Australia is vulnerable to running out of fuel

,

There is an internationally agreed standard that countries should have a 90 day stockpile of fuel required to keep the place running in the event of a cut in the supply. The Australian Government has failed to meet this stockpile, dipping as low as 21 days at points. While almost all of our fuel comes from overseas through oceans that are becoming increasingly volatile, this puts Australia in a sickeningly vulnerable position.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I note that while the government’s bill has some merit it raises far more questions than it answers. Before proceeding, I want to compliment Senator Hanson on her comments. At last, someone’s standing up for Australia. We understand that the government has a dilemma, because the government and the Labor Party have deferred—put off—a decision on fuel security for years. In that deferral, putting it off, they have put our nation into an almost impossible position. And still, through this bill, the government shows that it has not faced up to the issue of fuel security. Let me remind everyone: energy is crucial to human progress.

One hundred and seventy years ago was the start of the industrial revolution. Look how far we’ve come. Look at everything in this room. Look at everything around you—in a city, in a town, while you’re driving in a car. That has come in the last 170 years. Why? Sure, it has been human creativity but, above all, it has been the relentless ever-decreasing real price of energy. Electricity was unheard of 170 years ago. Coal-fired power stations and petroleum powered cars were unheard of, undreamt of, 170 years ago. A king 200 years ago would not have lived as easily, as safely, as comfortably, as well, as long as people on welfare today. That shows remarkable human progress.

Senator Hanson and I raised energy security in 2016. The government avoided the decision. Now the Liberal-National coalition want to push it out to 2027. They want to avoid it again. It has deferred the decision again, and Labor will support them. So much for job security and investment across all industries. The key to driving an economy is low energy prices and energy security. That’s what brings investment for future jobs. Now, in response, what we see is a lack of thought and a lazy, lazy approach.

Why? Why do so many so-called solutions of the Liberal, Labor and National parties end up being, simply, a gift of taxpayer money to multinationals who are not taxed? Why does the government have a fetish for labelling bills with the word ‘security’? I’ll tell you why. It attracts votes, even if the bill does not provide security. Australians love security. All humans love security. We’ve had cybersecurity, border security, energy security, internet safety security and data security, often hiding a lack of security. When it comes to votes, Labor and Liberal know the word ‘security’ buys votes. Yet the word itself—security—is not real security. All three tired old parties repeatedly fail to provide real, meaningful, lasting security. They refuse to get back to basics and the truth.

We know that job security is important. We want it beyond 2027, though, for the jobs of refinery workers, construction workers and, when we get back to cheap, reliable fuel, all workers across all industries, including agriculture, not just manufacturing and services. Two refineries have recently shut. That was half of our refineries. We have to do something, then, to ensure future fuel security. The government’s attempts simply reduce the risk for refineries. We understand why. But taxpayers pay for that, and at the end of the deal in 2027 we have nothing to show for it—nothing, zip. So where’s the government’s energy plan? A plan is not a plan without addressing the five Ws and one H. That’s a simple management tool, management concept: Why? What? When? Where? Who? Then comes: How?

This government, like so many Liberal-National and Labor governments, goes straight to the ‘How?’ missing the specifics, the actions, the time lines, the responsibilities, the justification of cost-benefit analysis and a business plan. Government plans that jump straight to the ‘How?’ are not plans, unless the five Ws are addressed. Look at climate. Look at energy. The same applies everywhere. Look at the NDIS. Look at education. They are fundamentals that are really important for our country.

Why does the government repeatedly avoid facts and data and a disciplined, objective approach to policy and, instead, adopt media lines and pander to Greens ideology and drive policies in accordance with then Senator Mathias Cormann’s often repeated dictum, ‘We will fulfil our global obligations’?

What he means is and what he meant was: our obligations to globalists. We are the world’s largest exporter of energy, largest exporter of liquefied natural gas, second largest exporter of coal. We were the largest and we still have the highest quality coal but we have been overtaken by Indonesia as the largest exporter. Yet we have the world’s highest domestic gas prices and electricity prices, now three times that of countries who use our coal to generate their electricity. Three times our prices using our coal—why? Why can’t we use our own gas domestically? Why can’t we build a transnational pipeline to bring North West Shelf gas to the east and convert it to produce liquid fuels like petrol and diesel? The gas is suitable. Why can’t we use the gas itself to power cars directly? Why can’t we brainstorm and discuss alternatives, many alternatives, in the national interest?

Consider what the government says is a solution. The government will pay up to $2 billion to multinationals to keep them here. Remember the car makers, as Senator Hanson reminded us? We paid them billions to stay here and then they left and, as a final insult, sold their factories and their land to developers and pocketed the cash, after we gifted them so much taxpayer cash. Is this a solution, when in 2027 the oil companies can simply leave, run away, after we give them up to $2 billion along the way? Liberal-Labor put off making a decision and now, when our country has self-inflected deeper problems, make a half-baked solution that really defers it again until 2027, when we will have to face up to it again. Why? Because we haven’t faced up to it now. Why? Because the government lacks the will to listen and to do something novel and appropriate for the people of Australia and their national interest. Just as Senator Hanson recounted, Norway is doing something in its national interest.

