Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Centre Alliance is all about transparency in government and public policy and we believe that mandating the publication of staffing ratios in aged-care facilities will empower our community to make informed choices. There is a great deal of fear associated with ageing, and we need to take steps to provide families and residents with peace of mind. This bill will also create a more competitive market where residential aged-care services can more easily attract people through their greater quality of service.

Consumers are entering residential aged care much later in life and with much more complex health needs. In February this year, the royal commission into aged care heard evidence that, in 2008-2009, only 12.7 per cent of the residential aged care population were classified as high needs. Ten years later, it sits at 53 per cent. The aged-care providers must ensure that we have the right mix of appropriately trained staff to provide the necessary level of care to our vulnerable older Australians. More importantly, the government must take steps to ensure that this information is freely available to all potential consumers to consider as part of their decision-making process.

The public's increasing desire for transparency around staffing levels is understandable. Whilst acknowledging that not all aged-care providers are the same, much of the evidence provided to the royal commission into aged care is deeply troubling, and any efforts to improve accountability and transparency should be embraced by this parliament as a measured and reasonable step in the right direction. That is what my bill, the Aged Care Amendment (Staffing Ratio Disclosure) Bill, is; it's a first step in the right direction. The bill requires the quarterly disclosure of staffing ratios by each residential care facility, which would be aggregated and published by the government. In their disclosure publication, staffing ratios are broken down by staffing category—namely by registered nurses, enrolled nurses, personal care attendants, allied health staff and other staff members. If between reporting dates any of these ratios change by more than 10 per cent, the aged-care provider must also notify the government within 28 days.

I recognise that different facilities have a different composition of residents with a differing profile of needs. As such, the aged-care provider may accompany their staffing ratio disclosure with a short written explanation. This written explanation from the aged-care facility could provide the context of why they have a particular staffing ratio and therefore would provide even greater clarity to the general public. The aim of this bill is not to introduce mandatory minimum staffing ratios; it is to provide the public with another piece of information to consider when making what is often a challenging choice in distressing circumstances.

During the course of giving evidence at the royal commission in February 2019, Ms Pat Sparrow, CEO of Aged & Community Services Australia—the national peak body that provides support for the not-for-profit, church, charitable and full-purpose aged-care providers—was asked to comment on mandatory minimum staffing ratios.

While Ms Sparrow viewed mandatory minimum staffing levels as a 'blunt instrument', she said her organisation understood the desire for transparency.

Ms Sparrow went on to say that there was:

… scope for transparency so that people understand how a service is staffed and information about staffing …

And:

… staffing models within a residential aged-care facility that will inform people about the type of care that they can expect.

Even aged-care providers have acknowledged the benefit to consumers and their families.

I introduced a similar version of this bill in August 2018. That bill was referred to a committee in September last year, and the House Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport held an inquiry.

The bill went through the formal committee process. A total of 47 submissions were received from aged-care providers; professional medical bodies, including geriatric specialists; and advocates for positive ageing, alongside individuals and their families who had their own stories to share.

There was broad support for the bill, with the committee ultimately recommending that the bill be passed in its then present form. However, the committee did note that it would be beneficial for consumers to have the confidence that they were comparing apples with apples.

I have listened to the committee and adopted their recommendation to require the publication of aged-care providers' staffing figures to be categorised according to the level of funding they receive from government.

This will be done by breaking down providers according to their average Aged Care Funding Instrument category. The Aged Care Funding Instrument, or ACFI, is a tool used by the department to determine the level of resources required by each residential care service provider to meet the care needs of the aged-care recipients.

It focuses on the main areas that discriminate care needs among residents. When completed on all residents in the facility, the ACFI identifies the overall relative care needs profile and the subsequent funding.

Categorising residential aged-care providers into ACFI quartiles will better enable consumers and their families to compare facilities with similar levels of resident acuity.

I am also aware that some smaller providers, especially those in regional locations, voiced concerns about the administrative burden in the quarterly publication of ratios.

While I do not accept that the measures contained in my bill create an unreasonable burden, noting that the information is likely already collected by providers in any event, I have included a legislative review in the bill to specifically consider the administrative impacts on providers.

The review will be undertaken following 12 months of operation and will also consider whether more detailed information should also be disclosed by providers, including the difference in staffing numbers for day shifts versus night shifts and weekday versus weekend shifts.

But even without the amendments included in the bill before the House today, I want to emphasise that the committee still recommended that the bill be passed.

There are steps that this government can take now to improve the experience of residents and support aged-care workers without waiting for the final recommendations of the royal commission.

This bill is one of those steps. This bill does not introduce mandatory minimum staffing. The bill does not set a required ratio for aged-care providers. It is a measure to improve transparency and accountability in a sector that has frankly struggled to meet the expectations of vulnerable older Australians and their families.

Finally, I wish to share a quote from the submission of Ms Michelle Willems, one of several individuals who made a submission to the committee inquiry into the earlier version of the bill. Ms Willems shared her own experiences with the aged-care sector. In her words:

I have witnessed the very worst of human behaviour towards those most vulnerable. I do not believe that this parlous behaviour can all be simply attributed to staff cuts/numbers, but I do believe that the Bill is absolutely necessary and should be mandated with haste.

The bill had the support of the committee, it had the support of consumers and it had the support of the previous Minister for Ageing and Senior Australians. I'm now calling on the Morrison government to implement the measures contained in my amended bill. Thank you.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the member for Mayo's motion and reserve my right to speak.

Debate adjourned.