would have been to move an amendment to the legislation, and I did circulate an amendment in the chamber. Unfortunately, due to some complications, that will not be possible, so I indicate that I will be withdrawing the amendment that specifically relates to the homelessness supplement. One of the pieces of correspondence I have tabled is a commitment by the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Mr Butler, to implement a homelessness supplement through the principles process. That commitment will be operationalised over the next couple of days and will be implemented on 29 June. In other words, the government has committed funding to a homelessness supplement which will work in combination with the viability supplement. Minister Butler outlines in his correspondence—I understand he will also make a statement about this—that this will be a transitional supplement while the viability supplement is reviewed and that that transitional supplement will continue until a new proper homelessness supplement is put in place. The homelessness supplement will be $15 a day and will work in combination with the other services homeless people will be able to access. I think that is a very positive move, and I am very pleased that the government has agreed to implement that homelessness supplement.

Similarly, I am glad to see that LGBTI people will also be enshrined as a special needs category in the legislation. This group of people are another group of people that have been marginalised when it comes to accessing aged-care services, and recognising them in this legislation will ensure that there is a focus on addressing discrimination on the basis of sexuality in all training and planning aspects of aged care. I believe this is a group who also need legal protections from discrimination, which is why the Greens so strongly supported the amendment that passed through this place earlier this week.

The Greens also welcome the range of other special needs that have been acknowledged in this legislation, including culturally and linguistically diversity and care leavers. I am also particularly glad that the government has taken up the committee recommendation to make amendments to include those affected by forced adoptions, an issue that everybody in this place will know is very close to my heart. Similarly, the addition of specialised supplements for veterans in dementia care is welcome. I am very supportive of the renaming of the dementia supplement to acknowledge that the supplement also covers cognitive impairment and complex behaviours.

However, broader mental health needs still seem to have missed out. Older Australians should have access to quality mental health services, just as other Australians do. This can be particularly difficult in residential care, just as we know accessing GP services in residential aged care is difficult. The government response notes that the review of the legislation should include the mental health needs of older Australians, and the Australian Greens believe that the government should consider creating a special supplement for mental health once that review has been carried out.

All these improvements, along with a significant increase in the number of packages available and funding for wages, are welcome. But the Australian Greens also recognise that, in order to ensure access to and quality of care in the face of rapidly increasing demand, aged-care services need to be financially viable and capable of achieving growth. This legislation will provide the architecture for our aged-care system's future. However, there are limits on the scope of this reform because the government did not go as far as implementing all the recommendations from the Productivity Commission.

Clearly, the issue of how aged care is to be funded into the future is going to need ongoing discussion with the broader Australian community as this pressure increases. Nevertheless, this legislation does represent some significant changes to the way aged care is delivered. For example, consumers will have access to greater control over how they pay for their care and they will be expected to contribute to the cost of their care if they can afford it. The asset-rich, income-poor consumers who have largely avoided paying for high-care places will now contribute the same as somebody else with the same overall means but with a different mix of assets and income. The distinctions between high care and low care, and the associated restrictions on who is asked to pay for their care, will disappear. Overall more consumers will be contributing to the cost of their accommodation and care, and providers will have to contend with the increased control of consumers to choose how they pay for their accommodation, on a daily basis or in a lump sum.

The overall viability of the sector is an issue of concern to us. As well as participating in this inquiry, I have consulted widely with the sector and taken very seriously the concerns of industry about the impacts of legislation could have on their individual businesses. Their ability to navigate the new system and implement these reforms on the ground will determine how many more aged-care places are available and the quality of those services, which in turn is crucial for delivering better aged care for consumers. The current reform package does not necessarily achieve neutrality. There is no neutrality between new daily accommodation payments, DAPs, and the refundable accommodation deposits, RADs, because of the decision to maintain existing arrangements for the primary residence in the assets test.

