Senator TAMBLING (4:54 PM) —The motion before us, put by Senator Evans on behalf of the Labor Party, really is a cruel and disparaging attack on the 20 per cent of aged Australians who use aged care services. Senator Evans is opportunistic in the extreme—scaremongering the aged when his efforts would be better placed comforting and alleviating them in retirement. It pays to look carefully at the motion he has put forward and the speech that he just gave, which did not get down to addressing the issues of people or human points of view.

Before looking at the details of Senator Evans's motion, we should begin by asking: what are the problems for this current generation of aged Australians? Why, after 13 years of Labor Party rule in federal government, are we now standing here in this place debating a series of very negative points put by Labor which are certainly not in the best interests of the aged? Essentially, those aged 60 and over have inherited the economic legacy of Labor in government—that period from 1983 to 1996. If you were 45 years of age and had a housing mortgage in 1983 when Labor came to government, you certainly would have paid dearly throughout Labor's reign in the form of astronomically high interest rates—peaking at around 17 to 18 per cent. So while Labor mauled and abused the economy, who are the people who paid? What generation of Australians felt those effects? These people are now beginning to plan their retirement, as are many others who have moved into the retirement age and have been affected by that generation of Labor's administration.

I find it curious that Senator Evans should find it appropriate to move the motion he has here today, because Senator Evans and his party are directly responsible for undermining the security of aged Australians, and for that they should be condemned. What did 13 years of Labor mismanagement right across the board do to superannuation? What did it do to retirement investments? What did it do to health care? There is no acceptance of responsibility for an entire generation of very important economics—for all of these exacerbating problems that Senator Evans would have us believe our aged Australians now face. This motion is hypocritical. It is nothing more than a dot-by-dot reference of Labor's guilt file, attempting to shift their 13 years of mismanagement onto the Howard government.

Three years into the Howard-Fischer government, we are wrestling to address a number of hard issues for the people affected—for the aged people of Australia. We have to cover Labor's legacy. We have turned the economy around and we have fortified Australia to such an extent that we have been able to weather the Asian economic crisis and stand in good stead to prosper as a regional leader. We have given back security and cash advantages to families, who now feel it. We have shifted the focus of government back to regional and remote Australia. We will be putting in place a strong, robust tax system designed to meet our national needs. This last point also involves implementation of a workable Commonwealth, state and territory financial arrangement which will see the states better resourced to meet the needs of their aged residents.

I invite Senator Evans and others so critical in this debate to go to the various policy documents of the Liberal-National Party coalition and also of the Labor Party. Take a good look at our document Older Australians under health and family services. Part A refers to tax reform for older Australians. In part B, which refers to carers, we say that we will allocate $80 million over four years to expand community based respite care options for carers of people with dementia. I refer in that particular regard to yesterday's announcement by Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services, of $100 million for Australian carers. The effect of that will be that 14,000 carers of adult relatives will qualify for assistance for the first time, at a cost of $92 million over four years. Under `Residential and aged care', we address the issue in real stark policy terms. We say:

Planning arrangements for aged care places will be reviewed to deliver more flexibility to local communities and better recognise the geographic and demographic realities of rural and regional Australia.

In part D, `Older people living in rural and regional Australia', we say that we will provide rural transaction centres and reinstate and set up better Medicare Ezyclaim facilities by providing additional resources to regional health services. Under our policy, we have instituted the International Year of Older Persons. The other policy issues refer to healthy lifestyles for older Australians and building safer communities for older Australians and older job seekers. They are stark and very worthwhile policy points to look at.

If you turn to the Labor Party document, it is basically a regurgitation of past criticisms and sins and looks at areas which really can reflect on only their own administration. They wrote this a year or two after losing office and they accepted no blame or responsibility for any of the issues. If you turn to the last couple of pages, they come out with a few policies with respect to trying to capitalise on nursing homes issues that were current last year and talking about pension increases, which is always fashionable in an election period.

It is important that we turn now and have a look at those issues that are addressed in Senator Chris Evans's motion—a motion in about eight or 10 parts which is nothing more than a series of dot points on which he has sought to score points. Let us take a look at it. The first point he raised was failure to provide capital funding. What did Labor do? They withdrew capital funding over their period in office. They commissioned and then ignored the Gregory report. All Labor was interested in was to deliberately scare older Australians. I think that is what has come through again in today's debate.

By comparison, Prime Minister Howard's plan to improve the capital flow into the sector is now paying dividends. This week in the Sydney Morning Herald there was evidence that Commonwealth policies are working. There is significant interest by organisations in injecting funds into the aged care industry. The second point raised is with regard to equitable access to care. Labor failed to meet residential care targets that it even set itself. The National Audit Office reported that there was a drop in the number of residential aged care services over the last 10 years of Labor administration, and certainly Labor ignored the bush. Under Labor, there were 16 multipurpose services provided; there are now 42, and another 24 are planned. Under Labor, the safety net for these people was very weak.

We have redressed those inequities between states and regions. We have paid particular attention where it is important, at raising the level of aged care places in particular areas, and we have increased the range of aged care and health services to people living in rural and remote Australia. This government cares about older Australians and cares particularly about their residential care situations and the financial issues that so importantly arise from those areas.

On the issue of viability of aged care facilities in rural and remote regions, again in Labor's period there was nothing but a complex set of confusing funding supplements in nursing homes only. It is important to look at what the government has done. We have extended this supplement to also cover hostels. The viability supplement is targeted at facilities in rural and remote areas with a weighting given to small facilities. Certainly, we make these arrangements with extensive consultation. In particular, rural hostels are now funded for the care needs of their residents and the government has a $10 million capital program. Facilities in rural and remote areas are a special target. That makes a nonsense of the point in Senator Chris Evans's motion.

