Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move business of the Senate notices of motions 4 and 5 together.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Residential Care Subsidy Amendment (Workforce Supplement) Principle 2013, made under the Aged Care Act 1997, be disallowed.

That theAged Care Subsidies Amendment (Workforce Supplement) Determination 2013 made under the Aged Care Act 1997, be disallowed.

This evening I would like to address both the Aged Care Subsidies Amendment (Workforce Supplement) Determination and the Residential Care Subsidy Amendment (Workforce Supplement) Principle. The principle and determination of course need to be moved separately, but we have agreed to move them together. But really they are both a result of the same trend—that is, the coalition's lack of focus and commitment in the area of aged care.

These instruments, made under the Aged Care Act 1997, will unwind key reforms instituted by Labor to ensure that the nation's aged care workers receive a welcome and overdue boost in pay and conditions. The Gillard government introduced the Aged Care Workforce Subsidy part of the Living Longer Living Better aged care package in order to address workforce pay and conditions. It is important to remember that aged care workers are some of our lowest paid workers in the country yet they are charged with the immense responsibility of caring for the increasing number of older Australians.

We often speak of Australia's ageing population and the challenges that lie ahead as though it were something yet to happen. Those challenges are already here. For the first time in our nation's history there are more people turning pension age each year, than there are turning working age. Yet the aged-care sector has a high turnover of staff, and workers are paid less than colleagues in other sectors such as hospitals. I recognise that many workers in this sector are motivated by compassion and a sense of vocation but they still deserve to be given fairer pay, better conditions and access to training, education and a career path.

The sector faces pressure not only from an increase in the demand for their services, but also from a population that expects more. This workforce needs assistance and now is not the time to be turning our backs on those workers who give so much for so little. Federal Labor understands these pressures, which is why we allocated $1.2 billion dollars across the forward estimates to address significant workforce issues. The workforce supplement is the mechanism through which the wages of aged-care workers caring for older Australians will be improved.

It is extremely disappointing that the coalition does not share our concern. In fact, one of the first acts of the Minister for Social Services was to make a determination through these two instruments to remove the department secretary's power to accept applications for the workforce supplement. This is despite the fact that some 18 providers have already successfully applied for the supplement since 1 July 2013. So what is the coalition planning to do with the remaining $1.1 billion?

All we have from those opposite are platitudes followed by cuts. All we have heard is that the government will reallocate to a:

… general pool of aged care funding.

Not that we know what this means, how they will guarantee that workers will not be worse off or how they will address the demands on this sector. The timing could not be worse. At this time, we need to be doing everything possible to boost the working conditions of aged-care staff and encourage younger people to take up work in this sector.

The Productivity Commission has pointed out that increasing numbers of residents with higher and more complex care needs have added to the workloads of care staff in residential care settings. As we speak, some 50 per cent of the aged-care workforce is within 10 years of retiring, and it is proving particularly challenging to attract young capable people to undertake this line of work.

Labor remains committed to building a new aged-care system built on the principles of respect, dignity and choice. We want to make sure that every single facility can provide quality, affordable, accessible and appropriate care to a rapidly growing population of older Australians. If only the coalition shared our dream. Instead, they want to scrap the supplement and, on top of this, the government has not indicated how the funds will be allocated to providers.

My aim in moving to disallow these instruments is to give workers more time to negotiate better outcomes with their employers and to provide the minister and his assistant minister with more time to provide details on how they will address workforce issues. This regrettable decision by the minister has only added greater uncertainty to a workforce that is already lowly paid while working with some of the most vulnerable and demanding Australians.

During question time this week, the minister who is at least nominally responsible for ageing, Senator Fifield, said that it was a government priority to:

… allow those who work in aged care to focus on doing what they do best, and that is delivering high-quality care for older Australians.

Well, Minister Fifield—it is good that you are here in the chamber—you certainly are not acting like it. Words are cheap. Older Australians and the people who work diligently every day to care for them want a real commitment. I trust the government will take the time to address the pay and working conditions of this vulnerable sector. My honourable colleagues may want to consider who they would want caring for them in their twilight years. Given the choice, would we really want a lowly paid, overworked person caring for us or even for our parents?