The most significant change to residential care is focused on the lump-sum payments—formerly accommodation bonds, which are now the RADs. There will now be a clearer link between the cost of delivering accommodation and the cost of that accommodation, whether that is reflected in the lump-sum deposits that individuals use to pay for their accommodation or whether they choose to pay on a daily basis. While these reforms put restrictions on the size of the bonds, they increase the total pool of people who can pay their accommodation fee through a lump sum, as well as lift the distinction between high care and low care. It means that more people will potentially be paying for their care via a lump-sum payment. With this reform those consumers who may have waited too long to enter care because of the perceived barrier that large, low-care bonds have represented will have more options available to them, including the DAPs, and will be able to negotiate combinations of DAPs and RADs. However, as a result, providers have to face less certainty about how consumers will choose to pay their contributions. Evidence to the committee's inquiry demonstrated that this has implications for their business planning, given the industry's heavy reliance on the capital that upfront bond payments provide. In other words, they use that money to build new accommodation. A move away from lump sums will require them to find new ways to attract bank loans to finance their operations and build new facilities and service their debt. These are all matters that I have considered very seriously, particularly as there are some very effective and capable providers who run important services for low-income Australians by making low-care beds available or by operating in regional areas. These services have been and will continue performing ongoing juggling acts to make ends meet. These reforms must strengthen, rather than undermine, these services.

The KPMG modelling on the financial implications of this reform have helped resolve some of these concerns by trying to quantify the effects on the capital available to aged-care providers, but I acknowledge that this modelling cannot account for all factors, and I have made that point in our additional comments to the committee inquiry. I recognise that this modelling may not have resolved all their concerns about what real consumers may actually choose to do, because it is not possible to model everything. There are a number of reasons why people make the particular decision to choose a lump sum or, conversely, a daily payment. I acknowledge that there will be some uncertainty for them to contend with, as the industry is in transition, which is why I have spent a lot of time talking to providers and why the overwhelming message from most of the providers is that they want this legislation to go through—because we need reform.

The shift in the industry's financing structures will be gradual, as all existing contracts—in other words, all the people who are currently in aged care—will be grandfathered under transitional arrangements, but short-term liquidity problems will need to be addressed immediately once issues become apparent. We cannot leave those until the general review of the legislation later down the track; we must address these problems as they arise. However, the Australian Greens are reluctant and do not want to address the issue of the equivalence in treatment of the lump sum and the daily payment by simply allowing lump sum payments to also receive protection from asset testing. The Australian Greens believe this would unwind most of the progress that has been made on ensuring that assets are means-tested and that consumers contribute to the cost of their care. This would in turn undermine the financial viability of the sector into the future. We in fact asked for modelling of these various options and we can see no way of addressing the inequity between daily payments and rates unless changes are made about addressing the value of the primary residence; and, as yet, Australia is not prepared to address that issue, so we cannot fix this particular problem.

We can, however, look at how we address any transitional problems, any viability problems, for the sector. That is why the Australian Greens have introduced amendments to recognise the Aged Care Financing Authority in the legislation as a specialised monitoring body, separate from the Department of Health and Ageing, with a similar composition of industry experience to its current membership. One of the documents I tabled addresses some of the requests that the minister has made to ACFA in their work and in their review process. ACFA can undertake this monitoring work with a view to ensuring the financial viability of the sector and provide timely analysis and make recommendations to the government about how and when to implement transitional arrangements that can address liquidity and capital problems as they arise.

I am glad that the government has also responded to our concerns with an up-front commitment to subsidise business advisory services to residential aged-care providers that need assistance to implement the new accommodation payment system. Some of that information was articulated in the government's response to the Senate committee inquiry.

