|
representatives vote 2013-05-27#1
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:19:30
|
Title
Description
<p>The no voters succeeded in dismissing a motion that called on the Government to defer the package of the Aged Care bills until the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs has reported on its inquiry into the bills. </p><p> Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no so the amendment was unsuccessful. </p><p><b>Background to Bill</p></b><p> In April 2012 the Labor Government introduced the Living Longer Living Better Package. This was in response to the Productivity Commission's Inquiry <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/aged-care">'Caring for Older Australians'</a>. The Package consists of five Bills, of which the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill is the main one.</p><p>The Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill makes changes to aged care which include:<ol> <li> Changes to residential aged care </li> <li> Removes the distinction between high and low level care for residential aged care </li><li> Establishes Home Care to replace existing community aged care packages</li><li> Means testing for residential and home care </li><li> New payments for care recipients and providers </li><li> Independent reviews of the legislation by 2017 </li></ol></p><p> More information on the Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/2429310/upload_binary/2429310.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22r4980%22">here</a>. Alternatively, information about the package can be found at the <a href="http://www.livinglongerlivingbetter.gov.au/">Department of Health and Ageing</a> website. The text of the proposed amendment can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F62418f05-bfae-4b21-b883-5566181dff26%2F0016;orderBy=_fragment_number,doc_date-rev;page=0;query=Dataset%3Ahansards,hansards80%20Date%3A26%2F6%2F2013;rec=0;resCount=Default">here</a>.</p> - The no voters succeeded in dismissing a motion that called on the Government to defer the package of the Aged Care bills until the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs has reported on its inquiry into the bills.
- Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no so the amendment was unsuccessful.
- **Background to Bill**
-
-
- In April 2012 the Labor Government introduced the Living Longer Living Better Package. This was in response to the Productivity Commission's Inquiry ['Caring for Older Australians'](http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/aged-care). The Package consists of five Bills, of which the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill is the main one.
- The Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill makes changes to aged care which include:
- 1. Changes to residential aged care
- 2. Removes the distinction between high and low level care for residential aged care
- 3. Establishes Home Care to replace existing community aged care packages
- 4. Means testing for residential and home care
- 5. New payments for care recipients and providers
- 6. Independent reviews of the legislation by 2017
- More information on the Bill and the context surrounding it can be found [here](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/2429310/upload_binary/2429310.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22r4980%22). Alternatively, information about the package can be found at the [Department of Health and Ageing](http://www.livinglongerlivingbetter.gov.au/) website. The text of the proposed amendment can be found [here](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F62418f05-bfae-4b21-b883-5566181dff26%2F0016;orderBy=_fragment_number,doc_date-rev;page=0;query=Dataset%3Ahansards,hansards80%20Date%3A26%2F6%2F2013;rec=0;resCount=Default).
