Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

There are a number of issues that I would like to raise in this second reading debate on the Aged Care Amendment (Security and Protection) Bill 2007. I will obviously support the legislation. The changes that were proposed last year are very worthy and build on what I see as a good attempt by the government to come to grips with aged-care issues. I know we can always do better, and that is the dilemma that governments have and the demand that people make, but I believe that in my time in this place the various ministers—Ministers Andrews through Julie Bishop and now Santoro—have attempted in the main to address the issues that are out there. This piece of legislation, particularly in securing the safety of our older Australians, is to be commended.

As members of parliament we have probably all seen circumstances in aged-care homes where the reporting of various incidents and complaints from residents or relatives of residents have left a little bit to be desired. Many people, particularly the relatives of residents, even though there has been a process in place—and I have been involved in the process a number of times and I thank the people in the department who have been involved in the process—from time to time feel as though the process has not served them terribly well. In some cases that may well be because of a fear of reporting alleged incidents through the complaints arrangements, or it may well be that the relatives feel there might be some form of retribution.

Some people feel from time to time that, when an inspection of an aged-care facility is asked for because people feel there might be some problems of cleanliness or whatever, there are warning signals sent out and then the aged-care facility is in tiptop shape when the inspection comes along. I am not saying that happens terribly often, but I think this legislation will assist to overcome some of those issues—hopefully in a much more transparent arrangement—so that residents who have genuine concerns about their future have a process in place, because it is a very trying time for many people to see their parents becoming older and having to be placed in an aged-care residence, particularly in high care. The Aged Care Commissioner that is mentioned in this bill and the various complaints arrangements and how they will be carried out I think are to be commended.

There are a number of other aged-care issues that I would like to raise while I have the opportunity—and I am pleased to see that the Assistant Minister for Health and Ageing is now in the chamber, because I know he has had an interest in the particular issue that I am about to raise: young people in nursing homes. I know the Australian government and the state governments have been engaged in a process looking at this issue concerning young people who have had accidents and are disabled to a certain extent being placed, in the main, in old people’s homes. I think we all recognise that is not appropriate accommodation. That is not a criticism of aged-care facilities. It is just that they are not the appropriate form of accommodation for young people who are likely to live for many decades. Obviously, there are a whole range of other issues that revolve around the needs of those young people in terms of their social outlets as well as their physical and care needs. I would encourage the government, particularly the new minister, to proceed as fast as they possibly can because there are 6,000 people out there who need some form of care and are classified as young people in nursing homes.

I know there is the normal banter between the states and Commonwealth as to what can be done over the funding arrangements, the red tape and the bureaucracy that has been put in place, but I think we have got to look a little bit past that and try to engage with these young people who really do require accommodation better than what we have been providing for them and their lifetime needs. I do not issue any criticism of anybody in relation to this. I think we are all aware of it and governments are attempting to come to grips with it. But I would urge some degree of pace and some degree of additional funding as well, because the funding packages that have been put out in recent years for discussion at the state and Commonwealth level have clearly been inadequate. They are a start to fixing the problem, but we will require much more, bearing in mind that, if specialist facilities are put in place for young people who are currently housed in nursing homes, that actually frees up a bed for an older person who may be waiting for accommodation in an aged-care facility.

Another of the issues that I want to raise concerns our smaller communities, and I know that the assistant minister, who is in the chamber, and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who is at the table, are well aware of this issue—and I do not want to be too complimentary of the government as I might be struck down with some disorder! I refer to the multipurpose service arrangements issue. I have raised it before but I think it is worth raising it again, because consideration of the multipurpose service arrangements that have been put in place is an ongoing process. I again congratulate a former member for New England, Ian Sinclair, who did a lot of work on the process at the time to come up with a resolution to the problem of old people who were not sick being housed in small country hospitals. Obviously, there was a funding dilemma: if they were in a hospital the state should pay but if they were not sick they really should not have been in a hospital.

The way of overcoming that problem—through the Sinclair report, and an aged-care specialist in my region, Paul Cook, was involved in that particular report as well and I congratulate him and the others involved—was in fact to put in place what are called multipurpose services, or MPS. I think that is a dreadful name and that the services should be renamed, because I do not think it actually describes what they do. For those who do not know, the system is a combination of health services as we know them—hospital services—and aged-care services in smaller communities. The health side of the MPS is funded by the states, as are the hospitals, and the aged-care arrangements—the actual beds—are funded by the Commonwealth. This is a really good example of how you can actually achieve a very good outcome for smaller communities and do it so that there is some degree of cost-effectiveness: if the Commonwealth and the states concentrate their minds on the end result. I refer back to the young people in nursing homes issue; both the state and Commonwealth governments should be congratulated on that particular issue.

I will always remember a lady from a little place called Emmaville. Emmaville is not the biggest town in my electorate; I think there are only five, six or seven hundred people there, although it is within a surrounding rural area. Their hospital, which was called the Vegetable Creek hospital, was going to be closed down by the state government some years back because it was an old facility. Members of that community, particularly some ladies including one called Ellie Seagrave, did not want their hospital closed down because in a sense it was their health provider, their hospital, and also because many of the older people in the hospital were not sick but were using the hospital as an aged-care facility. Ellie Seagrave—or She Who Must Be Obeyed, as many people in the area referred to her—took on the state government at the time. It was at the particular time that the Sinclair report was being discussed and, to cut a long story short, Emmaville became one of the first MPSs. It has been an extraordinary success.

I went back to Emmaville about two years ago, I had a little meeting there and Ellie Seagrave said to me: ‘We need more beds. You’re the local member—go and get some more beds’—which one had to comply with of course.

See this speech in context