In 2027 then what? China and our Asian competitors will, rightly, continue using hydrocarbon fuels like natural gas, coal and oil. For decades, we have had a small volume market. How can we compete with Singapore and China in refining fuels and do so with fair wages for good workers in this country? Here is a hint: energy. Singapore lacks any resources apart from human resources—a well-educated, industrious people—but it has solid stable governance that puts Singapore first. It has a superior tax system, a superior education system, superior governance focused on Singapore’s national interest.

China, it takes a different strategy, one that won’t last but here is what it does: it exploits labour, sacrifices the environment, sacrifices worker safety. We can compete because we have Australian management and leadership; we just need to let it have a go—our energy combined with our people, Australians, Australian workers and our executive leadership in business.

Other facts need consideration. The government repeatedly bet on technology that’s unproven and very expensive. They’re dreaming about hydrogen that currently costs about $6 a kilogram to produce and say they have a vision for $2 a kilogram. Even at $2 a kilogram, the electricity cost is $200 per megawatt hour, four times the price that coal can do it now. So in their dream, they’re going to send us bankrupt. Solar is another one of their dreams—dependence on China, who makes the damn things, cost, reliability, unreliability, instability, the loss of jobs. This is what the government is dreaming about. Wind—same applies—dependence on China, cost, reliability, stability, instability and loss of jobs. China, meanwhile, continues building coal-fired power stations. In its Paris Agreement, it has to do nothing until 2030 and then maybe it will think about it.

We have abundant clean goal and gas; we should be the super power, as we were when international investors flocked to the Hunter Valley, Central Queensland and Victoria to build aluminium refineries near cheap abundant coal. Those jobs are gone and, under current Liberal-Labor-Nationals policies, the few that remain in aluminium are doomed. Instead, the trio put bets on unproven, pixie farts for energy and stake Australia’s energy on rainbow-coloured unicorns in some imaginary Garden of Eden in the future. It abandons workers and the people of Australia. It abandons our country. It is hollow rhetoric keeping people ignorant, hollow rhetoric destroying our economy, hollow rhetoric destroying our national future.

So, let’s consider some possible options. What about this? Create a corporation to run the refineries. Issue government bonds, with bonds investing in the corporation in the same way we do with low-income housing. Buy the damned assets. Use the bond funds to buy oil and build additional fuel storage. Modernise the refineries to produce high-quality fuel to international standards. Fill up the oil tanks at startup to eliminate risks in the market. Once it’s up and running, sell 49 per cent of the ownership in the refinery on the stock market and invest the other 51 per cent with the Future Fund. That’s its job: holding assets on behalf of the Australian people to produce future income for future generations and ensure future fuel security. Government absorbs the initial risk—in the proven refineries, anyway—with proven personal enterprise, with oil industry executives managing the business and with proven executives and proven workers running the show, combined with accountability from the stock market.

The benefits are that Australians own the business, taxes stay here and the overall cost to taxpayers is considerably less, because we’d sell off half the enterprise. And the purchase price for an abandoned asset would be very low. People would buy shares because the risk is in setting up the venture and the asset would be stable. Fuel storage would work exactly as it does now on our overseas storage: buy when prices are low and sell when prices are high, to drive down prices at times of high prices, as with our existing International Energy Agency commitments. Major fuel producers would buy shares to get access to trading in stored oil. We could make extra money storing oil for other nations—Pacific countries, Indonesia.

Alternatively: fuel security is ultimately a matter of defence security. Has anyone in the government considered taking the refineries and getting the defence forces to operate the refineries in 2027? Or the government could, as a minimum, simply take the refineries’ land if refiners close down and leave. If they shut up shop after we gift them billions, why not take their real estate? We need some skin in the game, as Senator Hanson said. We need something for our money. Get the land as partial payment.

Another issue: tax oil companies fairly. Stop giving foreign multinationals a free ride. They exploit our resources, use our assets, use our services, use our trained people, and rely on our defence forces and our laws—for free, damn it! They don’t pay for any of it. Fix the tax system. Start with taxing multinationals. Jim Killaly, the former deputy assistant commissioner for taxation, in charge of large companies and foreign taxation, said, in 1996 and in 2010, that 90 per cent of Australia’s large companies are foreign owned and since 1953 have paid little or no company tax. The government needs to establish honest energy policies across all our energy needs and invest in infrastructure to restore our nation’s productive capacity. It needs to restore national sovereignty, to restore good governance based on data and facts and on putting the national interest first.

All these would be enormous changes from current government approaches—decades of such approaches. They would be a return to our nation’s roots and the time when Australia led the world in per capita income. Instead, the government’s approach is a short-term bandaid at best. And 2027 is not the end. We need to think and prepare for beyond that. Liberal, Nationals and Labor governments, for the past three decades, have thought that ‘long-term’ means just two budget cycles: two years—that’s it. Australians deserve better—far, far better.

