All changes made to the description and title of this
division.
View division
|
Edit description
| Change |
Division |
|
senate vote 2019-10-15#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2019-10-24 13:52:24
|
Title
Motions — Home Care Packages- Motions - Home Care Packages - Fix waitlist
Description
<p class="speaker">Carol Brown</p><p>Before moving general business notice of motion No. 164, I wish to inform the chamber that Senators Griff, Polley and Siewert will also sponsor the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senators Bilyk, Griff, Polley and Siewert, move:</p><p class="italic">That the Senate—</p>- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2019-10-15.128.1) introduced by Tasmanian Senator [Carol Brown](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/carol_brown) (Labor), which meas it passed. Motions like these don't make any legal changes on their own but are politically influential because they represent the will of the Senate.
- ### Motion text
- > *That the Senate—*
- >
- > *(a) notes that:*
- >
- >> *(i) the latest Government report indicates that there are 120,000 older Australians waiting for their approved package, and*
- >>
- >> *(ii) more than 72,000 older Australians on the wait list have no home care package at all;*
- >
- > *(b) recognises that:*
- >
- >> *(i) the majority of older Australians waiting for level three and level four packages have high care needs,*
- >>
- >> *(ii) some older Australians have been waiting more than two years for their approved package, many of whom are in their 90s, and others who have terminal illnesses, and*
- >>
- >> *(iii) older Australians are entering residential aged care or even emergency departments instead of receiving their approved home care package;*
- >
- > *(c) condemns the Morrison Government for failing to stop the waitlist growing; and*
- >
- > *(d) calls on the Morrison Government to listen to the growing chorus of voices for urgent action to fix the home care packages waitlist now, and properly address this national crisis.*
<p class="italic">(a) notes that:</p><p class="italic">  (i) the latest Government report indicates that there are 120,000 older Australians waiting for their approved package, and</p><p class="italic">  (ii) more than 72,000 older Australians on the wait list have no home care package at all;</p><p class="italic">(b) recognises that:</p><p class="italic">  (i) the majority of older Australians waiting for level three and level four packages have high care needs,</p><p class="italic">  (ii) some older Australians have been waiting more than two years for their approved package, many of whom are in their 90s, and others who have terminal illnesses, and</p><p class="italic">  (iii) older Australians are entering residential aged care or even emergency departments instead of receiving their approved home care package;</p><p class="italic">(c) condemns the Morrison Government for failing to stop the waitlist growing; and</p><p class="italic">(d) calls on the Morrison Government to listen to the growing chorus of voices for urgent action to fix the home care packages waitlist now, and properly address this national crisis.</p> <p class="speaker">Jonathon Duniam</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Jonathon Duniam</p><p>The Morrison government is committed to supporting senior Australians to remain in their own homes for longer. End of financial year data for 2018-19 indicates that 125,117 Australians have access to Home Care Packages compared to 99,932 at the same time last year. That is a 25 per cent increase in just one year. In comparison, Labor at the election provided no additional funding in their costings for home care places nor any additional funding for aged-care quality or workforce or for residential aged care. In six years we have more than doubled the number of packages available, and by 2022-23 we will have achieved a 161 per cent increase since Labor left government in 2012-13.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>The question is that motion No. 164 be agreed to.</p>
|