Aged Care

The Hon. T.T. NGO (15:30): I rise to speak on the issue of Australia's aged-care system and recent perhaps unnoticed changes that have been made by the federal Liberal government. The changes will have detrimental effects on many older Australians. With an ageing population, it is important that reform in the aged-care sector is done in a way that does not make those Australians who utilise the system worse off.

Since 2013, the Australian government has moved to consolidate the funding model of aged care into three main programs: (1) low level care would be covered by the commonwealth home support program; (2) intermediate care through the commonwealth's Home Care Packages Program; and (3) those requiring high level care would be covered by the residential care program.

I would like specifically to focus on the changes the government is implementing in the Home Care Packages Program. A key element of these changes is that all funding will be delivered through the consumer directed care model. More than 60,000 seniors who receive home care packages have been moved to this new model of funding since 1 July this year. This means that all clients will have their own individual pool of funds to spend on the services they require. This is a move away from the previous model, in which organisations receive block funding to deliver services.

These types of changes are always sold to us by those on the right of the political spectrum as being about providing individuals with choice and getting governments out of the way. It is true that clients will be able to direct the funds to services they require, rather than having services directed to them. However, when you dig deeper into the Liberal government's reform, you begin to realise that they are selling incredibly short those who are most vulnerable.

It has been reported that thousands of recipients have been told by the home care providers that the new packages will not have enough funds to pay for the services they receive now. This is because the packages are no longer being combined into big blocks of recipients. Effectively, under the old scheme recipients with less intense packages were subsidising those who needed more intensive care. This cross-subsidisation will no longer occur with the federal Liberal government's individualised packages. This incomprehensible scenario will see those who require the most support being the hardest hit. The Council of Social Services in new South Wales has summed up this situation best:

The rationale for the value package levels is not clear, and seems to be based on the current value of packages, not the level of need, in the community. In contrast, the NDIS will provide funding allocations in response to a person's need rather than according to the predetermined amount. The entitlement approach recommended by the Productivity Commission would also be more responsive to consumer needs than fixed package levels.

Those reforms, which are apparently all about giving consumers choice, are really the Liberal federal government's code for cutting its funding to the aged-care sector. The federal government currently funds 84 per cent of the total cost of home care packages. The changes will see that contribution reduced to 76 per cent.

Rather than promote choice, the federal government's message to some of the most vulnerable in our society is that if you want to maintain your current level of care then you need to accept increases in the fees you pay. Given that these very services are a necessity and not a luxury for many of the 60,000 elderly Australians on this scheme, I ask the new Prime Minister to consider where he sees the choice in that.