Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I echo the words of the shadow minister in passing on my condolences and thoughts in respect of all of those who have passed away in this terrible pandemic. Can I also pass on my thoughts to those who continue to fight for their lives—in particular, those individuals and families in Fraser, an electorate so hard hit by this pandemic.

I also pay tribute to the many workers in the aged-care sector. It's a workforce that is working under very insecure conditions, often for low pay. It is a largely female workforce that often works in very difficult circumstances at the best of times, but in this pandemic they have worked in extremely difficult circumstances and, it's fair to say, have done an amazing job.

I acknowledge the shadow minister for bringing on this very important motion. In Victoria we are seeing a fall in community transmission, but, day by day, we continue to see deaths announced in the aged-care sector. It is right that we put a microscope on the performance of the government in this sector. In my electorate, there have been a number of facilities which have been a reflection of the tragedy of the aged-care sector in this pandemic. There are 159 cases among residents and workers at Estia aged care in Ardeer, 119 cases in the Cumberland Manor aged-care facility, and, of course, there is the Kalyna Care aged-care facility that I referred to in my question in question time today.

The main reason why I critique the government's performance is not that we ever asked for 100 per cent guarantees—that would not have been reasonable—but that they had forewarning of what could have been done in this sector, and, having been given that forewarning, they have not met reasonable community standards. What was the forewarning? They had the Dorothy Henderson Lodge case handed to them in April, which laid out not only the threats but also a number of actions that could have been taken. We had Newmarch House, which raised the potential for this to become a major issue were another wave to occur. And of course the royal commission has been providing ongoing commentary in this area. So there was every warning given to this government, but, sadly, there was not enough action.

What options were available? There were so many short-term actions that could have been taken that would have been effective—workforce options like paid pandemic leave; that came far too late, despite the unions, the opposition and so many other stakeholders calling for it. So much more should have been done in relation to PPE. On surge capacity, we have seen instances where AUSMAT and interstate nurses and staff have come into facilities that are in trouble—even ADF nurses and staff. We've seen that that has been able to help where facilities have run out of staff or have not been able to cope with difficult situations. These exceptions should have been the rule, but too often they either didn't arrive on time or didn't arrive at all.

I want to look at some of the defences the government is putting up to try and deflect attention from its performance. The Prime Minister's answer in question time today, frankly, was surreal at times. He said that this is only an issue in Victoria because there is community transmission, that it's not an issue in other states. But it is ridiculous to suggest that you have an aged-care pandemic plan that only works in states where there is no COVID. That is bizarre. We are not asking for absolute, 100 per cent protection. What we are saying is that, if a COVID protection plan for the aged-care sector doesn't work in situations where there is COVID, it is not worth calling it a plan. Quite clearly what we are seeing in Victoria at the moment is that the COVID plan is not providing timely support to aged-care facilities, and there are far too many preventable deaths.

We also see the use of bizarre language. Harry Truman said, 'The buck stops here.' But the Prime Minister always caveats his acceptance of responsibility by saying, 'The responsibility stops with me, but, of course, it's not binary responsibility.' He doesn't accept the buck; he accepts 50c. That's not good enough. Quite rightly, residents of Victoria are bemused at this notion that the Prime Minister accepts responsibility on the one hand but tries to deflect it to others on the other.

Finally is this notion that the Prime Minister and others so often put forward: that some of the difficult situations that arose in Victoria could not have been foreseen—the workforce issues, the PPE need and so on. That goes back to the first point that I made: of course they were foreseeable, because we had Dorothy Henderson Lodge, Newmarch House and the royal commission's findings. This is a situation where the government was faced with a very foreseeable danger and didn't take timely action. It is the preventable deaths and difficulty that arose that mean its response wasn't good enough. (Time expired)

See this speech in context