AGED CARE (LIVING LONGER LIVING BETTER) BILL 2013
May 27, 2013
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (16:13): I rise to speak in relation to the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013 and cognate bills, and to express my support for the amendment moved by the member for Dickson. These bills are the legislative response to the government’s aged-care reform package, which was announced in April 2012. As I move around my community of Gippsland and talk with representatives from the aged-care sector and with the aged-care providers themselves, I have been concerned that this government does not have the confidence of the industry when it comes to delivering this reform package. That is why I support the amendment put forward by the member for Dickson to defer this debate until the Senate committee has reported. I do not trust this government to get it right on this very important issue. I know that may sound harsh, but I will give you one example of this government’s dubious motives in relation to aged-care reform—and the member for Hasluck touched on it in his address.
I have a copy of the Living Longer Living Better documents sent to aged-care workers by the minister and I share the member for Hasluck’s concern that this is just a union membership campaign. But it is not just members of the Liberal Party and members of the National Party who are raising this concern, as the industry itself—including some of its peak bodies—is raising concerns in relation to the minister’s motives on this issue. I quote from a media release of 24 April 2013. It was distributed by the Victorian branch of Leading Age Services Australia and the headline was ‘Government delivers another “monumental stuff up” for age services’. It went on to say that the peak body for age and community care ‘has heavily criticised the Minister for Ageing, Mark Butler, and the Department of Health and Ageing for last week’s Workforce Supplement mail-out’. It said Leading Age Services Australia CEO John Begg described the mail-out as ‘deplorable interference and a true waste of government money’, saying it was an example of government attempting to influence workers outside the normal course of the industrial relations process. The media release went on to say, in quoting Mr Begg:
“The government does not control or dictate wages outcomes for any approved provider and does not pay a single aged care worker. This is a plain interference with the relationship between employers and employees.”
“Providers across the country view this as a backhanded action by the government to unionise the age services workforce, by promising wage increases without any commitment of real funding” …
Mr Begg went on to describe the package of information in the mail-out as ‘propaganda, printed and posted at great cost to taxpayers’ who, along with the age services sector workforce, certainly deserved better. I have one other quote from Mr Begg which is worth repeating here this afternoon:
“What the public need to know is that the funding model for aged care is woefully inadequate, not based on the true cost of care and not properly indexed. This is yet another example that the government does not fully understand our business of providing care to our ageing population” …
So it is not just a matter of coalition members coming into this place and seeking to score points for any political purpose. These are very real concerns being raised by peak bodies within the industry—in this case Leading Age Services Australia’s Victorian branch—and the government would be wise to listen. It is simply hard to trust the government when the industry groups are so scathing in their assessments of this legislation. I also refer to the comments made by the shadow minister when he moved this amendment. I think he makes the case very well as to why there is a need to defer consideration of all this debate until the Senate committee reports. The member for Dickson said:
The government trumpeted the release on the day as a revolution for the sector. The government continues to claim that this policy is a $3.7 billion investment when it is not … Looking at the finer detail, the proposals are nowhere near as ambitious as first made out. That has been a current theme across the last six years under the stewardship of this government. The government is saving over $560 million through means testing, and they include that as part of the so-called $3.7 billion investment. Over $2½ billion is being redirected from existing programs, including $1.6 billion from the Aged Care Funding Instrument. Places and funding are to be transferred from residential care to home care, and funding will be cut from the Long Stay Older Patients initiative. The net investment over four years is just $284.6 million, not $3.7 billion.
The industry knows that this government is trying to ram through its legislation without giving full details of the regulations. The shadow minister has belled the cat in relation to the fact that the so-called $3.7 billion investment is really a $284 million one. I call on the government to come clean with the Australian people—and come clean too with the aged-care services providers, the aged-care workers and older Australians who may require care in the future—and acknowledge that there are many, many problems with the legislation before the parliament.
Like some of the earlier speakers, I have the opportunity to visit aged-care providers in my electorate on a regular basis. Quite possibly the greatest concern that is expressed to me is the issue of the ongoing financial viability of the residential service providers and the difficulty in ensuring that regional Australians have the opportunity to age in place, that regional Australians have the opportunity to remain in their communities when they have a need for additional services. On top of that there is a concern about the regulatory and bureaucratic burden becoming so onerous that it is all becoming increasingly difficult for the not-for-profit sector, which is such an important part of the industry in regional Australia. There is the concern for the not-for-profit sector that it will simply not be able to deliver services into the future.
I am someone who believes there is a right way and a wrong way to grow old in your community and I think the government has an important role in ensuring the right way for regional Australians is that they have the dignity of remaining in their community for as long as possible, to be supported in their own home if that is their choice and, if necessary, to access residential care in their own communities. The aged-care sector in my electorate is well served by hardworking and dedicated staff. I would be the first to acknowledge that they are not particularly well paid for the work they do. Theirs is a difficult task. We are also well served by some extraordinary board members, many of whom give decades of service to their local aged-care provider and donate their time, particularly in the not-for-profit sector. Then we also have people who volunteer to fundraise to support the services in my community. So there is a real partnership and a real willingness in regional communities to make a contribution to ensuring that older Australians have the opportunity to remain in their homes or in their own communities for as long as possible.
