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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Assistant Minister for Social Services (Senator Fifield) and the Minister for Employment (Senator Abetz) to questions without notice asked by Senators Polley and Bullock today relating to the Dementia and Severe Behaviours Supplement and to the superannuation guarantee.

Today in question time, for those who have just joined us, I did ask the Assistant Minister for Social Services, Senator Fifield, how much longer aged-care providers and people suffering with severe symptoms of dementia and their families would have to wait for this government to do something about ensuring that those people that are cared for are given the appropriate care from the funding that was axed, as we know, at the end of June.

The day after tomorrow will in fact mark 100 days since the Abbott government announced the axing of the Dementia and Severe Behaviours Supplement. After 100 days, we still have no real indication of what the government intends to do. Today Senator Fifield continued to be evasive in giving us any sort of answer. This is hardly surprising from a minister who clearly has not had his eye on the ball. The government's incompetence, inattention and inaction have hurt aged care providers, big and small. More significantly, the government have hurt the most vulnerable residents in aged care facilities and, all the while, they have refused to provide answers or outline any sort of plan that will restore certainty to the sector.

The review which the minister spoke about was a result of the fact that there were signs of a cost blow-out. But what is critical here is that the department advised the government in clear terms that government could fund interim projects while a new scheme was being designed so that the aged care providers would not be left high and dry. In fact, we know that Senator Fifield wrote to the secretary of the Department of Social Services, Finn Pratt, promising that he intended to develop—and I quote directly—'an interim and ongoing measure to fill the void left by the scrapping of the supplement'. But, of course, he did not do this. One hundred days later and we still have nothing in place. The documents that we have also reveal what we have suspected all along: the government was incredibly slow to communicate their future plans and failed to provide assurances to a nervous aged care sector, and this is despite the department warning about the sensitivities to axing this supplement. In fact, on 4 February this year, the department informed Senator Fifield that prior to commencing its review it would write to the aged care peak bodies informing them of the review. But did they receive this correspondence? Was there any consultation? No. The peak bodies and the large providers have indicated that they received no correspondence—none at all. Senator Fifield clearly was not on top of what was occurring, or rather what was not occurring, in his department.

The government has been asleep at the wheel on the Dementia and Severe Behaviours Supplement. It is as simple as that. On their watch, the government allowed this supplement to spiral completely out of control. There were warning bells, and they were ignored. It became clear early on that the implementation of the scheme needed to be addressed. Leadership was required to steer this ship back on course. The fact is that this government would have known in late 2013 that the supplement needed to be addressed, but it was not tackled in MYEFO last November or in this year's budget. Senator Fifield and his government dithered, waited and failed to act. And then they panicked and scrapped the supplement. Is this really good enough? Of course it is not. We need a minister who is on top of his brief. We need a minister who has his department monitoring compliance with key government schemes. We need a minister who has a solid working relationship with his department and a real interest in his portfolio. Right now, we do not have that and the real losers are the hardworking staff in the aged care sector and the vulnerable people with dementia. These people deserve much better. Clearly this is a minister who has no interest in his portfolio. This is a minister who is not on top of his brief. This is a minister who obviously does not have a good working relationship with his department. It is not good enough for those people on that side of the chamber who are now in government to continually blame the former government for something which they now have responsibility for. (Time expired)

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

For those who are listening to this debate in the gallery and elsewhere, let me just summarise what has happened in the last 45 minutes. So confident were the Labor Party, the Labor opposition, in their performance at question time today that, for the last 45 minutes, they have been talking about issues that were not the substance of their question time contribution. What does this mean? We now have half the time available to us to discuss the issues raised at question time. What does this demonstrate? It demonstrates that Labor do not even trust their own performance in question time.

Senator Polley said something very important. She said that leadership was required to steer the ship back on course. What ship are we talking about? We are talking about the Dementia and Severe Behaviours Supplement. There is no-one doubt that, as a consequence of the ageing population, more of our older Australians will unfortunately suffer from dementia. A smaller group of them, just as unfortunately, will suffer from severe behaviour difficulties. We know that, with age, the prevalence of dementia rises from one in 10 when you are aged 65 years and over to three in 10 when you are aged 85 years and over.

So let us just get to the nub of the problem. The Dementia and Severe Behaviours Supplement was the NBN of the aged care system under Labor. It was poorly designed and badly implemented. Its costs were exaggerated because Labor designed it badly. How badly did you design it? How badly could Labor have designed it? What was the depth of your poor design? Let us think about this. Originally, the program was designed to support the care of 2,000 residents with severe behaviours; at last count, it was supporting 29,000 residents. You designed a system that would cost the taxpayer $110 million over those 11 months. Now those costs are extreme, because you designed a very bad system. It must be embarrassing to find yourself in opposition now, having to curry favour with people and hide from your poor—

Senator Polley interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There is too much interjecting happening.

