Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to also make a contribution to the debate on the Aged Care Amendment (Red Tape Reduction in Places Management) Bill 2015. The allocation of beds and home care places, but particularly beds in residential aged care, has been a bone of contention in Australia for a significantly long period of time—in fact, for the whole of the 10 years I have been in this place and beyond this has been a burning issue.

In particular it has been an issue, I have to say, in my home state of Western Australia. As the boom took place in Western Australia and costs escalated, one of the things that happened was the allocation of places and beds through the round and them not being taken up for a significant period of time because people could not afford to build as housing prices and building costs increased in Western Australia. I would say it reached a crisis point at one stage.

Senator Polley chaired a landmark Senate inquiry into aged care and really focused on and highlighted the issues. I participated very strongly in that. That Senate inquiry focused and highlighted some of the major issues. At the top of the list was access and allocation facing what we knew were the increasing numbers of people that would need aged-care support—both home care and residential care—and also the changing nature of what people would want from an aged care system. This included better services, better supports and single occupancy rooms. For example, many of our facilities at that stage were still four-bed-type facilities. More and more people wanted to remain in their homes and to remain in their homes longer

There is a very long list of the changes that were needed. That is why we were very pleased to see the Living Longer, Living Better reforms, and the Greens participated very strongly in that discussion. In fact, I would like to think that we achieved some really good amendments in that legislation as well. But we all know that Living Longer, Living Better was only the start of the reforms that were needed in aged care, and that is quite obvious to anybody who is involved in this issue. If you read the Productivity Commission report, it is also obvious that we have only done part of that work. This is a work in progress. We all knew that at the time, and this goes to part of that work. There is a lot more work that needs to be done in this space, and I am looking forward to continuing to work on aged-care reform.

At the heart of this, we need to make sure that the consumer—that is, older Australians and their families—are at the centre of it. This is about supporting Australians as they age in place. But it is also about supporting them if they need to go into residential facilities; we need to make sure that we have quality there. We need to make sure that people have choice and that we put the consumer—older Australians and their families—at the centre of that decision making. That is why I am so pleased to see that CDC—consumer directed care—is being put in place and that we are making sure that that works really smoothly and achieves its aims of giving people control over their supports and care. I know that that is still a bit of a work in progress as it comes into operation, particularly this year but also over the next couple of years.

I do not actually see this so much as red-tape reduction—and I really think that the government has made a mistake in terms of classing this as red-tape reduction—I see it as part of the work in progress that is contributing to rolling out better aged care in this country. There is no doubt that we need to be doing that. Under our current framework the government allocates the subsidised aged-care places—be they home care or residential care. Where a provider has been allocated a place this typically carries over from year to year. Each year the minister also determines how to allocate new places in accordance with the planning framework. Aged-care places can be provisionally allocated but the provider does not receive that funding until they can become operationalised.

This bill makes two changes to the administration of how aged-care places are allocated. Instead of looking at this as red-tape reduction, we should be looking at the goal of making things easier and improving aged care, both for consumers—older Australians—and also for providers. To make a little note of warning here: we cannot just be making things easier for providers; it is essential that we are making this better for older Australians, for the delivery of care. Providers are very important and we need to make sure that their views are included—absolutely. But we need to make sure that the centre here is older Australians.

As I touched on at the beginning of my contribution, the issue around taking up beds and operationalising and building them has been quite problematic. Holding on to places and getting them online has been quite problematic. So I think it is better that these changes progress towards reforms that are needed. The first change is how places are transferred between aged-care providers. Currently, when an aged-care provider wants to transfer a place to another provider it must be approved by the secretary to take effect. The minister has said in the other place, and it is also in the documentation, that 80 per cent of the transfers are routinely approved. This bill amends that processes so that transfers are automatically approved unless they are vetoed by the secretary, and there are a number of minor changes associated with this. Probably the most significant is that providers will not be required to justify the reasons for the transfer. The protections around the same planning area and the ability of the secretary to vary that and to be involved are important protections, and we are satisfied that the bill does add those protections.

The second change relates to the time line for provisionally allocated places. This is, I think, particularly important so that providers are not hanging onto those places. Currently the legislation allows for provisionally allocated places, and this may occur when an aged-care facility is being built or expanded. Where a provisional place is allocated, the place must become operational within two years. However, providers can request extensions and frequently do. We understand from the minister's second reading speech that the median time for allocation is four years, with 80 per cent operational within six years. The new framework allows for provisional places to be allocated for four years rather than two, and the minister can provide two extensions but only has to approve a third or subsequent extension in exceptional circumstances.

I think the amendments here are good amendments. I probably would have liked to see it go a bit further, quite frankly, but I think this is a step in the right direction. We will be supporting it. We understand the government have consulted with industry and peak bodies on these reforms and that the reforms come out of work that was undertaken by the aged-care sector committee. I actually consulted as well, just to make sure, because I have some experience in this place of where the government say they have consulted and in fact they have not, or they have a different definition of 'consultation' to what I and the community would class as consultation. Having said that, this time I do believe them. They are reflecting the opinions, I think, of both the industry and, most importantly, consumers—so providers and the people that are going to be using these services. My understanding is that they do support these amendments, so I am quite pleased that they are backing these and I think, therefore, that we can support this bill and these amendments to the legislation, knowing that they have the various stakeholders' support.

So, on this basis, we will be supporting this bill. We do think this will make steps in terms of the longer term aged-care reform, and the changes are supported by stakeholders. In particular, they will bring benefits, most importantly, to consumers. I encourage the government to keep going with the process of aged-care reform, because we still have a long way to go in this country if we are going to be prepared and ready for older Australians as they age. People use the word 'tsunami'. I do not like to term it that way at all, but we know that our population are getting older and they also have large expectations. I am one of them, folks! We all have large expectations about the quality of life that we expect and what we expect from our aged-care system, and I think we need to see this as a small step in that longer term reform process. The Greens will be supporting this bill.