Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

I'm going to begin with the questions from Senator Ruston to Minister McAllister in relation to aged care. This is something that strikes very close to home for me, having both had my late father, who passed away about ten weeks ago, on one of these packages and my 91-year-old mother currently on one of these packages, on a level 1. She has been waiting for over a year and has gone from level 1 to level 2, to level 3, to level 4 while she still sits on a level 1 package. So I found it very confronting to hear the statement that the government has designed their process to deliver packages. Well, guess what? You're not delivering them. They are not being delivered.

The comment that each and every week new packages are being released is factually incorrect, and it is a complete insult to the people who are waiting for these packages and to their families who are trying to keep their loved ones in their homes and out of residential care but are unable to do so because this government has fundamentally failed in the rollout of packages. I take note in particular of the statement around packages being rolled out every single week. I actually found that to be concerning because it is factually incorrect.

I've got some statistics here. For example, 87,597 older Australians are currently waiting on the National Priority System for a home-care place they have been assessed as needing. My 91-year-old mother is one of the 87,597 people. In addition, 121,596—let's call it 122,000—older Australians are waiting to be assessed for a home-care place. They're waiting to find out if they're eligible and, if they're eligible, what level of care they are eligible for—a level 1, level 2, level 3 or level 4 package. That means that more than 200,000 older Australians are waiting for access to a home-care package under this government.

Again, I repeat what the minister said. She said, 'Each and every week, new packages are released.' Would you like to know how many packages, how many homecare places, have been released this financial year? Zero—none. Again, the minister said, 'Each and every week, new packages are being released.' Well, in every single week since 1 July, zero new homecare places have been provided. That is shameful.

The thing that really struck me—there were two final comments that really bothered me; one was, 'This is ensuring that elderly Australians are getting the care that they need.' Well, I can tell you that right now 200,000 of them are not. And the closing statement was, 'Make no mistake, this is what Labor governments do'—referencing caring or looking after elderly Australians. Can I tell you, the families of 200,000 older Australians are finding out exactly what this government is doing, and it is not providing care packages.

Senator Askew asked some questions in relation to Margaret and her husband, who passed away waiting for a package. This is not inconsistent with the questioning that I and others made last year in the community affairs Senate estimates, where it was very clear that the manner in which some of the places on waiting lists are reduced is that people pass away waiting for them. We should be ashamed that we have 200,000 older Australians waiting for a homecare package and that they and their families watch them struggling at home or being forced into residential aged care because this government isn't doing the job it should be doing.

Lisa Darmanin (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, would like to take note of the discussions and comments around reforms to aged care and the Support at Home packages. Our aged care certainly is no longer fit for purpose, which is why this government is undertaking once-in-a-generation reforms to ensure that older Australians receive care with dignity, safety and compassion. With bipartisan support, we passed the new Aged Care Act last term, and we are now just two months away from implementing it on 1 November.

As we know, these reforms will deliver high-quality, respectful aged care in a system that is sustainable. That is about making sure that older Australians are at the centre of their care both now and into the future. Our population is ageing, and it is heartbreaking to hear of Australians passing away while waiting for care. My thoughts, and I know the thoughts of all senators in this chamber, are with every family who has lost a loved one in those circumstances. That is precisely why our aged-care forms are so urgent, so that people can access quality care in their own homes faster.

Regarding the national priority system waitlist, as of 31 March, 87,597 people had been approved for a homecare package through the clinical assessment process and were on the NPS list. The government continues to allocate an average of more than 2,000 homecare packages every week. And, importantly, those assessed as high priority continue to receive their package within one month. In fact, the average since September last year was 2,700 packages per week.

It's important to understand that assessment for broader aged-care services is a different process to package allocation. We acknowledge that while the waiting times are still long we are actively working to improve them. Due to our population ageing, demand has surged. Last year alone, more than 521,000 home support and comprehensive assessments were completed. Today more than 300,000 older Australians are receiving homecare packages, and only a portion of those people waiting for an assessment will end up on the NPS waitlist. This list includes those seeking lower-level care, and some duplication across systems. As Senator McAllister said in answer to a question earlier, 99 per cent of people who are waiting for a package at their approved level are already receiving support, through either a lower-level package or the Commonwealth Home Support Program. The median wait time for an assessment is now 25 days from referral to support plan and continues to reduce, thanks to the new single-assessment system.

Regarding the importance of the Support at Home program, Support at Home will help deliver more than 107,000 packages in the next two years, and it is the largest number of homecare packages ever released. Why is it important that we, rightly, focus on Support at Home in particular? It is because ageing at home is preferable to ageing in a residential facility. Everybody wants to age in dignity, in their own home, within their own communities, close to their loved ones, their friends, their families, their groups. This is especially important for elderly community members from non-English-speaking backgrounds, who want to be connected to those around them who they are most familiar with and to the places they know, the healthcare facilities, the doctors, the community groups, and the providers who work with them in their own homes, in their own communities. And what goes with quality care in their home? It is not just the services being provided but the workers who provide those services.