We have also been concerned about how consumers will be affected by the new co-contribution component and we have paid particular attention to the new home-care fees. While full pensioners will receive greater support under this legislation—and we are very supportive of that and appreciate the fact that our most vulnerable Australians are being supported in this manner—low-income part-pensioners may face some relatively large fee increases while still facing a range of other cost-of-living pressures. It would be disappointing if this group began to self-ration their care dollars. This was raised as a potential issue during the committee inquiry, and we looked at it carefully. Unfortunately, if we start fiddling with the taper rates, that would lead to a reduction in the number of packages available. We are not sure if the increase in the care fees will have a negative impact in terms of self-rationing. This is another issue that we expect ACFA to watch closely and advise the government on. Again, this issue cannot be left unaddressed in the long term. If people are self-rationing care, if they are unable to meet the costs of care, action needs to be taken as soon as possible. ACFA have a comprehensive work plan set out in the letter that I tabled in this place, and we will very carefully watch ACFA implement that work plan. They are essential, to my mind, in terms of how these reform processes are going to work.

On the whole, the Australian Greens believe that the Living Longer legislation is an important step forward in ensuring quality care is accessible to all older Australians. For that reason, we also support the workforce supplement. We appreciate the fact that the government has made some changes to that and we support those changes because they address some of the concerns of the sector. Our amendments and the commitments that the government has made in response to the very comprehensive committee inquiry have improved the bills further. What we now have before us is an architecture that should ensure the delivery of better outcomes for older Australians and the aged-care sector alike, both now and into the future.

We have listened carefully to all the stakeholders involved in this discussion. It is very clear to us that aged-care providers want this reform. Yes, there are concerns with this reform. We are concerned about some of the weighting for the daily accommodation payment and what that will do to consumer choices—in other words, they may choose the daily payments. However, until we are ready to have a broader discussion—and I agree with the government: this Australian community is not yet ready to have that broader discussion about how we use some of our accumulated assets to pay for our care into the future—this is the best we can do.

We very carefully looked at what the options were for different modelling, for taking into account what is in and out of the assets test, bearing in mind that the assets test is very close, is linked directly, to the age pension assets means-testing process. There was certainly not an appetite to delink those two. You cannot make any other changes to the DAPs and RAD unless you are prepared to significantly increase the cost of care or take the guts out of this package in terms of funding, and we are not prepared to do that.

The Greens will be supporting the package of these bills. We strongly support the passing of these bills on the basis of the homelessness supplement and also the amendments that we have already tabled in the Senate. We support these bills.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me a lot of pleasure to stand up and talk about aged-care issues more broadly and the government's aged-care reforms but I do need to stress that, of all the guillotines that have fallen on bills in this Senate over the last few days and that will fall over the next few days, it is most shameful that we should have to be rushed in our deliberation of aged-care reforms that go to the heart of how we treat older Australians. It is true that many of the bills that the Senate is debating this week are important bills. It is hard to imagine a bill that is more important than how we deal with aged care in our country. I just want to echo the comments of Senator Fierravanti-Wells. She was quite right: we will be living longer but not necessarily living better as result of the government's aged-care reforms. I will restrict my comments, unfortunately, to five minutes to allow Senator McKenzie, my colleague from Victoria, who I know wants to talk about regional aged-care issues, to do so. It is disappointing that I will not have longer to talk about my own interests, but I think that in the interests of coalition bipartisanship I will share some time with Senator McKenzie.

We need to be clear about what it is that we are addressing here. Let us be clear: we are addressing falling levels of confidence amongst aged-care providers about their ability to deliver aged care. We are talking about increased financial stress amongst rural and regional aged-care providers, particularly those across smaller regional communities like areas that I represent in Western Australia, like the Great Southern. We are talking about the need to properly reward aged-care workers for the effort and the passion that they show in their work, but the proposals for rewarding aged-care workers in the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013 and related bills are not suitable.

Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells was very, very correct when she said this is a complex and complicated approach to the future financing of aged care in our country. When we think about why financing is such a critical issue, we only need to look at the comments of Peter Cosgrove some weeks ago when he talked about a shortfall of 66,000 home care places by 2050 and said that 83,000 new nursing home places will be needed over the next nine years. He went on to say that the number of people over 65 will double to six million by 2050, pointing to the fact that aged-care reform and aged-care discussion is central to how we manage ourselves as we go forward as a country. On the issue of the aged-care workforce, he said:

The aged services workforce of 350,000 will need to triple by 2050 to serve the increasing demand for care. The majority of aged care workers are over 45 with a third nearing retirement.