The manner in which the minister has moved to turn back progress for aged-care workers is shameful, and you should feel ashamed. Today, Labor is removing the prohibition on workers seeking better pay and conditions. We are clearing the way for providers and workers to sit down and continue negotiating.

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

If you look at the Notice Paperwhich I know you do constantly, all-day-every-day, Mr Deputy President—you would see the two motions for disallowance that Senator Polley has before us today. The titles of the disallowance motions make them appear fairly innocuous. They read:

That the Residential Care Subsidy Amendment (Workforce Supplement) Principle 2013, made under the Aged Care Act 1997, be disallowed.

…

That the Aged Care Subsidies Amendment (Workforce Supplement) Determination 2013, made under the Aged Care Act 1997, be disallowed.

They sound fairly innocuous when you read them, but what these two disallowance motions actually represent is an act of unmitigated—I will choose my words carefully here—mischief. There is a stronger phrase I was tempted to use, but I am always keen to observe the decorum of the chamber.

The coalition was very clear before the election that we had some significant issues with the Aged Care Workforce Supplement. It sounded good in theory. Who could be against better wages for people who work in the aged-care sector? But there were some significant qualifications on—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You obviously are. Give us a commitment.

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

I am sorry, Mr Deputy President, but if the interjections continue, I may be forced to make reference to a Tasmanian publication of record. I would not want to be tempted to do that. But I will continue.

There were some significant qualifications in the previous government's Aged Care Workforce Supplement, and they included a requirement for certain aged-care providers to be part of an enterprise bargaining agreement with unions in order to access funds. That clearly was a cover for the Australian Labor Party in government yet again trying to use a sector in order to entrench further union membership. We on this side of the chamber are not at all against union membership. We recognise the important role that unions play in Australia, and that employees have an entitlement to be represented in the manner of their choosing. Our issue is that we do not believe that individuals should in any way be compelled, nor do we believe, for that matter, that employers should be placed in a position where they will be penalised or coerced through financial incentives to have a workplace that may do other than represent the free will of employees as expressed.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What are you going to do with the $1.1 billion?

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left!

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

So we had some difficulty with the Aged Care Workforce Supplement. We made clear before the election that if elected we would seek to suspend the workforce supplement. That is what we did when we came into government—Minister Andrews created a legislative instrument that would suspend further applications for that supplement. There were some 18 providers who had already been approved for the supplement, and we undertook that we would continue to ensure that those providers received that supplement, that payments to those people who had applied and reached agreement in good faith would continue.

So we suspended further applications for the supplement, but we did indicate that we were committed to seeing the money that had been allocated to the workforce supplement returned to the general pool in aged care. We thought it was important to take a very different approach to that of the previous government in determining how best to deploy those resources. There was originally, I think, about $1.2 billion in the supplement. When you take into account the money that has already been allocated it is about $1.1 billion that is left.

Rather than seeking to use that money to pursue particular industrial ends, as the previous government did, we want to take—and indicated that we would—a consultative approach with the sector. So we will sit down with the sector and work through how best to deploy that money. It is important to remember that we are talking about a very significant amount of money here: $1.1 billion. It is always important to remember that these are taxpayer dollars. We need to think very carefully about how best to deploy that money and so we will work in a cooperative way with the sector to determine how best to do that.

For the record, I should just read into the Hansard what the coalition said before the election in relation to this funding. We said:

As a first priority, the Coalition will take the necessary steps to put back into the general pool of aged care funding the $1.2 billion allocated to the Workforce Compact and work with providers to ensure that these funds are distributed in a way that is more flexible and better targeted, without jeopardising the viability of aged care facilities.

And that is exactly what we will do.

I should also share with you, Mr Deputy President, the release which explains the rationale for what we are doing. I will just briefly share it with you, because I know you take a close interest in this sector. This release was issued by me and Minister Andrews, and is headed 'Investing in the aged care workforce':

The Coalition Government today announced the first step in delivering on the Government’s Healthy Life, Better Ageing commitments.