This government has delivered $15 billion for pay increases to the workers in the aged-care system, because pay is inextricably linked to quality services and to Support at Home. I want to give a shout-out to all the dedicated and skilled Support at Home workers across the country, particularly those who deliver through local government in Victoria, who have been recognised for their skilled work by the increased funding delivered by this government. (Time expired)

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the government's woefully inadequate response to the deep concerns raised by Senator McKenzie about Labor's reckless renewables rollout across western Victoria. Along with Senator McKenzie, the member for Mallee and the Victorian opposition leader, Brad Battin, I was honoured to stand shoulder to shoulder with our farmers at a protest against state and federal Labor at the Bush Summit in Ballarat last Friday.

What a disgrace: overnight, this treacherous Victorian state government had passed laws that allow authorised officers of the minister to forcibly enter farmers' land for the purpose of facilitating the construction of high-voltage transmission towers. The Albanese government, combined with the Allen government, are delivering reckless renewables policies which are driving our country off a cliff. Labor could not care less about the impact that the Western Renewables Link, or VNI West, is having on the viability of hundreds of farms, compromising food security and destroying the fabric of regional communities. The Prime Minister said at the Bush Summit, 'I'll continue to engage but I won't BS people.' Well, I say to the Prime Minister, what complete BS.

Labor has treated regional communities with contempt while driving up power and gas bills, turning Victoria from a powerhouse of cheaper electricity into an economic basket case. Do you know why farmers got on their tractors and literally ran the Prime Minister out of town? It was because they say 'BS'. They are angry, and they have every right to be angry. This government does not care about them, does not care about their farms, does not care about their future. For the Prime Minister to say, at the Bush Summit, 'Oh, we're listening,' and for the Premier of Victoria to say, 'We've done such a great job'—what a joke. Last week in the parliament, the member for Ballarat, who's done literally nothing for the people of Ballarat since the Albanese government was elected—and I say that because when we were in government we drove massive infrastructure investment into the Ballarat electorate and into regional Victoria. The former coalition government spent in excess of $500 million on upgrading the Ballarat-Melbourne rail line, including building a number of new railway stations, with the state government playing a relatively minor funding role. But, since Labor has been elected, there have been so few infrastructure projects across regional Victoria.

As I say, I'm very proud that a Battin Liberal-National Victorian government will scrap the emergency services levy. Of course, apart from farmers, CFA volunteers came out in force last Friday demanding the scrapping of these laws which are driving up the price of holding farming land in our state in a way that we have never seen before. The Victorian government's draconian changes to land tax that have now been implemented mean that, if you earn more than $30,000 running a small business, you can be liable for huge increases in land tax for running a small business in your own home. It's no wonder Victorians are worried about this government coming after their home.

We on this side of the chamber will not allow any government to ride roughshod over the property rights of Victorians, including Victorian farmers. As a regional Liberal senator, I am so proud to fight for our farmers, day in, day out. I condemn the actions of the Albanese government. I condemn the actions of the Allan Labor government, who have told regional communities, including those in the Ballarat electorate, 'We do not care.' There will be 190 kilometres of high-voltage transmission towers from Melbourne all the way through to north of Ararat, and this government does not care. I say shame on the Albanese government.

Josh Dolega (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm also a senator from regional areas, from regional Tasmania, and it's great to talk about climate change in this place today. On this side of the chamber, we actually do believe in climate change. We believe in the science, and we believe in having a solid plan to transition our country to renewable projects. That's a stark contrast to those opposite, who, over the last decade, have had so many different climate change policies that I've lost count, and the transition to net zero is literally eating them alive as a party and probably as a movement.

When it comes to regional people and regional affairs, people want to have certainty and people want to be able to invest, and what you see under this government is a considered and consultative approach to transition to the future, which is renewables—wind, solar and, as we have in the great state of Tasmania, hydro. We have one of the best hydro systems in the world, and the rest of the country is indeed looking at Tasmania and thinking, 'We want your power.' Part of what Minister Ayres announced was the Marinus Link, which presents amazing opportunities for Tasmania to provide electricity to the big island. Who would have thought that the little state would be able to power the big island? We've seen investments and announcements in Tasmania that we're expanding into solar and wind, and Marinus will play a key role in us being able to sustain the big island with power, moving into the future.

Marinus also presents opportunities for Tasmania when it comes to data. There are going to be great opportunities to increase data coming through the fibre cables, which will have dozens—if not hundreds—of times the capacity that Basslink and Telstra currently use to bring data into Tasmania. This will enable more investment from tech companies to be able to create data centres in Tasmania. We've got the greatest and most stable land. And we don't have the weather events that a lot of the country has, so Marinus Link is going to be part of our link to be able to provide energy certainty to Tasmania and the mainland.