|
|
representatives vote 2013-05-27#1
Edited by
Natasha Burrows
on
2013-10-10 17:58:52
|
Title
Bills — Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013; Second Reading
Description
<p class="speaker">Mark Coulton</p><p>I rise to speak on the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill. I do so with some interest as I believe aged care is one of the great challenges that confronts this nation. Particularly in an area such as the one that I represent, the difficulties of caring for our older Australians are somewhat magnified. Nine per cent of our population is aged 70 years or older. By 2050 over 3.5 million Australians are expected to use aged care each year. At the moment there are about 8,000 outlets providing aged-care services across Australia. By 2050 it is estimated that aged-care expenditure will be three per cent of GDP. Our population is living longer and living with more health conditions than ever before.</p><p>Aged care is a highly regulated industry and I have got to say that the impact of red tape and the burden of compliance are threatening the viability of aged-care facilities across the country. Across the nation only 40 per cent of aged-care providers are operating in the black and I suspect that in my electorate a number of providers facing financial difficulty would be somewhat higher than that. There is an increasing demand for aged care but the pressures on the aged-care sector are making it particularly hard. The $1.6 billion cut from the aged-care funding instrument, ACFI, under these reforms has placed it under substantially more pressure. Indeed, in the last financial year the average aged-care provider in my electorate believed they are about $100,000 worse off on their bottom line.</p><p>The alarm bells started to ring for me in 2008-09 when the member for Richmond was the Minister for Aged Care. I can remember very clearly a statement in this place when the member for Richmond said that her background as a police officer had her placed very well to clamp down on unscrupulous aged-care providers. While everyone obviously wants proper care and does not want unscrupulous behaviour, I think that showed that minister's and this government's understanding of the aged-care industry. What the aged-care industry does not want is red tape and overt compliance; they want support. The aged-care staff very much feel like the poor cousins in the healthcare sector. Wherever I go I see aged-care workers doing an incredible job. Not everyone can work in aged care. Not only do you have to be physically able to undertake what is now becoming quite a strenuous occupation, you have to be blessed with a certain personality, a caring personality, an unflappable personality and a personality that enables you to be kind and generous in very difficult circumstances. I can say with complete confidence that in the aged-care sector in the Parkes electorate that is very much what I see.</p><p>We have seen a change in aged care over the last 20 or 30 years which is in some ways putting pressure on the industry. Many people now are cared for at home. This package of bills largely focuses on increased home care packages. I essentially do not have an issue with that, but what that has done is change the face of aged care. Many of the facilities that were built as hostel type accommodation now are struggling to find residents seeking hostel accommodation but there is a much higher demand for high-care beds. In some of these facilities that does create a problem because the infrastructure is not there for the high care. Indeed, in some cases the upgrades involved mean it is nearly easier to start again and build a new facility.</p><p>The Productivity Commission report <i>Caring for </i><i>o</i><i>lder Australians</i> that came out in August 2011 had a raft of recommendations. Unfortunately, this legislation cherry-picks only a few of those. The Senate is undertaking an inquiry which is due to report on 31 May and the shadow minister, Mr Dutton, has moved amendments to delay the final passage of these bills until we can see the report of that committee. I think that is a sensible and fair approach to this. It is a great frustration to me that in this place we quite often deal with very complex issues that contain a lot of information but seem to be dealt with in a five minutes to midnight approach where there is a rush to get them through. So I support the amendment that we see the final report of the Senate committee so that we have got all the information before us before we make our final decision.</p><p>There are limitations with this legislation that I can see already. Rural and regional providers are in a unique situation. Where metro services can specialise, can have niche operations, in rural towns you have to have a broad range of services available, quite often with the one organisation. This is the same with the disability sector: when you have a smaller population you have a large range of different care needs but a smaller number. I can use my home town of Warialda as an example for this. Warialda has a district population of roughly a couple of thousand people. The local council originally constructed Naroo, an aged-care hostel-type facility. Indeed, my father was the driving force and initial chairman for Naroo. Over a period of time the demand has grown, and Naroo has been extended twice, partly funded by federal government grants and partly funded by contributions from the local community. Indeed, the last extension—when I was the Mayor of Gwydir Shire—cost that community well over $1 million, and it was full the day it was finished. At the moment, the Warialda community has obtained a low-interest loan of $3 million from the federal government to construct another wing on Naroo. It will be dementia-specific for caring with people with high-care and dementia needs.