Helen Polley Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care
2:09 pm
My question is to the Assistant Minister for Social Services, Senator Fifield. I refer to the government's heartless and short-sighted decision to axe the dementia and severe behaviours supplement on 26 June this year. Can the minister explain why he waited over a month after the budget to make this announcement and did not engage in any detailed consultation with providers prior to the announcement?
Mitch Fifield Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services
2:10 pm
Senators who followed the community affairs committee through estimates will know that I advised the budget estimates committee that there were significant issues with the dementia and severe behaviours supplement. I have also ensured that the aged-care committee, which is an advisory group to government, was advised that there were significant issues.
I might just refresh the memory of colleagues who may not remember from last Thursday—although, I am sure you were hanging on every word and do—that the previous government introduced in August last year the dementia and severe behaviours supplement. They allocated $11.7 million for the last financial year. That actually came in at $110 million. In fact, over the forward estimates, on a no-policy-change basis according to the design of the former government, there would have been not an expenditure of the $52 million that the made budget provision for; in fact, it would have been $780 million. Over a 10-year period, it would have been $1.5 billion. It would not be responsible for the government to do nothing in the face of that. The only responsible thing to do was to conclude that particular supplement.
I must make clear that those opposite, who have been skulking around aged-care facilities and unnecessarily causing concern and distress to residents, are leaving the impression that the dementia and severe behaviours supplement was, in fact, the base and core funding for people with dementia. It is not. In our aged-care system, about half the people who are in residential care have dementia. This was not the core funding for them. This was funding which was intended for people who had severe behaviours related to dementia.
Helen Polley Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care
2:12 pm
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer to comments by Marcus Riley, Acting Chairman of Leading Aged Services Australia, that, and I quote:
This funding withdrawal will have a devastating impact on individuals who need extra support. Our research shows that it will also damage industry's ability to invest in training and dementia-specific care environments.
Does the minister agree?
Mitch Fifield Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services
The first thing that Senator Polley and Mr Shorten need to do is to actually understand what they are talking about. Mr Shorten this morning, with Senator Polley, at a press conference said—
Jacinta Collins Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary
Hasn’t George warned you about overconfidence?
Mitch Fifield Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services
He called for the reinstatement of what he called the 'dementia and other diseases supplement'. In fact, there was no such supplement. It was the dementia and severe behaviours supplement. So he does not even know what the supplement was intended to do in the first place. His other mistake was to refer to it as a $16 supplement paid to people—
Claire Moore Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. It is on direct relevance. We appreciate the minister's comments about the newscast this morning. This question was specifically about a quote from Mr Marcus Riley. Could we get to that quote before the end of the minister's time?
Stephen Parry President
Thank you, Senator Moore. The question also contained a fairly long preamble. And the minister has 30 seconds to answer the question.
Penny Wong SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate
Mr President, with respect—
Penny Wong SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate
On the point of order, there is no preamble. It is simply—
Ian Macdonald Queensland, Liberal Party
He has ruled on the point of order!
Penny Wong SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate
I appreciate, Mr President, with all of the interjection in the chamber you may not have had the opportunity—
Ian Macdonald Queensland, Liberal Party
He has already ruled on the point of order!
Penny Wong SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate
You may not have had the opportunity to listen to the question. There is, actually, very little preamble. It is simply a reference to the comments and then a full quote. The question is whether or not the minister agreed. That is the only point in the question.
Stephen Parry President
And, Senator Wong, you were rising to your feet as I was continuing to explain that I heard the question, I have heard the answer—a part of it so far—and the minister has 30 seconds left to answer the question.
Mitch Fifield Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services
Thank you, Mr President. Mr Shorten also this morning referred to the cutting of a $16 payment to people living with dementia. The payment never went to people living with—
Claire Moore Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women
I rise on a point of order with respect to direct relevance. You drew the attention of the minister to the question and there has been no return to the specific question that was asked.
Stephen Parry President
He was on his feet for five seconds. He has 23 seconds left.
Mitch Fifield Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services
Thank you. The issue remains that of third-party comment. Let me refer to Dr Stephen Judd, who is reported to have said:
“Its cessation had to happen,” he said. “There is still a place to have a supplement but it has to be focused and targeted to that small group with severe behaviours—
Claire Moore Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women
I rise on a point of order, again, with respect to direct relevance. We still have not got to the question asked by Senator Polly: the comment made by Mr Marcus Riley, and the minister's opinion of that question.
Stephen Parry President
I draw the minister's attention to the question. The minister has eight seconds to answer the question.
Mitch Fifield Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services
I thought it would be helpful to the chamber to have another third-party comment.
Helen Polley Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care
2:15 pm
I have a further supplementary question. How long will age care providers, dementia sufferers and their families have to wait until the minister announces his new policy?
Mitch Fifield Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services
2:16 pm
If there is to be a finger pointed at anyone over the failure of the dementia and severe behaviours supplement it should be pointed at those opposite, for their flawed design and budget blow-out. Let me quote Mr Ian Yates, chief executive of COTA:
COTA Australia agrees with Stephen Judd that termination of the supplement was inevitable. Many providers were receiving very substantial extra funds without validation and with no guarantee of better outcomes for people with severe dementia symptoms.
Claire Moore Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women
My point of order is with respect to direct relevance. The particular question was about the time we have to wait for the minister's new policy. It was not asking for new information from other third-party people.
Stephen Parry President
I draw the minister's attention to the question that was asked.
Mitch Fifield Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services
I make it clear that the policy and design of the former government is gone. It is not coming back. We are going to work cooperatively with the sector to see if we can come up with something that is better targeted and better focused than those opposite came forward with.