Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Oxley for his contribution to this debate. Unfortunately, it is incumbent upon me to make a number of corrections to the statements that he's made to the House. Firstly, it would occur to the House that many of the statements that he made are inherently contradictory. On one hand he says that because people couldn't get hold of home-care packages they are entering residential aged care sooner than they wanted. On the other hand, he claims that people are coming in to a residential aged-care homes later than they wanted because this government isn't spending enough on aged care. One has to wonder though whether $27 billion is chicken feed to those opposite, because $27 billion of support by the Australian taxpayer seems to me quite a substantial commitment of spending for aged care in this country.

Those opposite continue to say that there are 100,000 people waiting for home-care packages. What they don't point out though is that the overwhelming majority of those people—it fluctuates between 85 and 95 per cent—already have aged-care packages but are simply seeking to get further enhancements to those home-care packages.

The other thing that no-one in this chamber ever says is that so much of the home-care packages that this parliament, that the Australian taxpayer generously provides to those people who wish to stay in their home is, in fact, not care. A lot of it is domestic help. A lot of it is gardening services. A lot of it is cleaning services. In a recent review we found out that a not insubstantial amount of it goes on things like home repairs. There was a constituent of mine who saved up their home-care package so they could use it to get their roof retiled. I am not entirely sure that the Australian taxpayer really believes that this is a proper and fit purpose for their taxes. This bill is all about—

Ms Swanson interjecting—

Maybe those in Paterson believe that, instead of caring for the elderly in their home, caring for the elderly in aged care, it should be used for tiling roofs. Maybe those opposite believe that that is proper and fit care while talking about fact that we don't spend enough on aged care.

I would also mention to those opposite that I have been involved in a number of these debates in this chamber—and the member for Oxley once again alluded to it just before—where they had made claims of, frankly, criminal behaviour by aged-care providers. They are very happy to do that in this chamber with the protection that this chamber provides them. I ask them to step out of this chamber and name those people who've committed criminal acts, because if they believe a scintilla of what they are saying then they should have the courage to do that because those people are still operating in the aged-care sector. If criminal acts have been performed and if they have knowledge of them then I believe they have a responsibility to step outside and to make those claims in public, not under privilege, but they don't. But I note they don't.

Now, those of us who are perhaps too old and too cynical may come to a view that perhaps those claims are made for political purposes rather than the fact that they actually did occur. So I warn those opposite, as I said in an MPI only last week, that the greatest attack on the credibility of this chamber is the creation of myth. If criminal acts are occurring in residential aged-care facilities, if criminal acts are occurring by providers of home-care services, name those people who recommitting those acts of criminality and don't just use it as some convenient political point to be made when talking about aged care. Stop scaring elderly Australians.

This government—

Ms Swanson interjecting—

I say to the member for Paterson once again: if you have knowledge of people who have committed criminal acts, step outside, step outside this chamber and make those claims so that they can be properly investigated by the authorities. But I once again suspect that that won't occur.

The government has introduced the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020 to pay home-care providers after they have paid services to align with current government payments and to ensure a sustainable system as more home-care packages are released and in readiness for future reforms. This bill amends both the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 such that a provider will not receive a payment in advance but will be paid the full monthly subsidy for a home-care recipient upon lodgement of a claim with Services Australia after the end of each month.

This is a sector that I spent 15 years in before entering this place. I have seen the massive changes to residential aged care in that time period. When I started in this sector around the year 2000, many nursing homes resembled Dickensian work houses. The stench of ammonia and urine was very hard to take. People were isolated on one hand and on the other hand they were stuck in rooms with four other people. The provision of services was not great. Around that time, the Howard government introduced reforms to the aged-care sector, and in those reforms they allowed the private sector to enter this system and to provide innovation and money. They also allowed individuals to contribute to their own care. Having done that, we now see the provision of five-star care in residential aged care.