</p><p>A small community needs to do that because you need the services in a small town. You need to have a doctor to treat you. You need a hospital if you need higher care. You need to be able to spend your later years within your local community. You need to be surrounded by family and friends so that, when you are in a stage of needing higher care, you can have your family around you. While in a larger metropolitan area having someone a suburb or two away might not be a big deal, it is when the next provider is an hour's drive away—and we have seen this in Warialda. One of the driving things that we have seen for this facility in this community is couples who have been together for 60 or 65 years and one of them has dementia or needs higher care. It is not available in the local town. They are sent to the nearest available facility—an hour away—and, after 60 years, that couple is essentially torn apart. The member of the relationship that is not in care quite often does not have the ability to do that travel. If they can, it is only once a week.</p><p>I have seen that all over my electorate. Indeed, I have couples in Lake Cargelligo where one of them is in care in either Griffith or Condobolin, and essentially the other one cannot be there to provide the necessary care. I know with dementia care that, while people get the best of care, there is nothing like having a family member who can come in every day to provide some form of certainty, whether it is feeding or just mental stimulation. We need those places. Aged care is very important in my patch. The town of Gilgandra has done a wonderful job providing an aged-care haven for their residents. They have actually done such a good job that now people are coming from other areas to retire and ultimately end up getting higher care in Gilgandra from what is available there. In Coonabarabran, Moree, Dubbo and Mudgee there are great facilities.</p><p>There are some communities in stress. At Cobar, Lillian Brady Village Nursing Home is having a lot of problems at the moment. It needs an upgrade. There are 40 people in care there, and the local community, because it is small in population, is struggling to support that organisation financially. In Lake Cargelligo we do not have high care. The NPS does provide some beds there, but for dementia specifically there is not that care. So we are seeing people from that community being torn asunder.</p> <p class="speaker">Dick Adams</p><p>Who should pay?</p> <p class="speaker">Mark Coulton</p><p>We have an interjection from over there. I think the member from Tasmania, whose electorate is known in my area as a horse paddock in size, might want to have a greater understanding of the issues of communities such as Cobar, Nyngan or Warialda. Those communities provide a service and have a place within the Australian economy. Those communities such as Cobar provide a lot to the gross domestic product of this nation, and the people living there are just as entitled to services. It is surprising that a member from Tasmania, which only survives on the largesse and subsidy of the mainland, could even make such as comment.</p> <p class="speaker">Anna Burke</p><p>The member for Parkes will ignore the interjections and return to the topic.</p> <p class="speaker">Mark Coulton</p><p>Apologies, Madam Speaker. The point I make is that people should be able to be cared for in their own community. They should be able to spend their last days in their local community. People do not often speak about this, but you should be able to die in your local community. Being able to die amongst your family and friends is very important, and I have to say I have had enough of the people of my electorate being shunted off in an ambulance in the last days of their lives, away from their loved ones, to have palliative care in a larger regional centre. I quite frankly do not care who pays for it as long as someone does.</p><p>This is complex legislation. Aged care is the elephant in the room as far as the Australian economy and community are concerned. We need to come to terms with it. We need to find out the results of the Senate inquiry. We need not to rush into this and to do this with due process.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>- <p>The no voters succeeded in dismissing a motion that called on the Government to defer the package of the Aged Care bills until the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs has reported on its inquiry into the bills. </p>
- <p> Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The majority voted no so the amendment was unsuccessful. </p>
- <p><b>Background to Bill</p></b>
- <p> In April 2012 the Labor Government introduced the Living Longer Living Better Package. This was in response to the Productivity Commission's Inquiry <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/aged-care">'Caring for Older Australians'</a>. The Package consists of five Bills, of which the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill is the main one.</p>
- <p>The Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill makes changes to aged care which include:
- <ol> <li> Changes to residential aged care </li>
- <li> Removes the distinction between high and low level care for residential aged care </li>
- <li> Establishes Home Care to replace existing community aged care packages</li>
- <li> Means testing for residential and home care </li>
- <li> New payments for care recipients and providers </li>
- <li> Independent reviews of the legislation by 2017 </li></ol></p>
- <p> More information on the Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/2429310/upload_binary/2429310.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22r4980%22">here</a>. Alternatively, information about the package can be found at the <a href="http://www.livinglongerlivingbetter.gov.au/">Department of Health and Ageing</a> website. The text of the proposed amendment can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F62418f05-bfae-4b21-b883-5566181dff26%2F0016;orderBy=_fragment_number,doc_date-rev;page=0;query=Dataset%3Ahansards,hansards80%20Date%3A26%2F6%2F2013;rec=0;resCount=Default">here</a>.</p>
-
-
|