Santo Santoro (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Hansard source

First of all, I would like to thank all senators for their support of the Aged Care (Bond Security) Bill 2005 and related legislation. Right from the word go, I would like to say that it is testimony to the hard work of many people that these bills have been going through the Senate and the lower house in such an orderly and bipartisan manner. It is the hard work of many people, not the least being the Hon. Julie Bishop MP, who preceded me in this role and is now the Minister for Education, Science and Training.

I am also very pleased to have this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of many others that have been involved in the development of this important legislation. Yesterday, you may recall, Mr Acting Deputy President Watson, that the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, chaired by Senator Gary Humphries, tabled its report on these three bills. I am very pleased to note that, following the committee’s deliberations and consideration of expert evidence, the unanimous committee report recommended the bills be passed without amendment. I think that that is a tribute to the very good orderly and bipartisan processes in this place that are not recognised often enough.

I will also take the opportunity to comment on a few matters that have been raised by senators in this debate. In particular, I want to respond to Senator McLucas, who acts as the shadow minister for my area of portfolio responsibility in this place. I have not yet seen Senator McLucas’s proposed amendment in terms of the abuse issue but I hope that it is coming—it has not been circulated yet. I will not talk about the issues in relation to abuse, but I want to talk at length in response to some of the more political points that she made and which were unrelated to this bill. I will refrain from taking up too much of my 20 minutes, which I intend to use, in replying to Senator McLucas, other opposition senators and Senator Humphries.

First of all, Senator McLucas—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—I would like to welcome the Labor Party’s support for the bills. Unfortunately, that support has been marred by some of the political comments that have been made by senators opposite. I wish that sometimes people could be gracious in their support for something like this. Let us have questions without notice and questions on notice. I notice that yesterday I was not asked a question. That is how front of mind this issue was yesterday. I hope that I get two or three questions from you today on all the issues that you have expressed concern about. I would like to invite Senator McLucas to ask me questions without notice, particularly the political questions which have marred the debate that we are having.

Senator McLucas expressed some concern relating to my department’s response to her queries during the Senate committee hearing. In particular, she asked who was liable to pay a levy in the event of a default. I am sorry that Senator McLucas considered that there was some inconsistency in the advice provided by the department. However, it is my firm belief that the Hansard and my department’s submissions reflect a very consistent position. When appearing before the Senate inquiry, my department made it clear that newcomers to the industry are not liable—I stress that they are not liable—for a levy for an event that occurred before they began operating in the sector.

This is also the position that was explained in the department’s supplementary submission to the inquiry. The submission makes it clear that only those providers who hold bond balances 10 days before the default event declaration and who are still operational when the levy is imposed will be liable to pay. It was made clear that it is not the government’s intent that new entrants will have to pay as a result of an event that occurred prior to their entering the sector. The key principle of the new guarantee system is that providers holding bonds at the time of the default event share the risk and the cost of that event, as they have benefited from the guarantee of their bond liabilities up to that point. The department’s submission provided further clarification of who was considered to be a newcomer to the industry. I believe that this information has provided some reassurance to Senator McLucas, and for that I am grateful to Senator McLucas.

The submission makes it clear that when the ownership of a corporation that is an approved provider changes hands there is no change to the legal entity. As such, a corporation is not a newcomer to the industry. If a corporation holds bonds 10 days before the day on which a default event declaration is made and continues to be an approved provider on the day a levy is imposed, the corporation will be liable to pay the levy, even if in the intervening period the corporation changes hands. The corporation in this situation would not escape any eventual liability to pay a levy. I believe this approach is entirely reasonable and, based on Senator McLucas’s comments last night, I understand that she has accepted the appropriateness of this approach as reflected in the legislation.

Contrary to Senator McLucas’s and Senator Polley’s comments on aged care places, the government has every right to be proud of its aged care achievements over the last 10 years and expects to meet its 2001 commitment to provide 200,000 operational—200,000 operational—aged care places by June 2006. I repeated that for the sake of Hansard because I wish to have recorded my emphasis of that achievement. At the end of 2005 there were over 197,000 residential aged care places, with more coming online all the time. In partnership with the sector, the government has created and planned for the release of a record number of new aged care places—over 95,200 new places since 1996. That is a matter of technical and historical record.

We are also on track with our ratio of places to people. In 2004 the Australian government made a commitment to increase the ratio from 100 aged care places per 100,000 people aged 70 or over to 108 aged care places per 1,000 people aged 70 or older. I respectfully submit to Senator McLucas that we are on track with this. In 2005, 12,093 places were made available, and there will be a further 14,559 places in 2006 and 2007. The 2005 increment alone required an additional public commitment of $296 million, which is certainly not an insubstantial amount. This is designed to address diverse demand in the aged care marketplace. Consequently, this funding is directed towards 5,274 residential care places, 4,352 community aged care packages, 915 extended aged care at home packages and 667 new specialist dementia places. The government have allocated a further 885 places for multipurpose services, innovative pilots and transition care, which will assist the integration between health and aged care services. These will be further augmented by over 1,400 places over the next two years.

The allocation of places is a critical thing to get right. Places must be positioned where they are needed and allocated to those best able to provide sustainable quality care into the future. There must be confidence across the sector that we will get this process right. I have already signalled to the sector that I am willing to listen to any concerns they have about transparency or accountability for the allocation of places and to act to address legitimate deficiencies. In many of the industry forums that I have already addressed and taken feedback from I am on the record as saying that I am aware of some complaints from individual providers and from the sector generally. I have asked them to provide me with specific details on where they think the system may have lapsed. I have promised them that we will get specific debriefings in relation to their concerns. I have told them that if they are not happy I will take a personal interest. If Senator McLucas or any other senator has any specific instances of where dissatisfaction exists with the allocation process, I am very—