Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I congratulate the member for Werriwa on his very thoughtful and well-researched speech. I think he has highlighted many of the very important facts within the system at the moment, including the implications for our ageing population, the importance of independence for older people, how important it is for older people to stay at home, the need for community care and the need for health and aged care. He has highlighted how the government’s cuts have had enormous implications for older people, for workforce shortages, for pharmaceutical benefits and for people using aged-care facilities. I have not followed the member for Werriwa too often when he has made a speech in this place, but it was a great privilege to listen to his contribution. I think his constituents should be very pleased to know that their member has such an in-depth knowledge of aged care.

The Howard government’s performance on aged care has been appalling. There has been one disaster after another in a flawed system that has created problems for providers, the residents who live in aged-care facilities and their families. This government has overseen a system that has forced aged-care providers to cut costs in order to survive, which in turn has led to staff reductions and corners being cut in order to provide the service. It is a system overwhelmed by red tape and bureaucratic hurdles, and in many cases it cannot guarantee the safety of residents. It is a system that has failed to deliver security to aged-care providers, aged-care residents and the families of the people who need to use aged-care facilities.

Aged-care providers are constantly trying to re-evaluate their programs simply because of the fact of the restrictions and requirements that have been placed on them by this government, and residents are bearing the brunt. It is a system that has seen aged-care residents being given kerosene baths. It is a system that has not seen fit to properly fund aged care. I note the fact that many not-for-profit aged-care providers maintain the quality of their service only by virtue of their ability to direct money into their aged-care facilities from the charity arm of their organisation.

Having made those opening remarks, I will now go to the legislation that we are considering today. I support the legislation that we have before us in parliament. The Aged Care Amendment (Residential Care) Bill 2006 has fairly simple amendments. The first looks at bringing gifting requirements in line with those in place for people to receive social security benefits. The current system excludes a person’s assets when they are calculating the value of their assets under the aged-care assessment. This enables gifts and income streams to be treated differently, but this legislation allows them to be treated in the same way. This seems to be a fairly equitable situation. The new arrangements will apply to people who undergo an assessment for entry into permanent residential care on or after 1 January 2007, and gifts made on or after 10 May 2006 will be assessable. That is to prevent people from offloading their assets prior to that date if it looks like they will be in need of care in a residential aged-care facility. This will apply not only to a person that is entering into care but also to someone moving from one facility to another.

I think this may get around some of the confusion that sometimes exists with Centrelink. I have, as I am sure other members of this House have, been approached on many occasions by constituents who have had problems with the assessment of assets and the assessment of the payments that need to be made by people when they move into aged-care facilities. Invariably the assessments that have been made have been incorrect. While this should help simplify the system a little, unfortunately it will not do anything to simplify the system that exists within aged-care facilities, because those systems are still very bureaucratic, which makes it very hard for the staff working in those facilities under them. That is to the detriment of those residents living in the facilities. The other aspect of this legislation that is worthy of mention is as follows. Currently people can access a maximum of 63 days of respite care per financial year. Under this legislation, the secretary can increase the maximum number by a period of 21 days where there is a need to do so. The bill allows the secretary to delegate to members of aged-care assessment teams, or ACATs.

I fully support these changes. But unfortunately one of the biggest problems in relation to respite care in the Lake Macquarie and Central Coast areas of New South Wales in my Shortland electorate is that not enough beds are available. So, whilst this legislation is potentially increasing the number of days that people can spend in respite care, the beds still have to be available. Unfortunately, because this government has been asleep at the wheel those beds do not exist.

I will quickly turn to the situation of aged-care beds in the area that I represent in this parliament. The Shortland electorate has the 10th highest number of people over the age of 65 in Australia. I might add that the surrounding electorates also have a very elderly population. By the same criterion, Dobell has the 29th highest, Robertson has the fifth, Newcastle has the 16th and I think Paterson, which is very close by, has the 13th. You would think that an area that has a significant number of people that are elderly would have a significant number of aged-care beds. But unfortunately what we have is a significant bed shortage, which I do not think bodes well for the people of the area.