This bill is not even a bandaid. It’s a deferral, a putting off. It’s Labor, Liberals and the Nationals playing hide-and-seek, hiding the reality from the public. It confirms this government’s incompetence and laziness and continues decades of poor, dishonest and accountable governance. Now, I’m all for personal enterprise—or, as some may say, private enterprise. I’m all for security. Instead of repeated gutless bandaids and short-term fixes, where’s the long-term solution? Where’s the vision? Where’s the national interest? Let’s secure our nation’s future with a comprehensive solution that addresses the basics for all Australians: job security, industry security and national security.

/by

Government treating Australians like mushrooms

I talked to Mike Ryan from Asia Pacific Today about the fact that Australians are being treated like mushrooms when it comes to COVID-19.

/by

Government trying to withhold information

I spoke on a motion criticising the government for failing to table information that the Senate has requested. Unfortunately, it is a situation that keeps happening. The government refuses to provide information that all Australians should have access to.

/2 Comments/by

There is no climate emergency

,

The Greens will never stop their fear mongering about the collapse of the world. They’ve still never provided evidence that CO2 from human emissions presents a danger and needs to be cut.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to discuss this issue which, at its core—quoting from the Greens—is about ‘climate heating’. Really—about humans heating our climate!

One Nation relies upon data, facts and empirical evidence proving causation. Senator Watt relies upon ‘belief’.

Let’s have a look at some data on another issue, and that is the Greens’ claims. On 9 September 2019, I invited Senator Waters and the then leader Senator Di Natale—remember him?—to present us with the empirical scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut. I also challenged them to a debate on the empirical evidence and on the corruption of science. What have we heard since? Nothing; not a thing—just more claims and more beliefs.

On 7 October 2010, I invited Senator Larissa Waters, who’s now the Greens leader in the Senate, to debate me on climate and climate science corruption. She jumped to her feet and said: ‘I will not debate you.’ Six years later, in May 2016, five years ago, I challenged her again, along with the Labor Party, and again she wouldn’t debate me. She won’t debate me because they haven’t got the facts.

So let’s go instead to someone who used to be part of the Obama administration, Steven Koonin—or should I say Professor Steven Koonin. He has written a book called Unsettled, and he says: ‘Heat waves in the US are now no more common than they were in 1900’—121 years ago. Secondly, he says, ‘the warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past 50 years’. So much for warming! Thirdly, humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century. These are facts. These are things that I have spoken about in the past in this chamber. Professor Koonin continues: ‘Tornado frequency and severity are also not trending up, nor are the number and severity of droughts. The extent of global fires has been trending significantly downward. The rate of sea-level rise has not accelerated. Global crop yields are rising, not falling.’ And listen to this: ‘And while global atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are obviously higher now than two centuries ago, they’re not at any record planetary high. They’re at a low that has only been seen once before in the past, 500 million years ago’—as I have said repeatedly. Since all those data that Mr Koonin uses are available to others, he poses the obvious question: ‘Why haven’t you heard these facts before?’ He’s cautious—perhaps overly so—in proposing the causes for so much misinformation. He points to such things as incentives to invoke alarm for fundraising purposes and official reports that mislead by omission. Exactly!

Let me touch on the CSIRO. The CSIRO has admitted to me—we’ve had three presentations from the CSIRO—under my cross-examination that there is no danger from carbon dioxide from human activity. They’ve admitted today’s temperatures are not unprecedented. And they have claimed the rate of warming is, but their own papers reveal that that is false.

There is no merit to this matter of public urgency. We say: toss it in the can.

/by

COVID: What happened to our country

I dare to ask questions. I have a duty as an elected representative to share the facts. I have a duty to the people of Australia to promote debate and understanding for informed debate.

What we are seeing in these COVID times is the squashing of debate. I call on you to decide for yourself. What happened to basic freedoms? What happened to Australia? Are you willing to help us bring back Australia?

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I ask: what’s happening to our country? On COVID, due to the overseas deaths early last year, I was cooperative and supportive from the start. On 23 March 2020 and 8 April 2020, on single-day sittings in this Senate, we gave the government a blank cheque. But I added, on behalf of constituents, that we would hold the government accountable and we expected data and a plan. I mentioned the most successful nation was successful without crippling its economy because it did not cripple its economy. I mentioned ivermectin. Yet we never heard back—no data and no plan. Like people across Australia, I now have important questions.

People are feeling scared. Some are terrified, lost, hopeless, daunted and confused. People are feeling unsafe because of the vaccine side effects. People are feeling insecure because crucial, universal human needs are not being met—needs like security, health, reassurance, trust, confidence, support, leadership, honesty, competence, care, freedom, ease, calm and direction.

Where’s the plan for managing the virus and our economy? There’s clearly inconsistent behaviour across our states, and the national government has revealed no plan. Queensland, Victoria and WA have deepened fear and insecurity to win elections and to control people. Governments have abandoned the people and removed accountability. I asked the Chief Medical Officer, the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the head of the federal health department to confirm my list of strategies that should be part of a plan for managing the virus. Isolation is one. Testing, tracing and quarantining is another. Then there’s restrictions, cures and prophylactics, vaccines, personal behaviour, and health and fitness. That’s seven I’ve raised with them. They’ve agreed with all seven. But we only see three in use, and then only partially, with crude and limited impact on the virus and a huge economic and social cost.

