Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Aged Care Amendment (Residential Care) Bill 2006. This bill is not particularly controversial as far as it goes. It makes a couple of important amendments to the Aged Care Act 1997 and Labor supports these amendments. Schedule 1 of the bill seeks to harmonise aged-care and pensions assets tests in relation to income streams and gifted assets under the assets test for entry into permanent residential aged care. This follows a recommendation made by Warren Hogan in his report Review of pricing arrangements in residential aged care, handed down in 2004. Two years later it is good to see the government finally responding.

Under current arrangements and under the new arrangements, people moving into residential care are offered assets tests to determine if the government will contribute to the cost of accommodation through a concessional supplement and help the person work out how much accommodation bond or accommodation charge they might be able to pay. These assets tests are undertaken by Centrelink, and by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs for veterans, and are necessary when a person moves into a facility or changes to another facility. So far as that goes, the assets tests remain as they are under the new amendment. But the change occurs when assets have been given away immediately prior to the assets test by a person needing residential care.

Under the old arrangements, assets that have been given away by a person needing residential care are not counted in the aged-care assets test. They are, however, included in the pension assets test that may reduce the amount of pension a person receives. So, under the old system, there is a difference between the way gifted assets are treated in the assets test for residential care and that for pensions. This bill brings that back into line and counts assets that are given away in the assets test for residential care.

Schedule 2 amends the Aged Care Act 1997 to allow the departmental secretary to delegate to specific members of the aged-care assessment teams the power under the Residential Care Subsidy Principles 1997 to increase the maximum number of days allowed for a care recipient to receive residential respite care. Under the old act, a person can access a maximum of 63 days respite care per financial year. However, the secretary or a delegate of the secretary can increase that amount by a period of 21 days where there is a need to do so. This proposed amendment makes the system simpler and quicker and reduces red tape. It is very welcome. The proposed amendment allows the secretary to delegate to members of the aged-care assessment teams the power to formally approve these respite care extensions—again, a small but important amendment that will make the process for people needing extra respite care easier and quicker and will reduce the amount of red tape involved. These amendments are widely supported by stakeholders in the aged-care sector, and they are supported by Labor.

It is regrettable, though, that the government missed an opportunity to do something more than tinker at the edges with technical amendments. Labor moved an amendment in the Senate, which was voted down, which would have ensured that each residential care facility would receive at least one unannounced spot check each year. All we were seeking to do was to put into legislation a commitment that this government has already made more than once and failed to meet. The member for O’Connor made much of Labor’s call for this amendment, but all we are doing here is calling on the government to do formally what it has said it will do on more than one occasion and absolutely failed to do.

After the infamous kerosene bath incidents in aged-care facilities in 2000, the then minister, the member for Mackellar, announced that every aged-care facility would receive at least one spot check each year. There are around 3,000 facilities in Australia, and last year there were a grand total of 563 spot checks made. That is significantly less than 20 per cent. The government commitment back in 2000 was that every aged-care facility—that is 100 per cent—would receive at least one spot check each year. The achievement last year was 20 per cent, much less than the 100 per cent commitment. After six years, this government has managed less than 20 per cent of what it said it would do in a year. That is simply not good enough—not good enough by the government’s own standards, Member for O’Connor.

In fact, between 2000, when the announcement was made, and last year there have only been 2,167 spot checks made in total. That means that in the six years since this commitment was made the government has not even achieved one spot check per facility—not even one per facility in six years—let alone the one per year committed to in 2000. It is disgraceful that the government continues to treat the situation lightly by voting down Labor’s amendment.

After the sexual assault allegations made earlier this year, the current Minister for Ageing, Senator Santoro, again reiterated that each facility would receive one spot check a year. The government reannounced its commitment. The fact that the minister voted against imposing this as a legislative requirement shows what his commitment to the issue really is. There are currently around 170,000 places in aged-care facilities, and this is expected to more than double over the next 25 years.

We have to have the right systems of checks and balances in place to ensure that this growing sector treats its residents with dignity and compassion. The people in residential aged care are the people who helped build our nation, and now in their retirement and their need we need to be there for them as a community and as a country. Contrary to the comments made by the member for O’Connor, this is not an attack on every single aged-care facility, but it is a recognition that, in the range of aged-care facilities around this country, there are some that are not doing the right thing—there are some whose standards are below par—and we as this parliament need to ensure that those are brought to account. It is a perfectly reasonable expectation that spot checks take place, particularly when the government has committed to it.

Interestingly enough, it is something that a number of my constituents have asked for in the last couple of months. In fact, it is quite a common request. One hears stories of facilities that sometimes do not have a registered nurse on duty and where sometimes patients are taken to hospital when, if a registered nurse were present, they could easily have been treated locally. The people who helped build our nation deserve our support in this, and they deserve at least that the government do what it has been saying it would do for the last six years.

We all know that ours is an ageing population. Since the 1970s the number of people in Australia aged over 65 has increased by a massive 143 per cent. Improved medical techniques have increased life expectancy dramatically. These, in conjunction with decreasing birth rates, have meant that the percentage of people aged 65 and over as a proportion of our total population has increased dramatically and will only continue to grow. We as a nation need to address this. If the government can only look out for around 20 per cent of residents in aged-care facilities now, in spite of their six-year commitment to do better, how can they possibly expect to cope when there is a doubling of the number of residents?

When it comes to the provision of aged-care beds, it is not just in its failure to meet its own target of spot checks that the government is falling behind; it is also in the number of beds available. When Labor left government in 1996 there were 92 residential aged-care beds for every 1,000 people aged 70 and over. In spite of the fact that we have known about the ageing of the population for at least the 10 years of this government and before, today that figure has fallen to 85.3. So, in spite of knowing about the ageing of the population, this government has allowed the servicing of our aged population to decrease from 92 residential aged-care beds per thousand people to 85.3 per thousand people. There are fewer beds available now than are necessary, and that situation is worsening week by week. In the five years from 2000 to 2005, the amount of time people spent waiting for aged-care beds doubled. In the last five years of this government’s term, the amount of time people have spent waiting for aged-care beds has doubled, in spite of the clear knowledge that the ageing of the population is one of the most significant problems this country faces.

Labor has a range of policies developed for the aged-care sector. In September this year Labor’s shadow minister for ageing, disabilities and carers, Senator Jan McLucas, released Labor’s goals for an ageing Australia—activity, quality and security. It includes a wide range of policy proposals addressing a significant number of issues in ageing and was developed after an exhaustive consultation period with stakeholders and other interested people in the community. It is a plan about going forward and tackling the issues that exist now and those that have been identified as being significant in the years ahead. It is not about tinkering at the edges. It is not about making commitments and then making them again and then not meeting them; it is about actually doing something—not talking about it for 10 years. Labor has a plan. We have a track record. I urge the community to examine both track records before the next election and decide for themselves which one stands up and is worthy of support.

See this speech in context