I would argue that Gippslanders and many other communities around regional Australia are actually already committed to helping meet the needs of an ageing population. But there is a real concern in my community and throughout regional Australia that this government has not been on their side over the past six years. This government has promised a lot in relation to aged care but has delivered precious little in terms of results on the ground in supporting older Australians in their communities. So there is a growing awareness in our community that providing for the needs of an ageing population is going to be one of the most critical issues facing a future federal government. The figures are well known. Across Australia the number of people aged over 65 is expected to increase from 13.4 per cent of the total population to 25.3 per cent of the population over the next 40 years. In a community like Gippsland, which has some highly sought after retirement destinations, we can certainly expect to follow that baseline trend. We also know that as medical science advances we can expect the number of very old Australians, those aged 85 or more, to increase as a proportion of the population. We know that people will be living longer in the future with more complex health needs. We know that the staff required to support them in aged-care facilities and through the residential care arrangements—so the staff required for those services—will have more complex training needs as well. I acknowledge that the government has a pivotal role in working in partnership with the aged-care sector to ensure that ageing occurs in that dignified manner I referred to earlier.
These people, particularly in regional communities, cannot be catered for with a one-size-fits-all approach driven out of Canberra through some bureaucratic model. These people have their own individual needs; they have their own individual expectations; and providing services to the frail and aged in the most appropriate manner to meet these individual requirements will demand flexibility and innovative thinking. I do not believe that this government, and the bureaucracy based here in Canberra, has grasped the need for that flexibility and innovative thinking when it comes to regional communities. The one-size-fits-all approach which is repeatedly driven out of Canberra and into our regional communities is simply incapable of recognising the expertise that is on the ground and the willingness of community volunteers to participate in solving some of these problems. I urge the government and the bureaucrats based in Canberra to respect the people on the ground, to listen to their view, particularly in regional communities like Gippsland, and listen to the genuine concerns that have been presented during the course of this debate over the past 12 months.
We will need to have more flexibility in funding and our service delivery arrangements to meet the needs of different communities across our nation. I do not want to be alarmist in saying this but I am concerned that our aged-care system right now is on the verge of crisis. I do not believe it is well placed at the moment to meet the recurrent or the future needs of an ageing population. The industry representatives who talk to me, as well as the board members and some of the workers in the aged-care sector, say that it is getter harder, rather than easier, to provide a financially viable service, as I said, particularly in our regional community.
The regulatory burden which I referred to before is becoming increasingly onerous and is stifling investment. It is also destroying confidence in the future of the industry. There is no-one who works in the aged-care sector who thinks that health and safety requirements should be weakened or diminished in any way, but the amount of red tape and the time spent in mindlessly filling out forms, and that time commitment being taken away from the aged people themselves, are a major concern. It is embedding an additional cost in the structure of running these organisations which is becoming increasingly frustrating for the operators, particularly in the not-for-profit sector where there are so many people of enormous goodwill donating their time to try to provide those services throughout rural and regional Australia.
Like most of those in this place, I am a very big supporter of making sure that older Australians have the opportunity to remain in their home for as long as they want to, if that is their wish, and as long as it is safe to do so. That presents some additional challenges in places like Gippsland—and, I acknowledge, also in Maranoa—where there are many rural and remote areas. There are cost challenges in moving staff around those communities and providing services on the ground. I also acknowledge it is more expensive to provide full-time residential care in those communities. But it is much easier and cheaper for governments if they can ensure that people have the access to services in their own home rather than moving to a nursing home-type environment too early in their life. As long as it is safe to do so, we need to encourage people to remain in their own homes in their later years and enjoy a healthy and active retirement.
In addition to the professional services and the workforce that will be required to support this choice that people will make, I believe there is a real opportunity for us in this place to make sure that we get better at providing opportunities for volunteers to work in this space as well and giving them the skills to support older Australians. As the baby boomers retire we know there will be a bigger pool of potential volunteers out in the community, and Australians have a strong ethos of supporting others through volunteering. As the baby boomers retire we need to make sure that the regulatory burden is not so cumbersome and so bureaucratic that it stops people from volunteering to assist their fellow Australians—in this case, older Australians in their own home. I see a real opportunity for this government and future governments to support the choices made by older Australians to remain in their own homes, so not only utilising the professional workforce but also ensuring that our volunteers have the skill base and are given the opportunity to make a contribution after their days in the paid workforce are over.
I said at the outset that the coalition has legitimate concerns about the timing of this legislation and the unseemly haste of the government to get it through before the Senate committee reports back. I call on the government to show the community more details in relation to the regulations which are proposed to underpin these bills. I fear that it will be up to a future coalition government—if, indeed, the coalition is successful in September this year—to clean up some of the mess that will exist in the aged-care sector.
As I travel throughout regional Australia, boards have expressed concerns about their financial viability, about the regulations and new layers of bureaucracy being imposed upon them. I call on the government to respect the amendment proposed by the member for Dickson and to delay the debate on this bill until the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee has the chance to fully examine the impact of these changes on providers, older Australians, their families and carers.