The ASU made a submission to a Department of Social Services (DSS) Discussion Paper on aged care services. The DSS Paper, titled Key Directions for the Commonwealth Home Support Programme, was released for purposes of obtaining feedback on proposals for significant changes to the way aged care services are provided. The ASU expressed the view that the Key Directions document does not adequately take into account, the importance of secure ongoing funding for service providers, the significant role of local government in the provision of services, the importance of stability of employment or the valuing of nurturing the existing networks.
The Australian Services Union (ASU) is of the view that the Key Directions document does not adequately take into account, the importance of secure ongoing funding for service providers, the significant role of local government in the provision of services, the importance of stability of employment or the valuing of nurturing the existing networks.
In our submission, we expressed concerns regarding the impact of contestable markets and individualised funding on service quality, employment and local communities. Because of the nature of the community services area, an increased role of market forces can have a broad detrimental effect on the robust nature of community organisations, existing networks and capacity building.
It is also important to note that the number of volunteer workers will be affected by contestable markets as well as the increased requirement for people to work longer before being eligible for the pension. Experience drawn from other community services areas (such as child care services) would suggest the need for a more cautious approach in rolling out contestable markets into the aged care arena.
The ASU has prepared some summary notes regarding our submission, but you can also read the submission in full here:
- Submission to the Australian Government Dept of Social Services, Key Directions for the Commonwealth Home Support Programme Discussion Paper, 30 June 2014
Summary notes re ASU submission to DSS Discussion Paper - Key Directions for the Commonwealth Home Support Programme
Whilst interested organisations were asked to provide answers to a narrow range of questions in a set format, the Union took the opportunity to raise a number of broader critical issues. These included the need for stability of employment for workers in the sector, recognition of the important role of local government in aged care service provision as well as the importance of nurturing existing networks.
The DSS document refers to some admirable goals, for example the Vision statement says that the Government's programme will "help its clients stay living in their own homes for as long as they can and wish to do so." The document also talks about the need to "increase consumer choice", "ensure client outcomes" and "maximise value for money". On the surface, it appears to present a number of positive intentions, but the document reveals that the expected means of achieving the goals will be through "greater contestability'' (page 8) - and that is where the underlying agenda becomes clearer! We have heard it all before and witnessed the calamitous impact of increase contestability in other service areas.
The DSS Discussion Paper included plans to increase the role of contestable markets; a plan which would create uncertainty for many existing valued service providers. The report also revealed that Block funding arrangements for service providers will become limited as a system of individualised client funding is introduced. These strategies are likely to increase the role of profit-making organisations in service provision, lead to the loss of local jobs as well as reduced co-operation and support within networks as a result of increased competition.
Traditionally, work in the community services area is predominantly done by female workers, many of whom are employed on a part-time basis. These women often have a range of family and caring commitments outside their paid employment. They require adequate pay, flexibility to manage commitments, as well as certainty of employment. All of these requirements are at risk within competitive market scenarios as employers look to their workforce arrangements to drive down costs. In some service areas, increased competition has resulted in increased casualisation of the workforce. However, these strategies are counterproductive in the long term, leading to a high turnover of staff which will increase costs and result in the loss of expertise and capacity building in the sector – ultimately affecting service quality.
In summary, whilst some of the goals of the proposed changes may be commendable, these goals are not likely to be achieved effectively because of the proposed means of achieving these goals. So, whilst community expectations may be increased by the stated intentions, service quality is more likely to lead to disappointment as a result of the ideologically based drive to increase the role of the market in the provision of services.