In response to my question in Senate estimates in March, I received data on the severity and transmissibility of this virus. The mortality is known by the health authorities to be low to severe. In fact, Senator Rex Patrick didn’t even know he had the virus. Others with co-morbidity, though, can die. Just like with the flu, there’s a huge range of symptoms. So why do the Chief Medical Officer and the health department not publicly separate out each of the group’s mortality rates? Is it because people need to be kept in fear?

Now our taxes are being given to big pharma for unproven and risky vaccines. Let’s consider some of those risks and facts. There have been deaths from the vaccine. Thousands of people overseas have died from it. There have been a wide variety of side effects from the vaccine, such as blood clots. The health minister, Mr Hunt, had cellulitis, reportedly a known vaccine side effect, and was hospitalised. The Chief Medical Officer, the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the head of the federal health department refuse to declare the vaccine as 100 per cent safe.

So my first question is: how did the vaccines get provisional approval? They said there were no alternative vaccines available. But wait—once the first was approved provisionally, the others faced an approved alternative. So how did the others get provisional approval? The vaccines fail to prevent transmission of the virus. The vaccines fail to stop someone getting the virus and getting sick. Intergenerational effects are not known at all. The vaccine’s effect against mutations is still unknown. The dosage is unknown. Vaccine frequency, number and time between jabs are still all unknown. Are people going to be jabbed forever? The vaccine fails to remove restrictions on our lifestyle. The vaccine fails to open up international borders.

The vaccine makers all lack integrity. They have been fined billions of dollars—not hundreds of millions but billions of dollars—for misrepresenting their products. The health minister himself said, ‘The world is engaged in the largest clinical vaccination trial.’ I am not a lab rat. Australians should not be treated as lab rats. This is the first time in history that healthy people have been injected with something that could kill them—and yet, on ivermectin, this is the first time that sick people have been denied medicine that is safe and successful for COVID, as multiple overseas jurisdictions prove.

Let’s move on to ivermectin. I took it successfully in 2014 for something else. Some 3.7 billion doses have been given over six decades. It is prescribed for many ailments. There’s no risk. It’s safe. It’s cheap because it’s off patent. It’s affordable. It is being used successfully overseas to treat COVID en masse, regionally and nationally. There are 250 medical papers in support of ivermectin—proven successful with COVID. In times of emergency, when four vaccines are provisionally approved, and adults are vaccinated—and now kids, despite the early warnings, and now pregnant mothers, apparently—why isn’t a proven, safe and affordable treatment like ivermectin provisionally approved? If no-one has made application, why didn’t the government get off its hands and do it? The government has blood on its hands. My second question is: why have four unproven, untested and risky vaccines been given provisional approval, yet one known, safe treatment has not been given provisional approval, despite extensive medical papers and successful widespread use overseas? What happened to basic freedoms? What is happening to Australia?

I received a letter from the Therapeutic Goods Administration last week threatening me because I shared some facts publicly. I dared to ask questions. I have a duty as an elected representative to share the facts. The Therapeutic Goods Administration calls that ‘advertising’—in an effort, apparently, to control me. I have a duty to the people of Australia to promote debate and understanding for informed debate. Without that, there can be no informed consent, and, without informed consent, there can be no vaccination or treatment. People are free in our country to make what they want of the facts. The Therapeutic Goods Administration seems to think that discussing facts and data is advertising. Whose side is the TGA on—the people or Big Pharma? My third question is: what are the connections between Big Pharma, Monash University, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the Gates Foundation, Google and Facebook? Think about this. Google’s parent company is Alphabet. It owns YouTube, which took down one of my videos on the topic. Google owns 12 per cent of Vaccitech, which created the AstraZeneca vaccine. Aren’t these conflicts of interest? Another possible conflict of interest is surely Sequoia Capital, a venture fund known for making millions from early funding of Google, YouTube and Apple. Sequoia owns 10 per cent of Vaccitech. I have no financial or other ties with vaccine makers, ivermectin or drug companies. My interest is ensuring that we protect people’s health and safety—our nation’s health and safety. So what happened to basic freedoms? What is happening to our country?