That hasn't stopped those opposite making claims of criminality, without evidence—without the courage to step outside—and without the courage to report those things. We know that, in the last 35 years, the level of care that is provided to Australians who need it has improved beyond our capacity to imagine it 15 short years ago. By the way, probably only seven out of a thousand Australians will find themselves in residential aged care. The vast majority of us will pass from this Earth, will shuffle off this mortal coil, while at home, not in a residential aged-care facility.

But many of the people who are now entering residential aged-care facilities, who have had the capacity to stay in their own homes longer, find themselves entering that care in a frailer state. I know that the member for Oxley can simultaneously claim that people are coming in too soon and that they're coming in too late. We noticed that incoherent proposition that he put to the House. As a matter of fact we know that, actually, because of these home-care packages, people are able to stay in their homes longer. Because of that, they are entering residential aged-care facilities later and the level of care they require is higher; and, because the level of care is higher, the level of spending by the taxpayer and also by the individuals involved in that care is also higher because the provision of care is better and more suited to what they need.

This bill is an important step towards the delivery of an improved home-care system into the future. It's about improving aged care for all senior Australians, which continues to be one of the government's key priorities. We're not about scaring people; we're about telling people in this country that, in their last few years, Australians look after each other. We're not about trying to claim, for political purposes or because our donors make a big fuss, that there's criminal behaviour where there is none. This bill, if passed, will also establish a unified system for the care of our elderly in their homes. It delivers a seamless system of care, tailoring services to the needs of those people in care, not the one-size-fits-all system that we inherited so long ago. Improving care is the goal of this bill; that is the goal of this government's policy. The changes to payments in arrears back our commitment to that goal. The bill continues to ensure that more Australians have access to home care and that those who need it are able to access support quickly, and it prepares the system for important future reforms.

We are delivering record spending to the aged-care system. It was $13.3 billion in 2012-13 under the previous government and it is growing to $23.8 billion in 2021 under this government—under the Liberal Party. It is estimated that funding for aged care will grow to more than $27 billion in 2023-24. Since the 2018-19 budget, the government has spent $4.6 billion for an additional 73,000 home-care packages. It is estimated that home-care packages will have increased from 60,000, when Labor was last in power, last in government, to 185,000 this financial year. That's an increase of 125,000 places. I think that is something that should be celebrated, not ignored and certainly not sneered at. Under this government, in a single year—between 31 March 2019 and 31 March 2020—there has been a 38 per cent increase in the number of people receiving home-care packages. In addition, the number of people in the home-care national prioritisation system, NPS, dropped by 20 per cent in one year, between 31 March 2019 and 31 March 2020.

These are things to be celebrated, not criticised. The current system of home care allows for packages of $8,900 up to $51,900, and this funding has historically been provided in advance to providers. This means that money often sits untouched in providers' bank accounts and has created a rising level of unspent home-care funds. This way of funding differs from how the Australian government ordinarily pays for programs and services. The discrepancy in payment arrangements has been highlighted by the Aged Care Financing Authority and a number of aged-care stakeholders.

In the 2019-20 budget, the Australian government announced improvements to payment arrangements for home-care packages, with services to be paid for as they are delivered. Last year, the Aged Care Financing Authority and the Department of Health undertook extensive consultation on how these changes should be and would be implemented. Initially, the measure was to commence providing home-care payments to providers in arrears in June 2020. On 27 March 2020, the government announced that the implementation of improvements to payment arrangements for home-care packages would be placed on hold due to COVID-19 to ensure the key role of the aged-care sector was to help combat this virus and support older Australians.

This bill will allow home-care payments to be paid to providers in arrears from February 2021, once the bill has passed. The February commencement date will be legislated by proclamation. The initial change requires minimal system and operational changes. Home-care providers will receive the January 2021 advanced payment in mid-December, as per normal for that time of year. This will be the final advance payment. Providers will not receive a February advance in early February but will instead receive the full payment for February when they lodge their February claim in early March. Providers continue to lodge their claims as per normal and with the same information that is currently required.

This government is doing what it takes to make sure that people in their final days, amongst us, live a comfortable and prosperous life. It is not always possible, but we are doing the best we can on behalf of all Australians that wish us to do so.

See this speech in context