Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Aged Care Amendment (Red Tape Reduction in Places Management) Bill 2015. I will say at the outset that Labor will support this bill, and I note that this legislation has savings of $63.6 million.

We are in favour of reducing the red tape, as this legislation does, and we commend the government on it. But it has to be said that much of the reforms that have been made in relation to the aged-care sector stem from Labor's Living Longer Living Better reforms that we brought in after extensive consultation with the sector. Labor did the heavy lifting with our Living Longer Living Better reforms, which are consistent with red tape reduction.

This bill changes the process for transferring places between aged care providers from an approvals process to one where the transfer is seen as approved until it is vetoed. In addition, the bill will increase the time frame for providers to make provisional allocated places operational, from two to four years, while also limiting the number of extensions to this period. These amendments are sensible and we support them.

In detail, this bill will extend the provisional period from two to four years. This makes sense and is logical, given the development constraints that exist. This should provide some certainty for providers seeking to make substantial investments in new or refurbished facilities. But it limits the number of extensions that can be approved. This means providers are not holding onto provisional places indefinitely. Given the high demand for aged-care places, it is essential that we see places become operational as soon as possible. In addition, it makes sense to facilitate the transfer of allocated places between providers. There are occasions when providers make a financial decision that they can no longer support the place, and seek to transfer the allocation to another provider. Quite frankly, there is not a lot of change as a result of this legislation. Providers still need to inform the department about the transfer, they still need to meet the criteria so that the places remain in the same planning region, and so forth. But, at the moment, the department secretary has to indicate an approval or rejection of a transfer. This legislation will reduce the workload of the department secretary, as they will no longer need to give notice of approval, only of veto. So red tape reduction will definitely favour the secretary of the department. Labor supports these measures, as I said from the outset. But the real test here will rest in the government's ability to implement and regulate these changes.

The transfer of allocated places does not occur regularly. Holders of allocated places often on-sell the bed licences or provisionally-allocated places, and make some money doing so. We do not want to see providers applying for the allocation with a view to on-selling them. I am not suggesting this happens. I do not want aged-care providers to think that I am accusing them of rorting the system—I will leave that to the Minister for Aged Care. Take, for instance, the mid-year economic forecast, which robbed providers and aged-care residents of $472 million, after the government cut the funding for ACFI supplements. The Minister for Aged Care buried those cuts with cries of outrage at the incredible rorting of these supplements by the aged-care providers. I have seen reports from providers that compliance has improved over the last 12 months, and that at least 99 per cent of providers are doing the right thing. And, as I travel the country and visit these aged-care residents, I know from talking to those providers that there are excellent care opportunities for older Australians in this country.

So, rather than blame providers—who really have the best interests of their residents at heart—maybe the Minister for Aged Care should look at the increase in the cost of providing care. Maybe she should actually visit to some aged-care homes around this country. Maybe she should take a stronger interest in aged care. For example, if our goal is to keep people living in their own homes for longer—which I agree is most certainly the best option—then we certainly have higher needs when people finally do enter into residential care. These incur higher costs. So the longer we are able to keep people in their homes, the better it is for those individuals, the better it is for the community and—let us be frank—the better it is for the federal government's bottom line. But we have to accept that when people reach a stage where they can no longer be cared for in their own homes, and they go into residential care, their care is at the top end. During that phase of their lives, it is going to be the most costly care. So perhaps the Minister for Aged Care should be looking at this.

We know that over the next two to three decades the number of older people is going to increase dramatically. So, rather than cutting aged care funding, the government needs to be investing. And, when I say 'cutting'—the Turnbull Liberal government has cut around $1.8 billion from aged-care expenditure since they came into office. That is $1.8 billion in two years. I wonder if the Prime Minister considers that amount 'modest'.

When it comes to aged-care cuts, quite frankly there is no difference between Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull. This is yet another example of the Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister saying one thing before an election and then doing something entirely different afterwards. $1.8 billion out of the aged-care budget in this country is unacceptable.

Labor does support this bill, as I have said, but there is so much more that needs to be done. So we will be watching this government. In particular, we will be watching the Minister for Aged Care to see whether or not she actually has a handle on this policy, whether she actually does care about older Australians, because quite frankly over the last two years this government has demonstrated without a shadow of a doubt that they do not have the same priorities in this policy area as we did in government. We did the heavy lifting with Living Longer, Living Better. We consulted with the sector. We had the sector joining with us, along with the union movement, to bring in the reforms of Living Longer, Living Better. Unfortunately, this government—even though they had the framework; they had the plan there; all they needed to do was roll it out—failed miserably because they have never had a Minister for Ageing. They have never seen it as a priority of this government to give due recognition to older Australians. Now we have a Minister for Aged Care. Aged care is obviously very important—I am very passionate about it—but it is only one aspect of ageing.

So, as I said, we will be supporting this legislation but we will be keeping an eye on this government to see how they roll out the regulations and whether they are monitored. We commend the bill to the Senate.