Coercion seems widespread and primed for stronger, wider, more extensive coercion. Let’s have a look at some of the types of coercion: letters from so-called authorities intimidating people; threats to doctors; threats to employees of withholding employment or livelihood—a basic means of survival; media intimidation from the legacy media; journalists labelling and misrepresenting people. It’s no wonder that mainstream media is rapidly becoming the legacy media. There is also government funding of media companies on vaccine propaganda. But I do want to single out one journalist. Adam Creighton, in the Australian, has done a fabulous job of exposing and sharing the facts. We move on now to what the government is calling a ‘digital certificate’. Is that going to become a digital passport? Will there be the withdrawal of people’s basic access to amenities, transport, travel and jobs unless they get the jab? Will there be the withdrawal of livelihood—the ability to live? This is not a digital passport; it’s a digital prison. Social media threats: Facebook and YouTube take down posts and threaten shutdown. Always, beneath control, there is fear. So my fourth question is: of what are authorities afraid? Clearly, it’s not the virus, because they have no plan. They’re afraid of people, the truth and freedom. Freedom is so easily squashed. The key question is: why is there no government action to approve ivermectin? I call on the government not to wait for an application for approval and to get on with the job of inquiring about, and investigating, ivermectin and approving it. Australians, I call on you to decide for yourself. Compare ivermectin and the vaccine. Consider the actions of federal and state governments. What happened to basic freedoms? What happened to Australia? Are you willing to help us bring back Australia?

/46 Comments/by

Profiting CEOs should pay back JobSeeker

I spoke in support of a motion that big companies who had a profitable COVID year and paid millions in executive bonuses should be made to pay back JobKeeper. JobKeeper was meant for companies that were struggling to keep their doors open, not to pump up executive bonuses.

Transcript

One Nation supports this motion. Many broad-stroke policies were voted through in the early days of COVID due to the uncertainty at the time. And yet mistakes were made, and these must be admitted and addressed. In some cases, JobKeeper payments went to companies with no need for the money and who used the money for purposes having nothing to do with the intent of JobKeeper, which was to protect jobs and to help workers and families get through tough times. Mega car dealership, Eagers Automotive, claimed JobKeeper and then paid out dividends for almost the exact same amount—$67 million. Star Casino received $64 million and then gave CEO, Matt Bekier, an equity bonus of $800,000.

Without basic governance, greed has come out to play. Company executives purloining JobKeeper for their own financial benefit does not pass the pub test. It’s time this government stopped running the country for the benefit of its big-business mates and started caring about the people paying for all of this—Australian taxpayers, current and future.

/by

MEDIA RELEASE: Senate fails to protect children from irreversible transgender surgery

In the Senate today the Coalition has split over whether Australian children should access irreversible transgender treatments. 

 

The Government granted their Senators a conscience vote on the motion brought by One Nation Senator Roberts and it is the first conscience vote on a motion since 1987.

 

Senator Roberts said, “The Liberals call themselves conservatives and today we have seen five liberal senators, including ministers, cross the floor to support Australian children accessing irreversible treatments and surgery.

 

“My motion was about protecting children from these irreversible treatments at a time when a therapeutic pathway should take precedence over a medical pathway.

 

“It’s a travesty when we let children under 16 years have double mastectomies in Australia”, he said.

 

Sweden’s leading gender clinic has recently ended routine treatment of children with puberty blockers and hormonal drugs citing concerns around cancer and infertility.  In Australia children as young as 10 years of age have been prescribed puberty blockers.  

 

“It’s a sad day for all Liberal voters when their leader in the Senate, Simon Birmingham, crosses the floor and aligns himself with Labor and the Greens against the true conservatives in his party.

 

“The gang of five must be called to account for their sellout of conservative liberal values. These are Senators Birmingham, Hume, Payne, Bragg and Colbeck.”

 

Speaking after the vote Senator Roberts said, “Adolescence is a confusing time and this is not the time for our children to make irreversible life changing decisions.

 

“It is no wonder that the Australian curriculum is loaded with anti-humanist, ideological rubbish when the former Minister for Education voted against my motion to protect children.

 

“Shame on him,” he said.

/1 Comment/by

GOVERNMENT MEMBERS VOTE WITH LABOR TO SHOOT DOWN MY GENDER HORMONE TREATMENT MOTION

I moved a motion in the Senate this afternoon condemning the use of untested and permanent hormonal treatment in children with reported Gender Dysphoria. Genuine transgender people do exist, but the evidence on allowing children to alter their gender permanently and irreversibly does not. This was a motion to protect children.

Children going through puberty have many feelings and experiences, but 70-90% of gender dysphoria resolves itself by puberty. Allowing doctors to permanently change children’s gender before then must be condemned.

/by

Gendering Violence does not fix the core issue

,

The Greens moved a motion in the Senate today about domestic violence. While we know from statistics that women suffer greatly from DV, it is not the whole story and trying to pitch this issue as one gender versus the other will not fix it.

Motion: https://parlwork.aph.gov.au/motions/5e92f027-69ca-eb11-b864-005056b55720

Transcript

Thank you, Madame acting Deputy President. One nation opposes this motion. The national crisis is the very existence of violence in our homes and communities. That is violence against men, violence against women, violence against children, the elderly and those living with disabilities. It is fact that males are less likely to be victims of assault from an intimate partner compared to women. But that’s not the whole story. When it comes to violence and assaults from other family members, these statistics show that men and women are almost equally likely to suffer. Australia loses six men per day to suicide. And more men died from suicide in 2019, than the entire Australian road toll of 2019, 2020 combined. Men are 75% more likely to commit suicide than women. These figures are a national tragedy. This motion separates out a portion of the problem without regard for the whole. To solve a problem, first requires understanding the problem and its causes, and understanding what drives the perpetrator and the victim. To separate out only a part of the problem will perpetuate the violence.

