Stirling Griff (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I would like to state that this is absolutely not my first speech. However, I am certain that what I rise to speak on today will very much feature in that first speech in the coming weeks. I rise today to speak on the state of the aged-care sector and the impact the cutbacks will have on millions of our senior citizens. In particular, I wish to highlight the impact of proposed changes, and the coalition and the opposition's stonewalling of an inquiry into changes to the Aged Care Funding Instrument.

Yesterday, I co-sponsored a motion moved by Senator Siewert to refer changes to the Aged Care Funding Instrument, announced in the 2015-16 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook and the 2016-17 budget, to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry. The terms of reference were not partisan; they were based on genuine and widespread concerns in the sector about the impact of those changes to the Aged Care Funding Instrument. The inquiry sought to examine a number of key and critical issues, including the impact of $1.6 billion in cuts on service delivery and the level of care that older Australians receive, including in regional and remote communities. The inquiry also sought to look at the impact of these deep cuts on the sector, including the sector's capacity to deliver complex health care and the ongoing viability of the sector.

The proposed inquiry's terms of reference also sought to examine the impact of these cuts on state and territory governments, if health systems are required to provide more complex care as a result—in other words, the classic cost shifting and the handballing that occurs between state and federal governments all too often in our federation. The terms of reference also, very reasonably, sought to examine the assumptions and data underlying the projections by the government—essentially, asking for transparency in the process of decision making that very much has been lacking to date. The last, but certainly not least, term of reference sought to inquire into the consultation process with consumers, with community groups and with aged-care service providers in relation to these changes.

Inexplicably, that motion, based on genuine concerns for our senior citizens, with terms of reference that could not in any way be described as being partisan, was opposed by both the coalition and the opposition. I, together with my colleagues Senators Xenophon and Kakoschke-Moore voted for the motion, but the sheer weight of numbers from the coalition and the opposition defeated it. If the Senate is meant to be a genuine house of review, as it has been intended under our Constitution, then not having this inquiry goes against what the Senate is meant to be about.

The government did not even have the courtesy to provide an explanation for obstructing this inquiry. The opposition did, and Senator Gallagher stated:

This proposed inquiry, rather than addressing concerns with aged-care funding, would just give the government an excuse to delay engaging on the issue.

I am sorry, but that has to be an incredibly lame excuse to walk away from such an issue that will literally affect, in coming years, over millions of elderly, frail and vulnerable Australians. The real reason, it seems, is that the opposition has made a commitment to go ahead with these massive cuts to the aged-care sector. Despite the noise that the opposition have made over aged-care funding cuts and the state of our aged-care sector, why do they think it is still okay to cut funding from aged care? And why are they too frightened to agree to a Senate inquiry for proper scrutiny of these savage cuts?

What these cuts will do to aged-care sector residents is vicious and cruel. Despite the numbers of senior citizens being affected by these cuts, the federal government and the opposition have joined forces to agree to cuts of $1.6 billion—and that is only scratching the surface. Modelling undertaken on behalf of key stakeholder groups, Leading Age Services Australia, UnitingCare Australia, Aged & Community Services Australia and Catholic Health Australia, suggests that these cuts may actually result in the average resident having their funding cut by $6,650 a year and the frailest as much as $18,000 a year. In a report prepared on behalf of these peak bodies, it was suggested that the government has significantly underestimated the amount and the impact of the proposed funding cuts, with the cost expected to be in excess of $2.5 billion over the next four years—nearly $840 million more than the government's forward estimates.

Yesterday's motion presented an opportunity for a sensible, considered review into these cuts. What we ended up with instead was a tit for tat between the major parties. On the one hand, we had the government trying to justify the cuts by saying that some aged-care providers are abusing the system. On the other hand, we had the opposition slamming the government for refusing to release their modelling but not doing anything about it. So not only do we have funding cuts to the aged-care sector but now we also have both major parties joining forces to stonewall a much-needed inquiry into the cuts. An inquiry could address the government's concerns surrounding abuse of the system by, I believe, a small minority of aged-care providers as well as provide the modelling that these cuts are based on. An inquiry would also serve as a useful platform and a critical voice for those suffering from the funding cuts. It would place some much-needed pressure on the government to shine light in the dark corner that is our aged-care sector.

Ultimately, the changes to the aged-care sector will mean people with complex health needs will miss out on funding. These changes are an act of recklessness. These changes are an act of great foolishness. But those who will suffer are not the bureaucrats and politicians but those most vulnerable, who often have no voice. These changes will not save money; they will simply result in a cost-shifting exercise from the Commonwealth to the states, as more aged-care facilities will be unable to treat complex health-care patients because payments have been slashed. Those in the aged-care sector will be relegated to the state hospital system, where costs are about five times as high. Considering the differences of Commonwealth funding of about $165 a day compared to $1,000 a day in a hospital, it is the worst sort of false economy. It is inevitable that, when this comes into force on 1 January 2017, we will have state and territory health ministers, premiers and chief ministers squealing about the amount that they will have to pay for complex health-care patients in their public hospital system.

Given that the changes are permanent, there will be long-term ramifications for the most vulnerable residents and the providers that care for them, including those in regional and remote communities. My state of South Australia, with the oldest demographics on the mainland, has, proportionately, a significant number of people requiring aged-care assistance in Australia. I have received countless inquiries from concerned constituents—from senior citizens themselves to their children and grandchildren—deeply concerned about the impact of these cuts.

Yesterday was my first attempt at addressing this most important issue, and I, along with my Senate colleagues and Rebekha Sharkie, the member for Mayo, will continue to fight against these cuts. We will fight for fairness in the Aged Care Funding Instrument and to ensure our senior citizens are treated with dignity and respect. The decision of the major parties to kill off the inquiry yesterday was undignified and disrespectful to our senior citizens. But I assure you that that will only strengthen our resolve to support our frailest and most vulnerable Australians.