In the Central Coast area there is a shortage of nearly 600 beds; it is 594 beds. In the Hunter it is nearly 400 beds; it is 381. Anyone who knows that region at all would know that it is quite spread out and that if the concentration of beds is in one end of that area then the other parts of the region will be disadvantaged, and unfortunately the people of the Shortland electorate are significantly disadvantaged by the distribution of beds. Whilst I have brought this up on a number of occasions with the government in this House, they have failed to address this issue. I have even submitted submissions when the department has been looking at the allocation of beds.

I have great faith in the aged-care providers and facilities within the Shortland electorate. I work very closely with them and I know that they are all very dedicated people. I know that they have been put under enormous pressure because of the changes put in place by this government. That pressure is only exacerbated by bed shortage.

The other aspect of bed shortage that I think is worth raising in this parliament is the number of beds that exist only on paper. It will not surprise you to hear that on the Central Coast the difference between the number of beds that are operational and the number of beds that have been allocated is 560 low-care beds and 117 high-care beds, which means that the government is duping the people of the Central Coast. They are saying that there are 2,059 low-care beds and 1,660 high-care beds on the Central Coast when there are actually 566 fewer low-care beds available and 117 fewer high-care beds available. In the Hunter there is a shortfall of 534 low-care beds and 231 high-care beds. That is less than honest, and I think the government should stand condemned for it.

The fact that we have these shortages that I have highlighted in the Shortland electorate, the area I represent, shows that this government is not providing the service that the people of the Central Coast and the Hunter deserve. Added to that is the fact that there are many people waiting for placement in residential care facilities, both high and low care, and also waiting to get aged-care packages. I have tried to find out just how many people are waiting, and the government will not provide me with that information. I have been told that it is not available. I am very unhappy with that because I think it is only fair that the community be made aware of the fact that this government is not delivering to older people.

The other thing that is having an enormous impact on older people—and younger people, for that matter—in the Shortland electorate is the chronic shortage of doctors. Apart from the fact that in many areas there is one doctor to well in excess of 2,000 people, the implications of the shortage of doctors for aged-care facilities are enormous. I have had staff in my office ring around to see if a doctor is available to take a resident of a nursing home as a patient. In a number of suburbs within the electorate of Shortland doctors have closed their books. One suburb that comes to mind immediately is Belmont. I choose Belmont because it has three low-care facilities and one high-care facility. Not one doctor can or will take a new patient. Therefore, if an aged-care bed becomes available in one of those facilities, it lies vacant. You have a list of people waiting for beds and you have a vacant bed that cannot be filled because there is no doctor to look after that patient. I find that less than satisfactory and so do the people that I represent in this parliament.

The other issue I would like to touch on is the complaints mechanism. I do not think it works. I have had a number of constituents come to see me with a complaint and we have gone through the procedure, and I do not think that anyone has been happy at the end of it. Any facility that has been involved in it has felt that the system did not work for them, and the constituents have not believed that the complaint has been resolved to their satisfaction.

What I am trying to create here is a picture of a system that does not work. It is a system with a high level of accountability for those providing the care which is less than satisfactory for those people who need the care, a system that is not transparent, a system that needs to be changed, a system that this government introduced and allowed and a system that has failed the people of Australia.

The amendment moved by the shadow minister highlights an issue of concern to us on this side of the parliament—the fact that we believe that there should be spot checks and that every facility should have one spot check a year. When the member for Mackellar was the minister, she promised this parliament and the people of Australia that the Howard government would deliver on one spot check a year. That has not happened. Of the 3,000 facilities in Australia last year, only 563 received spot checks. We do not believe that that is good enough. A spot check that occurs when the facility is not expecting someone to visit is a very important part of the system. Unless the government picks up its act and starts to deliver on those spot checks, the older people and their families—the frail aged people who need to live in those facilities—will feel that the government is letting them down.

In the Senate the government rejected an amendment that would have promised annual unannounced spot checks and enshrined that in the legislation. If the government was serious about spot checks, it would have voted for that amendment. Unfortunately, it appears that it was not serious about it. It voted against it. The people of Australia need to know that this government is not serious about protecting frail aged people and ensuring the quality of care in aged-care facilities.

I call on the government to rethink its position and accept the amendment that has been moved by the shadow minister. I encourage the government to vote to improve the circumstances of older people who are dependent on care and who need to trust the government. I encourage the government to deliver to them.

See this speech in context