/by

Department of Health – Aged Care Senate Estimates

, ,

The Aged Care sector has been receiving a lot of attention lately. We know that while there are many aged carers that do fantastic jobs, the sector has been riddled by bad funding models, problems and blame-gaming between governments for a long time.

I asked the Department of Health, who takes care of this at a federal level, about fixing it at Senate Estimates.

Transcript

[Chair] Thank you. Senator Roberts.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you Chair, thank you for being here today. My questions are going to be fairly broad because I’m interested, it’s early days yet since the implementation, since the findings of the Royal Commission. I’m interested in principles that are guiding you and wherever you can, provide specifics, that’d be appreciated. I’m particularly interested in the impact on people in aged care facility who are receiving aged care and also on the budget. Our first question is what is being done to improve the Aged Care Funding Model and to close gaps so that our respected ageing Australians can live well and have certainty that they will not be disadvantaged?

So, Senator part of the, one of the recommendations from the Royal Commission and one that we’ve accepted and incorporated into the budget is the implementation of a new funding model for the Aged Care sector that’s called the AN-ACC System that will replace the current ACFI Funding System that is broadly regarded as no longer fit for purpose. And that new funding model will commence on the 1st of October next year.

[Malcolm Roberts] What is the basic principle behind the new funding model or driving it?

So, the basic principles of that is that it is a model that assesses need for the residents. Mrs. Strapp might be able to give you some more detail and specifics of that, but it was designed through the University of Wollongong through a contract that we put out there, and it is based on the assessed needs of residents. Mrs. Strapp might be able to give you some more specific details.

That’s right, and I’ll invite Mr. Murray to add anything that I’ve missed, but the AN-ACC was developed by the University of Wollongong over a number of years. And the government has put funding towards to it prior to this government to test the model and to develop the system around it, the infrastructure around it. And we’ve started, we’ve commenced shadow assessments. So, if the model replaces the current Aged Care Funding Instrument, that’s in place at the moment which is an instrument which aged care providers assess themselves against categories. Instead of that, we’re sending independent assessors out to look at what are the actual care costs associated with an individual. And the individual is assessed against a number of categories and the cost are then modelled by the University of Wollongong or they’ve tested what are the actual costs associated with care for someone in a residential aged care facility. And it’s supposed to, I guess, reflect what the actual costs are. I don’t know if Mr. Murray, if you want to add anything?

[Malcolm Roberts] So, then the Minister was accurate in saying that, and I wasn’t implying that he was being inaccurate, but implying that it’s based on needs of individual people receiving care rather than broad categories of aged care facilities?

Yeah, yes.

So, to a couple of changes. So, the current ACFI System is assessed by providers themselves so it’s a self assessment process. The new model will have independent assessors that conduct that work on behalf of the government of the residents in residential aged care against, I think it’s 13 categories, is that correct? That’s correct. And the costing of the delivery of those services will be assessed through a process that we’ve spoken to the Committee earlier in the day about. So, we will be establishing an independent hospitals and aged care pricing authority, so, we’re modifying the existing independent hospitals and pricing authority to include aged care skills and capacity to undertake an independent process of actually costing the delivery of service. And then those costs will be recommended back to government to be applied into the new funding model. So, it will be based on an assessment of cost of delivery of services with, of course, some indexes applied to those things to consider, for example, remoteness or special circumstances where we might be delivering services to the homeless, for example, who are recognised as having a higher cost of care or indigenous people in those remote indigenous communities. So, there’ll be a loading that’s applied to those base amounts in a very similar way that we do with the broader health system recommended by the new agency to apply to the AN-ACC funding system.

[Malcolm Roberts] So, that implies you’re seeking better care. Will that cost more? And I’m assuming it will, so if any additional costs, will that be met by efficiencies in this service, it will be better, or at higher costs? So, what’s the impact on the budgets?

So, the whole reform is designed about providing better care, respect, and dignity and high quality care is the whole purpose of the entire reform process that we’ve designed coming out of the Royal Commission. Another part of the AN-ACC model is a staffing matrix which applies staffing levels to the various forms of care within a facility, and we’re mandating as a part of the reform process a minimum number of care minutes per resident as a part of the overall reform process, again, on the recommendation of the Royal Commission. So, the whole system is designed to improve the delivery of care across the sector.

S[Malcolm Roberts] o, rather than standards imposed based on numbers of staff per facility or numbers of staff per resident it would be based on, standards will be based upon needs of residents.

So, one of the things about staffing is that every facility is different because it is made up of individuals with different needs and individual care requirements. And so, the staffing matrix contemplates that. It was also designed by the University of Wollongong. So, it fits within the system, designed by the same people. And so, it also contemplates that because that’s, rather than having a fixed ratio, so to speak, you have care that’s actually tailored based on the assessment of the person by the independent assessment process and then delivered to them in accordance with their care plan that’s developed as a part of their assessment process.