So there is an issue that needs to be addressed. It needs to be addressed in a considered manner. Rushing aged-care bills through the parliament like this is certainly not the way to proceed.

There are many issues that I would have liked to have addressed in my time, but I will just quote from Dr Lucy Morris, who is the CEO of Baptistcare in Perth, in Western Australia, and her very, very considered comments in regard to these particular bills. Dr Lucy Morris, in April this year, said:

I believe that the specific issues of rural, regional and remote Australia providers, particularly in WA, have been ignored. These include issues around the ACLEI changes going to the viability, the implications of the workforce supplement, ongoing issues about access to staff, professional services training and increased costs of service delivery. The 28-day choice of payment methodology is going to cripple them. There is lack of access to capital. There are lower incomes generally in the country. Sixty per cent of our services are provided in rural and regional WA.

…   …   …

Our concern about our capacity to provide affordable services to the marginalised, in line with our mission, and at the same time generate a surplus to future-proof our services and continue to invest in capital infrastructure, which has come almost to a halt in the last few years, is significant.

Reform of the aged-care sector is important. It should not be done in the way it is being done by this government.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a shortened contribution to this debate on what could have been a significant opportunity for this government to deal with the real issues across the aged-care system. This focus-group-tested and press-release-happy-titled Living Longer Living Better aged-care reform package, announced on 20 April, is a package of five bills to give effect to the government's response to the Productivity Commission's report into caring for older Australians.

A lot of comments have been made about rural and regional issues related to the provision of aged-care services, because there are some real concerns about the impact of this package on those services, on the people who use them and on the communities that support them. In regional Australia there are 1,225 residential aged-care providers, 1,100 of which have 60 or fewer beds, the number of beds being a figure that is generally used to define how viable a provider will be. In the Bendigo electorate, where my office is situated, over 17 per cent of the population is 65 years of age or older, which is above the average in my home state of Victoria. As is the case in other regional areas, available residential and home care services for the elderly are at below average levels. As Senator Fierravanti-Wells has already mentioned, ageing in place is incredibly important for those who live in regional areas, because it is not only about the individual's wellbeing but also about the stability of community and the cohesiveness of our families.

Again, this package of bills contained no detail. Providers and stakeholders were asked to comment on how the bills would affect them and the work that they do without being provided with any detail. Rural providers, throughout the brief consultation we were able to conduct into this package of bills, raised several challenges, including the relatively high cost of establishing and delivering services in rural areas; difficulties in attracting, retaining and professionally developing suitably qualified staff; the limited availability of medical practitioners; low-income asset value; distance; logistics of continuous care provision; and so on.

I believe this package of bills fails to address the challenges faced by our rural providers. The early provisions which can potentially come into force on Monday next week will actually set the standards in efficiency within the Public Service. Good luck with that coming into effect! What we on our side know is that this is not about aged-care services; it is about buying votes.

I participated in the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry. We travelled across the country in a very brief period of time. It is regrettable that sufficient time to consider this important legislation was further eroded by the majority of Labor and Greens senators, who voted to bring forward the reporting date of this committee from 17 June to 31 May. As I said, stakeholders have had limited time and the devil is always in the detail.

Reform is required, and the majority of the sector actually supported the Productivity Commission's report, yet here we are with a grab bag of legislation that really only adopts less than 10 per cent of what the Productivity Commission sought to recommend. Obviously, though, the coalition as the champions of rural and regional Australia have made significant recommendations for how this package of bills could be made better for rural and regional areas, and that is outlined in our dissenting report.

But this government continues the rush to legislate without detail. The amendments moved by the coalition, by the Greens and by Senator Xenophon deserve greater scrutiny. We should be going into committee to do that, but—as usual—we are disrespected as senators. (Time expired)

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for consideration of these bills has now expired. The question is that these bills be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.