The Government recognises that increased pay and improved conditions are essential to attract and retain skilled workers to the sector, while being affordable and sustainable. Recruiting and retaining sufficient numbers of skilled, dedicated workers to the aged care sector is crucial for Australia’s aged care system to meet the community’s increasing need for aged care services.

The Aged Care Workforce Supplement introduced by the former government did not guarantee improved pay and conditions for all aged care workers and many providers could not justify applying because the Supplement would not have covered their additional costs.

I think that is an important point. It continued:

For many providers the funding was also conditional upon the signing of a union-dictated EBA.

This goes to the point I was making before, that the government does not believe that we should use particular sectors, and funding in particular sectors, to seek to achieve particular industrial outcomes that may be important to the Labor Party. The statement continues:

The Government is committed to working with the sector to develop a policy which will ensure that available funding is distributed in a way that is flexible, targeted and ensures the viability of aged care providers.

For this reason, the Government has taken the responsible step of suspending applications for the Workforce Supplement introduced by the former government while it consults with the sector on alternative policy options.

I know that is an unfamiliar concept to those opposite—to actually consult with the sector rather than having a predetermined agenda to achieve an industrial outcome. The statement continues:

Aged care providers that are eligible for the Supplement will have their funding honoured and the Department of Social Services will continue to process applications that have already been received. The Government will consider transitional arrangements for these providers as it develops alternative policy options.

That was the statement of 26 September which was seeking to explain and give effect to our pre-election commitment. And on that day Minister Andrews created the legislative instrument which the opposition are today seeking to disallow. It is yet another example of the opposition not accepting the result of the election.

It is bad enough that the opposition do not accept the fact that the Australian people voted for a change of government. It is bad enough that the opposition do not accept that the Australian people voted to abolish the carbon tax. This is yet another instance where the opposition do not accept that there was change of government, do not accept that the incoming government had a clear policy and do not accept the right of the government to give effect to that policy. What we are seeing here with these disallowance motions is the Australian Labor Party seeking to govern from the political grave. One would have thought they would have heeded the message from the last election and allowed the government to get on with its agenda. So it is disappointing that the opposition have moved these disallowance motions, which will only create unnecessary uncertainty in the aged-care sector. That is extremely unfortunate.

While I am on my feet I think it is important to draw the chamber's attention to Senator Polley's approach when we were in Senate estimates and aged care was before the Community Affairs Legislation Committee. Senator Polley seemed to be of the view that aged-care quality equals red tape, and red tape equals aged-care quality, because whenever this government has stated that it intends to seek to reduce red tape in the aged-care sector the opposition have said, 'What the government really wants to do is to reduce quality, to reduce standards.' I for one do not think we have yet reached some sort of regulatory nirvana in aged care. I think it is prudent for the government of the day, whoever they may be, to always look to see how red tape can be reduced in the aged-care sector. If aged-care workers, who those opposite profess have such an interest in, are spending time on paperwork that does not add to quality and does not add to care, that is time that those aged-care workers cannot be spending doing what they do best, and that is providing care to older Australians. So I take this opportunity to encourage those opposite, in particular Senator Polley, to take a fresh look at the issue of red tape and compliance—

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have an open mind.

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

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

I rise to indicate that the Greens will be supporting this disallowance motion. We entered into a lot of discussion and negotiation over the Living Longer Living Better package and I do think that we helped to make it a better package. This issue of better wages for aged-care workers has been very high on the agenda for a significant period of time and, although promises have been made in the past to address the poor wages of workers that work very hard in this sector, they have not been effectively delivered.

What has happened is that in the past when there has been additional funding put into aged care, it has not actually been delivered to those that are doing the hard work at the coalface, and they are the aged-care workers. They are some of the lowest paid in the sector. In the previous aged-care inquiries in Perth and the subsequent one about the Living Longer Living Better legislation, we heard some horrendous stories about the low wages and the things that people had to do. We consulted a lot during that process. We will be supporting this disallowance motion because we believe that the Living Longer Living Better package was amended to address the issues of concern and this is the best way to ensure that increased wages are delivered to aged-care workers.

(Quorum formed)