Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Assistant Minister for Social Services, Senator Fifield. Can the minister update the Senate on development of the replacement scheme for aged care providers who support the small number of people in residential care who have severe behaviours?

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

I thank Senator Seselja for his question, as always.

The government is very firmly of the view that proper support for Australians with dementia is part of the core business of aged care. Indeed, the government's commitment to Australians with dementia was outlined very well by Minister Nash yesterday in relation to the $200 million that this government is going to dedicate to dementia research. I think colleagues of all sides will remember the sad-and-sorry saga of the previous government's design of the dementia and severe behaviours supplement, which of course saw very significant cost blow-outs. Rather than $11.7 million as allocated last financial year by the previous government, that expenditure was indeed $110 million., and rather than supporting 2,000 people, as the previous government designed, it went to 29,000 people and it was unsustainable. So, we had to take a difficult decision to conclude that supplement.

Nevertheless, the government is committed to designing a replacement for Labor's flawed design. In fact, the government has been meeting with stakeholders, including providers and consumer representatives, to determine the best way to proceed. Indeed, on 11 September the first Ministerial Dementia Forum met in Melbourne. It was tasked by Minister Dutton and me to consider the provision of best-practice dementia care in residential and home settings. There were 70 stakeholders, including consumers, service providers and clinicians, who came together. The forum was specifically asked to provide advice on what the replacement might be for the supplement for those providers who support the small number of people in residential care who exhibit severe behaviours.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister inform the Senate of the objectives of holding the ministerial forum for dementia?

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

The forum was asked to provide advice to the government specifically on three things. Firstly, strategies to improve and promote the wider adoption of better practice care of people with dementia and behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia who are receiving aged-care services; secondly, the effective models of care for people with behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia and people with dementia within aged-care services; and thirdly, the timely and cost-effective specialised support for care of dementia clients with complex needs or severe behavioural and psychological symptoms. Advice will cover care provided both in residential settings or at home and within the current funding envelope.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister inform the Senate of the next steps regarding a replacement scheme for aged care providers?

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

I will be receiving a report from the Ministerial Dementia Forum outlining their advice in October. From the advice provided, a replacement scheme for providers who support those people with severe behaviours will be developed within the funding envelope available. We are taking a steady and methodical approach to the development of the replacement, including the sector consultation at the Ministerial Dementia Forum.

Obviously, this is in stark contrast to the approach of the previous administration. I should point out that one aged care publication asked me in an interview why the Australian Labor Party—Senator Polley and Mr Neumann—were not invited to the forum. My answer to that was pretty straightforward, that those opposite have already made their policy clear. That is, they support the reinstatement of the previous flawed arrangements. Given that they have already determined their position and are not interested in contributing positively to a better replacement, there was no point in inviting them. They would rather talk to—(Time expired)