[Malcolm Roberts] So, looking at the NDIS, it’s highly complex, there’s limited accountability, highly variable service given to different people that doesn’t seem equitable at the moment. What’s being done to ensure that this aged care funding is not being wasted and that it’s being spent equitably and with accountability? We know the NDIS started off in a very vague, messy way. How will this start?

So, regular reporting of expenditure is also a feature of the new system, and expenditure against certain benchmarks. We’re also developing a star rating system that will assess against new quality standards which will also be reviewed and developed. So, your issue around quality standards is a part of what we’re working on as well. So, all of these elements including reporting of expenditure, which we’ve already said is a part of even the additional funding that we’re putting into the sector from the 1st of July, though the providers will be required to report against their expenditure of those funds to ensure that they’re going to the areas that we’ve indicated that they should. And that will be reported alongside the star rating system which will incorporate those spending measures as a part of the design of the new star rating system. So, quality standards, quality indicators, also. So, at this point in time we have three quality indicators that are publicly reported that will extend to five as of the 1st of July, and a part of the design of the new system will be determining how many additional quality indicators that are publicly reported and what they will be.

[Malcolm Roberts] What’s being done to ensure that aged care services are delivered to where they’re needed?

Well, at this moment, at this point in time, Senator, we allocate services based on an assessment of the particular areas, particular needs of an area. So, we continue to monitor an assessment of process. One of the things that we have said that we’ll do is that we won’t be allocating aged care beds specifically to providers post 2004. We’ll be changing that system. And we are also looking to see additional or further innovation in the way that services are delivered. The Commission report, for example, contemplates models of smaller scale providers being able to provide more bespoke type care to residents. And we see that there’s a genuine opportunity with the redesign of the system for that innovation to be particularly useful in regional Australia where there may not be the scale capacity or scale needs for residential aged care in the way that we currently know it. It may be, for example, and I canvased this previously with the [indecipherble], might be that a group of people may want to get together in a regional community, a small regional community and pool their capacity in the context of home care packages so that they can live in a small community, remain in their community, living in a service that provides quite bespoke care for their particular needs, but being maintained at a high quality. So, there will be the capacity for providers to become a registered provider under the new reforms and establish aged care capacity in some areas where it might not be existing now or increase capacity where there’s additional demand for it. And of course, all of the visibility elements that we’re building into the system will give consumers and the public more generally much better information on the quality of care that’s being delivered because that information will be demonstrated through the star rating system and the quality indicators.

[Malcolm Roberts] So, what powers do you see the government needing to ensure our ageing Australians get quality care and that issues are identified and addressed promptly? How do you ensure accountability?

Well, so there’s additional resources that will be made available to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission and new powers, based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission under a new Aged Care Act. And I’ve already indicated to you that we’ll be reviewing the aged care quality standards to incorporate into those things, recommendations that have come out of the Royal Commission report. So, we’re talking about a completely new Aged Care Act to support the sector, a review and reform of the aged care quality standards, and also additional powers for the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission and some additional oversights. So, a Council of Elders, which will provide support and advice to the government and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, a new Aged Care Quality Advisory Council, that will take place of some of the existing forums that exist, and a commissioner that will provide oversight as well for the aged care sector.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, how do you, how will you ensure that we don’t end up with the complex mess that is delivering very variable services in the NDIS at the moment? I know the NDIS basically started as a way to grab a headline for an election, but this, hopefully, will have a better foundation. How do you make sure that we don’t end up with another NDIS, which is variable care and lack of accountability and huge costs?

Well, Senator, making sure that the regulatory burden is not too high is an important fundamental, but it needs to be at an appropriate level to ensure the quality that you’ve talked about. So, the quality systems that apply to the sector are going to be extremely important in that sense as well. So, we’re having some discussions with the sector about the quality systems that apply

[Malcolm Roberts] So, you’ve involved the providers?

We will be talking to the providers. We will be talking to consumers of aged care, their representative organisations and other parties who have an interest in this. This is a very significant redesign job. We would like to have available for senior Australians, a continuum of aged care from the very simplest of services right to the highest levels of clinical need within residential aged care in a system that is as simple for people to navigate as possible. That’s not necessarily an easy thing to design because there are some things that are currently baked into the way that the system operates that are going to be a challenge to change. But as they’re the tasks that we’ve set ourselves as part of the reform process.

[Malcolm Roberts] Has the government done an analysis or review of the NDIS to understand what’s gone wrong there?

I would say that has being somewhat separate to this process, but we have, of course, just undergone a two-year Royal Commission which has had a pretty forensic look at the aged care sector. They provided us with 148 recommendations. And of course, we’ve responded to those formally, but also with the package that we’ve released in the budget.

[Malcolm Roberts] Now, I understand, I haven’t gone into this, but I understand that you’re deregulating bed licences.

That’s correct. So, that was the process whereby we wouldn’t be any further, post 2004.

[Lady] 2024.

Oh, sorry, 2024. 2024, allocating bed licences. So, it will be a matter for an approved provider to establish services as an approved provider. So, that will be a different process.