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

Hide from your poor design. What would the future have looked like if the very responsible minister did not take any action? What would the future have looked like, Senator Polley? Let me tell you. Had it continued—

Senator Polley interjecting—

Senator Polley, apologies: I cannot understand a word you are saying. Let me speak.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Smith, you are quite correct. You have the call, and I call the chamber to order. There has been enough interjecting in this contribution. I would like Senator Smith to be heard in silence.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I will change my tone slightly. If corrective action had not been taken by the new government and the new minister, and the dementia and severe behaviour supplement been allowed to continue, the payment would have cost $780 million over four years, rather than the $52 million that had been budgeted under Labor, and more than $1.5 billion over 10 years. Let us be clear, the coalition believes that people with dementia and severe behaviour issues need to be supported. We disagree with the way that you did it. It was irresponsible from a policy perspective and irresponsible from a budget perspective. I have a challenge for Labor. Let us assume for one second that the supplement should stay. How does Labor propose to meet the financial cost of $780 million?

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

Senator Bilyk, which programs would you like to see end?

Senator Polley interjecting—

Senator Polley, which programs would you like to see end?

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Smith, I will ask you not to direct your comments at senators, because it does not assist the chamber. I would ask you to direct your comments through the chair.

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

Through you, Mr Deputy President, the challenge for the Labor opposition is to identify what programs and policies they would end if they were to support the supplement in its current form. (Time expired)

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bilyk, I forewarn you that this debate will close at 4.30.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to take note of answers from Senator Abetz to Senator Bullock with regard to the very important question of superannuation for Australian workers. In government, federal Labor put in place mechanisms to lift the superannuation guarantee from nine to 12 per cent from 1 July 2013. That would have boosted the retirement savings of 8.4 million Australians and would have lifted retirement savings more than $500 billion by 2037. A person aged 30 today on average full-time earnings would have retired with an extra $127,000 in superannuation savings.

Before the election, on 14 different occasions, Mr Abbott promised there would be no unexpected adverse changes to superannuation. Because of a tawdry backroom deal with Mr Palmer, over nine million working Australians will be worse off in retirement. Mr Abbott, we know, does not believe that superannuation is necessary. I have a quote from him that says:

Compulsory superannuation is one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted by government on the Australian people.

He said that back in 1995, but I do not for a minute think that he has changed his mind with regard to superannuation. In March 2012, he said:

We have always as a coalition been against compulsory superannuation increases.

They were being honest, for a change, about what they think about superannuation. But in 2013 the Prime Minister appeared to have moved a bit, because he said in a doorstop interview:

… the commitment I give is that there will be no unexpected adverse changes to superannuation.

If people's not being able to put away enough money to have a comfortable retirement is not an adverse change, I do not know what is. In my book, that is an adverse change.

The government's freezing of the superannuation guarantee is another broken promise, which will hit the retirement savings, as I said, of nearly nine million Australian workers. If you are 25 and you are earning an average income, you will be $100,000 worse off by the time you retire. I would like people to think about that, because, with an ageing population, people are going to rely more on their superannuation. I notice that those on the other side—the couple that are able to be here—have their heads down. I think that is because they are very ashamed of that fact. They realise that people work very hard all their life to be able to live in their retirement in a comfortable—I am not talking about lavish—lifestyle. But, no, according to that side of the room, you do not deserve to have that comfort. In question time, Senator Abetz said words to the effect that people would receive the difference in their wages. Senator Abetz, I have news for you. Talk to some of the local small businesses in the area in which you and I live, because they are telling me that they are not going to pay it into wages. Those people are going to miss out altogether. It is not a swap; it is a dud deal by those on the that side. I am not saying that all employers will not pass it on, but I know already of a number in Tasmania, Senator Abetz's and my home state, that will not pass it on.

We have people who will be worse off in their retirement, due to the heartless, cruel tactics of the government. They have come in and said, 'No cuts to pensions, no adverse effects to superannuation, no cuts to education,' but all we have had from them is exactly the opposite. They do not have the honesty to face the people before the election and say that there will be no changes to superannuation. Superannuation is an important part of most people's future planning and future strategy. People plan a long time ahead for their superannuation and their retirement. So not having that money available to them because it has been frozen by this government, because allegedly there is some budget crisis— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.