Joe Bullock (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In my maiden speech I said that I would always look at legislation from the point of view of shop assistants. After 37 years of representing their interests, shop assistants, to me, are the very salt of the earth, their views epitomising those of everyday, hard-working Australians.

Everyday Australians are a fair lot. They want to work hard, but they also believe there should be time for rest and family. They do not want handouts, but they do believe in giving every person a chance. They believe in private enterprise, but they also believe that the community, through our elected governments, has a duty to care and a responsibility to support vulnerable people—the aged, those with a disability and those who find themselves on the wrong side of advantage. This is what Australians mean when they talk about a 'fair go'. It is not some political slogan; it is the idea of reward for effort and of contributing to a community, a community which will support those in need of a bit of a hand. I promised to look at every piece of legislation from the perspective of the ordinary Australian. I am keeping that promise and, in this instance, the government is found wanting.

Today, I want to focus on one particular aspect of this bill: the government's abolition of the dementia and severe behaviours supplement payment. This payment, all of $16.15 a day, has not only been cut entirely by the government but the cut has also been effected without any meaningful consultation and without any warning. Aged-care homes and those who care for people with dementia have suddenly found themselves denied this important support. The former Labor government instituted the supplement in recognition of and in response to the higher needs of those suffering from dementia, recognising that for carers and those working in aged-care facilities patients with dementia present a much greater challenge.

Dementia can give rise to a huge range of behaviours and symptoms. These can include psychosis, psychotic behaviours, aggression, a lack of inhibition and control, hallucination or severe depression. These symptoms affect not only those suffering from the affliction but also impact upon those who care for them. Apparently, according to this government, those people in our community who suffer from such symptoms should now stop leaning and do their share of the lifting to put the budget back into surplus. The dementia and severe behaviours supplement funded programs, services, staff and supports that helped aged-care providers deal with these issues. It gave families peace of mind. It gave security to other residents and staff. It enabled care providers to effectively plan to cope with a future in which the number of Australians affected by dementia, currently 330,000, is predicted to increase sharply in coming years in line with our aging population. Now all of those services have been ripped away—indiscriminately. Instead of keeping carers in the dark, ministers could have been working with the Department of Social Services, with stakeholders, with carers, with aged-care providers to properly cater for the needs of dementia sufferers. They prefer to slash the support and hang the consequences.

Let us examine in order the events that led to this appallingly misconceived decision. First, the government promised that they would not act rashly in addressing the budget measures involved in the field of aged care. Second, after just one round table meeting and with no warning at all, the government abolished the dementia and severe behaviours supplement lock, stock and barrel. This is no way for a responsible government to behave. In the election campaign, the now Prime Minister assured the Australian people that he would lead a government of no surprises. Well, this move was certainly a surprise to every aged-care provider and dementia carer in Australia. It is a move for which there is no excuses.

What is not surprising, however, is the industry's response. The Chief Executive Officer of Western Australia's aged-care provider Baptistcare, the Reverend Dr Lucy Morris, has called these cuts 'a noose that will choke the industry'. I have met with senior industry figures and I can assure senators that they are not partisan players, but they do understand the impact of these cuts on real people. In May, Dr Morris told the Aged Care Guide:

Everyone with a family member with dementia in a residential aged care facility will lose their additional much needed support. Support that has been developed specific to individual needs, support that has been designed after significant testing and assessment on a case by case basis

Professor John Kelly, the Chief Executive of Aged and Community Services Australia, has said that the withdrawal of this funding 'ignored the problems faced by staff and patients. He said:

This action by the Assistant Minister, Senator Mitch Fifield, does not send a good message to the community.

If the government will not listen to the opposition, perhaps it will listen to aged-care providers.

The government may assert that it has a mandate to reform areas of the budget. The government might even be able to say with some cogency that the dementia and severe behaviours supplement was oversubscribed and needed some revision. But to slash it completely and to remove support from even the most extreme and needy cases is without justification or excuse. And to do it by stealth and without consultation with the aged-care sector or with any stakeholders is simply irresponsible.

Once it became apparent that the government had decided to impose this course of action, my office —following the leadership of Senator Polley—began a mail campaign to make the community aware of just what was being planned. Unsurprisingly, the response was overwhelming and it was not happy at all.

From just the first 20,000 households my office contacted, in the electorate in which I live, Stirling, over 1,700 replies came flooding back calling on the government to stop the cuts. Approximately 2,500 people took the time to fill in a petition and mail it back. There were thousands of views, likes and shares online and on Facebook. And all this from just part of just one electorate in my home state of Western Australia. People like 78-year-old Joe Richmond, of Stirling, who wrote to me to say:

… cutting funding that affects the lives of ordinary Australians, and the subsequent extra cost of these cuts that may cost the taxpayer more than they save in extra care, is utterly stupid.

People like Lara, of Balcatta, who wrote to me to say:

How disgusting of the government to do this.

People like June, of Innaloo, who asks:

I'm disgusted. How much more can the aged and the vulnerable be told to give?

People like Toriko, of Karrinyup, who wrote:

This government keeps picking on the most vulnerable. I will not vote for it at the next election.

People like Julie Munns, Bernice Grose, Lloyd Nicholls, David Blackledge and Barry McCarley, who wrote to tell me of their loved ones suffering from dementia—thousands of ordinary people, in just one electorate, who know what the real impact of cutting this payment will mean to our community; thousands of everyday working families who know that introducing these cuts, without any warning, was mean and tricky. I might even dare to say: they know it is un-Australian. If the government will not listen to the opposition and to aged-care professionals and stakeholders, perhaps they will listen to the community.

Were I not elected to this place, I might very well have joined with those thousands in registering my protest with a letter or a petition. My own mother, Beulah, began to exhibit the early effects of dementia during the last three years of her life and, while my wife, my in-laws and I did our best to care for her in our home, it was sad to see her deteriorate to the point where I became, in her words, 'the nice man who lives down the hall'.

Those with dementia, their families and their carers face daily struggles. Why this government has decided it is these people, who must suffer further in order to put the budget back into surplus is beyond my comprehension—I suspect it would be beyond the comprehension of most Australians.

At the start of this address, I referred to my maiden speech and my promise to speak on behalf of ordinary working people and to consider legislation from their point of view. There can be no doubt that in the view of ordinary working Australians cutting payments for the care of those with serious behaviours associated with dementia is wrong. Phantom budget emergency or no budget emergency; why should the heaviest lifting be done by the most vulnerable in our community?