The fourth point alleged a failure of the Commonwealth government to address the wage disparity issue of nursing staff. The government is still working within the framework set. Labor put in a new indexation method which does not tie the indexation to wage movements that Labor's 1995 decision shifted to safety net adjustments only. The government has removed inefficient bureaucratic barriers to the funding system to enable workplace agreements and improved work practices where staff could share the benefits. The coalition government's reforms have seen an extra $160 million per year for recruitment funding and this has been confirmed by an independent review.

There were a number of issues that Senator Chris Evans related to Minister Bishop, including the setting of accreditation fees. The government has put in place a rigorous process to ensure the best outcomes. The fee is certainly not to be a tax and the rate that will be set will be fair. This will again be done very carefully. We have asked a consultant to work with the accreditation agency to advise on a fee structure that is both fair and equitable.

The principles are being drafted. It is expected that they will be before both houses of parliament shortly after Easter. Under Labor, poor quality nursing homes were allowed to get away with giving poor quality care for too long. We will no longer tolerate poor care for frail older Australians.

Funding for HACC services is important. Sometimes in this area it is very important to look at what is going on, particularly in New South Wales, where there has been a media and correspondence exchange between Minister Bishop and the New South Wales Labor government which has not picked up many of the issues in those areas. Older people and people with disabilities in New South Wales missed out on $15 million worth of HACC funding because the Carr government failed to match the Commonwealth's offer in the first two years of the Carr government. This was a total of over $12.7 million which would have paid for 5.6 million meals on wheels, almost 400,000 hours of community nursing or more than 450,000 hours of home help. By comparison, Victoria has had no trouble meeting the requirements. The Commonwealth spends more than $500 million on home and community care each year to help frail older people, people with disabilities and carers, and we have increased HACC funding by five per cent.

On the issue that Senator Evans raised with regard to certification, we are very concerned about improving the standards of residential care buildings. Labor totally ignored this problem. Contrary to what Senator Evans has alleged in his speech, the new certification instrument was approved on 3 March. It is now being printed and will be sent out after Easter. This will give the industry certainty. The instrument has strong endorsement from industry and consumer groups. Again, the government is setting standards, requiring poor nursing homes—Labor's legacy—to come up to scratch, giving them a strategic 10-year plan and directions and certainty for building and upgrading.

Senator Evans wrongly made the point that additional recurrent funding payments will become certified. Prior to the election, the government undertook to introduce an arrangement whereby service providers could receive capital transition payments for residents living in the home prior to 1 October 1997 and access accommodation payments. On 11 December 1998, Minister Bishop sent a fax to service providers confirming the change. Under the new scheme, nursing homes will be able to be certified and also seek accommodation charges from new residents or concessional supplements in respect of eligible residents. The capital transition payments will taper down over time as the number of new residents increases. The department is currently developing the arrangements to introduce this change. Industry groups are being consulted in the process. Again, where is Senator Evans getting his information?

With regard to the two-year review, it is important to note that a summary of Professor Gray's first six-monthly progress report on the review was released on 18 March, and we have written to the stakeholders to advise them of this. The report is now available from Mrs Bishop and the department. The report details outcomes, particularly as a result of the round of discussions that have been held. Over 500 people with a good knowledge of aged care were consulted in 50 focus groups in 17 locations throughout rural and metropolitan Australia. They certainly identified that the reform—improvements in standards of care, residents' contributions to the cost of their care according to their ability to pay et cetera—was necessary. This gave us a clear message that the industry was very much in need of reform and that it was time the government took action—not inaction and decline as happened under Labor. The review confirms our commitment to increasing the quality of care for individual older Australians. This is very important.

With regard to the Productivity Commission reports, the commission handed the final report to the Treasurer on 13 January, and this report is due to be released very shortly. There will be a period of consultation and consideration, after which the government will make decisions on the report.

Labor's record was that they were locked in state differences. That remains the case today, because they are obviously locked in their thinking. They had 13 years in which they slashed capital funding, failed to keep pace with the ageing population and failed to take action against poor quality homes. They left behind a funding system for nursing homes which was totally out of date. Labor knew when it was in government that Australia was ageing, and it took no action.

Senator Quirke —That's not true.

Senator TAMBLING —I am sorry, but your record speaks for itself. You have not been in the chamber listening for long. Labor certainly left aged care in a mess. That particular point is very important. There are, of course, a lot of groups in the community that are in consultation with Minister Bishop and with the government. They are very pleased with the record and with the involvement and the consultations that are taking place. Let me just give you one endorsement from Eldercare, a major religious and charitable provider in South Australia:

Few can complain about the changes that have resulted from the process of aged care reform. The outcomes for Eldercare have been significant and we are now in the best financial position we have been in for several years. The new resident classification system is reflecting and funding the resident mix that we have always had but struggled with because the old classification system had long passed its use-by date. Across our 640 nursing home and hostel residents this produces additional government care related subsidies estimated at $2 million per annum. Over 80 per cent of this has been spent on additional staff.

These are clear endorsements of the government's program and policies for aged Australians. We should look at what the real priorities are, what they are being given and what they were not given by Labor during its particular term in office. I note that Senator Evans did not use the total 20 minutes speaking time that was allocated to him. In fact, he fell five minutes short. Again, this is indicative of the priority he gives to such an important area. He ran out of puff on this particular issue. He cannot spare five minutes to add to his own motion on such an important issue. Those aged Australians that Senator Evans claims to represent are, indeed, very poorly represented.

By comparison, Minister Bishop and the Prime Minister have indicated this government's priority in the area of aged care by appointing a very competent administration. Mrs Bishop is in constant contact with all of thess groups within the portfolio and is achieving results. Senator Evans's motion is a pathetic contribution, particularly in this, the International Year of Older Persons. As always, the ALP is looking backwards and not to the future.