[Malcolm Roberts] How is more control and choice created by deregulating bed licences?

Well, we think the opportunity for providers to create aged care in different forms will do that. We see that this creates an opportunity for quite a deal of innovation in the way that services are delivered. We still will have in place the quality standards, the quality indicators, the oversight regulatory bodies, and of course the Act to govern that, but as the sector has clearly changed over the last 30 years we see it changing considerably into the future and giving it the flexibility and the opportunity to do that without some of the restrictions that apply at the moment we think are a good thing. So, there’s an ACAR around that’s currently being considered by the department at the moment for the allocation of 2000 beds along with about $150 million in capital support. The likelihood is that that will be the last ACAR round before the system changes in 2024, noting that the occupancy rate at the sector is somewhere about 90% at the moment. So, there is capacity in the system for growth. And one of the things in our broader package as a part of the budget announcement is $400 million to assist with capital development of new facilities particularly in regional areas where they might not be viable in a sense that you would see in that facility in metropolitan areas.

[Malcolm Roberts] Same that apply to low socioeconomic areas?

Yup.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. What are the risks of handing location and development of aged care facilities to developers? That’s what you’re doing essentially, isn’t it?

Not necessarily, Senator. To provide services they will still have to be an approved provider.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay.

I mean, there is, there is already in the market I think, an element of property development. My view is that the issues that relate to the quality of care go back to the quality indicators, the quality standards, the star rating system, and the financial reporting, all of which provide visibility into the sector, the money, the funds that have been put in, how they’re spent, ensuring that they’re appropriately spent. And those are the elements that I think go towards, and of course, the role of the Quality and Safety Commission, I think they are the things that provide the tools to ensure that people receive high quality care.

[Malcolm Roberts] You mentioned regional centres will get attention, or not be left out. Having been up in North Queensland recently, Richmond and Julia Creek, the Richmond Mayor, John Wharton, has got a wonderful scheme for developing the area agriculturally. Irrigation, he is not getting support from the state government and in terms of allocating their water licences that they need to do that, making their water allocations, but he can see that Richmond could go from being 1,000 people right now to 8,000 people if the scheme is replicated. And it looks very very positive. Julia Creek just down the road has got, just basically had a new hospital built and it’s all but shut down because they can’t get the staff and the funding for the staff. So, that means their aged care facility is also shut down. People moving to other towns for doing that. And after being in Julia Creek all their lives. So, really what I’m saying is that the regions have been neglected and we need to make sure that the regions are given everything they can to continue development. Because we’ve got people in the regions who want to develop, when they have that development, be it agriculture, farming, industry, then they can have more services come there. They have more teachers, they have more doctors, they have more nurses, they have a dentist. So, instead of seeing a collapse of the regions we can see revitalization of the region, but they need that support from federal and state governments and other policies outside aged care because the regions have been neglected.

Senator, as someone who lives in regional Australia I’m very alert to those issues. And some communities have seen a decline and the loss of service because of the requirement for scale. I think the opportunity to generate some innovation in the way the system operates does provide a pathway for some of those small communities particularly. But you’re right in the context of workforce. And one of the things that we’ve looked at in our reform process is how we work with states and territories in relation to provision of services on a shared basis. We have a lot of multi-purpose services around the country at the moment, whether or not there’s the capacity for us to generate more of those in communities where a work force would be better utilised, doing more than just trying to provide a small base hospital and a few aged care beds, if you bring those two things together you create some critical mass. A reason for people to stay in some of those critical workforces. So, we are very open to those conversations as well, so that those services that are required, will be required, can then be established or even built in some of those communities as they may develop such as Julia Creek that you’ve mentioned.

[Malcolm Roberts] Last question, Chair, what I’m getting at, Minister, is that we’ve seen Australia go from being the lowest cost electricity supplier to the highest cost, one of the highest costs. We’ve seen a reluctance of state and federal governments to provide water infrastructure. And we’ve seen state and federal governments colluding to steal farmer’s property rights. These are hindering our country and they’re hindering the regions. When the state and federal governments finally work out that we just need secure property rights, cheap electricity, instead of artificial inflation of the prices due to regulation not needed and also water infrastructure, then we’ll see booms in agriculture and manufacturing at the end.

Senator, I’m not sure that’s necessarily a question, but so much a statement, but–

[Malcolm Roberts] When is your government going to do something about them?

But, well can I say in the context of energy prices, I think that’s something that this government is quite focused on because we do recognise that it’s an important cost, an input cost to business, and it’s a–

[Malcolm Roberts] Minister Taylor has already expressed fears recently about the future, even higher electricity prices, future unreliability and future instability of electricity supply. These are the things that are affecting regional growth.

Look, I understand Senator Taylor expressing those fears and I think he’s quite focused on those in the context of water. I’m a great supporter of water development and my home state of Tasmania has seen about 15 irrigation schemes developed over time. And it has a real opportunity for the development of communities. But I think as Senator Watt quite correctly says it’s a bit off topic.

[Chair] Yeah, that’s right.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you.

/by