I spoke before about hydropower. It's been incredible to see the people and the workers at Hydro Tasmania. I was very lucky to have a tour through the hydro system and the Hydro building in Hobart not long ago. The staff are really considered and well trained. They manage the Tasmanian electricity system to within a millimetre or a millisecond—I can't remember the exact term. Every single minute, or in five-minute blocks, they are looking at and making bids into the national electricity grid to make sure that Tasmanians are getting the best energy at the cheapest price.

Sometimes we might be net importing power and being paid by other states to take power. Marinus Link is going to give us more opportunities to take power and to get paid to take power from the mainland when they're producing excess. We can then divert our assets away from generation like hydro, for example. We don't need to spill the water out of the dams at that point. Then, when night-time comes and people get home and start using their devices and cooking their dinner, the mainland electricity systems will start to buckle under the pressure and Tasmania will be able to service the mainland and provide good, clean, efficient power to it, which will benefit everybody. Thanks for the opportunity to speak about climate change and net zero and the great role that Tasmania has to play in a sustainable future.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today, we heard a question about the renewables rollout. We've just heard a Labor senator highlight, again, the hypocrisy that runs through this place. We heard this great story about Tasmania and hydro and how we can do this. But, when it comes here, do we get money to build water infrastructure so that we can roll out hydro for the rest of us? No, we can't dam rivers. We can't do it. We can't do what you've got across the rest of Australia—through you, Mr Deputy President.

So here is the example they would like us to follow—but we won't let you do it. Here's another example of no-cost emission power called nuclear—but we won't let you do it. It's, 'Do it our way or no way at all.' That's what we get all the time. In fact the Prime Minister, down in Ballarat, comes out and says, 'We know we haven't done it right and we haven't consulted right, but we'll look better.' But, up to 10 times in this very chamber, they voted against an inquiry to look at how they do the rollout. So not only do they not want to do it right but they don't want to look at how they didn't do it right. This is the hypocrisy of this policy. It's when people talk about putting eight wind turbines off northern suburbs beaches. They said: 'We can't do that. It's too beautiful. But come to Port Stephens and let's put up 400.' The good news is that industry knows when they're on a loser, and they were on a loser with this, so industry stopped this plan.

Farmers showed up and chased, in a tractor, the Prime Minister's motorcade—I don't condone violence; I do condone peaceful protests—and that says how frustrating it is. A farmer in Victoria showed up with a noose around her neck to show the stress that is being put onto her. The government doesn't care, because they know this is about the consequences. They don't care in the city, because they don't see the consequences in regional Australia. They don't see that you can't get insurance because you've got wind turbines or solar panels next to you. They don't see the loss of amenity that happens out there. They don't see when a plastic bag is pinned on your fence—about a compulsory acquisition, so a transmission line can go through your property. They don't see the consequence, and they've voted 10 times in here to avoid seeing the consequences.

When Senator Dolega gets up and says, 'This is in Tasmania; let's talk about renewables,' sure, Tassie—great stuff—I love your dams and love your hydro. You are the Norway of Australia. But let us do it in the rest of Australia where there's plenty of water infrastructure. We're about to have an inquiry and look into the Murray-Darling thing. We're about to look at algal blooms down there. Was the fresh water running through that, with the nutrients, a contributor down in the algal bloom? Here's an idea: let's spend some of your money, build some water infrastructure, put a couple of gennies on it and make power for the rest of the country through the water coming down that system. That is what we can do.

But instead it's, 'Let's build transmission lines.' The VNI West transmission line—no generation—was quoted at $3.6 billion. When we go to the integrated system plan, this is what they believe: 'We won't give you a total system cost; we'll give you the integrated system plan cost.' In that is the transmission line, VNI West, for $3.6 billion. Then they say: 'Whoops—we've just had an update. It's increased a bit. It's now a minimum of $7.6 billion.' That's more than double what it was at last estimates. But there's good news, folks: it doesn't stop there. It's not just free steak knives; we'll throw in up to $11.2 billion, which is the expected cost for transmission lines. That's almost three times the original cost. Those are the numbers we're dealing with. This is the impossibly bad rollout we're dealing with.

Imagine the generation with a bit of water infrastructure and a couple of generators—a little Tassie on the Murray, a little Tassie in Victoria and a little Tassie in New South Wales. But we can't do that, because this government says no. We hear the real stories of farmers who are losing their farms, getting those plastic bags pinned on their fences and contemplating their own lives after their farms have been in their family for generations. It doesn't matter here, because it's not a consequence of where your voters are.

We can come here, and you can howl us down, 'You don't believe in climate change.' For the record, I believe in climate change. There was a chance here to vote, to have an inquiry and to do this better, and we got told no. If you fly into any city, there are acres of roofs without solar panels on them. There are blocks where you can have big grid-scale community batteries to keep the power where it's needed. This can be done better. Renewables need to be a part of what we're doing, but our people can't suffer everything for it. I get phone calls from guys who had their land compulsorily acquired and then lost their status as a primary producer for off-farm income, and it's not good enough. Don't be hypocrites; do it better.

Question agreed to.