Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing and Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Emergency Leave) Bill 2020 amends the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 to introduce a new type of leave that permanent residential aged-care residents may utilise during situations such as natural disasters, pandemics, or other large-scale emergencies that can impact the safe provision of residential aged care and/or the safety of the resident. Once an emergency situation has been determined, as we heard from the minister, the leave would be applied to a specific area such as national, state, territory, aged-care planning district, or an individual service. This leave is for a specified time period and provides for a level of flexibility needed to allow the Commonwealth to address situations such as floods and bushfire emergencies, or future instances of isolated or regional outbreaks of COVID-19.

Under each of the above mentioned acts permanent aged-care residents are currently entitled to take 52 days of non-hospital related leave known as 'social leave' within a financial year. When an aged-care resident exceeds their annual social leave entitlement the aged-care home no longer receives the Commonwealth residential care subsidy for that person, meaning that the provider then needs to pass those costs on to the resident or their family. The emergency leave under these changes would not be limited to a number of days or a specific time frame. Indeed, the minister can deem the length of time the emergency remains in place as well as an end date.

There is no financial impact for the government by the proposed amendments. We're assured that any costs associated with updates to the aged-care payment system will be funded from existing programs. We're also assured, and it has been included in the legislation, that each declaration made by a minister, or his or her delegate, will be tabled as a disallowable instrument so there can be further oversight when this emergency leave provision is, indeed, enacted.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the minister for aged care for the sharing of information and the briefings that he has provided me regarding outbreaks of COVID-19 in residential aged-care facilities and impacted aged-care workers around the country. I've also had an ability to be briefed on this bill. Indeed, we're pleased that the government has listened to Labor about some of these issues, such as social leave. I want to thank the colleagues on this side of the House who lobbied the minister in relation to this and brought to our attention the concerns around families and loved ones who have residents who are on social leave. It is an issue that we have raised directly with the minister, because we knew that there would be an ongoing financial burden for many Australian families who are caring for their loved ones at home while they've taken them out of residential homes during this period.

We're told there are currently around 500 Australian families caring for their loved ones under these social leave arrangements. With the COVID-19 pandemic many family members have made the decision to continue caring for their loved ones in their own home and not to return to the residential aged-care facility to receive this care. This has resulted—and will result—in many older Australians passing the capped 52 day social leave arrangements that we currently have. The consumer, the resident or their family, is required to pay the government subsidy of $230 per resident per day to save their place in the residential aged-care facility that they are taking leave from so that they can go back into that facility when the pandemic is over. For many families and consumers this is a cost that they're unable to sustain. Amending these acts will ensure that the family or consumer will not take on this unnecessary financial burden if they have passed the 52 day social leave arrangements.

I'm pleased that there will be a retrospective date of 1 April 2020 for the social leave, so that all families can be covered as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. It's understood that the Commonwealth is continuing to pay the subsidy to those residents accessing social leave from 1 July 2020 as well, and we also welcome this. At this stage, we're told there will be no end date put forward for the current COVID-19 pandemic in relation to this emergency social leave. However, we'll continue to monitor this as we enter the new financial year and we see the regulation tabled by the minister.

We acknowledge the difficult and challenging times for residents, their families, and of course those who support and care for older Australians—all of the aged-care workers during this time. The COVID-19 virus has had a significant impact on residential and home care of older Australians. It has, sadly, infected residents and aged-care workers and claimed lives. Our deepest sympathies go to all the families who have lost loved ones.

Labor has tried to be very constructive and put forward our ideas during the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to aged care and when it comes to supporting older Australians and the aged-care workforce. We've made the suggestions around the social leave which this bill takes up. We asked the government to consider expanding the Community Visitors Scheme, and I'm pleased that they did that. This is contacting older Australians in facilities or at home. We asked them to consider further support for aged-care workers who were too frightened to turn up to work, in some cases because they didn't have access to PPE or proper training to do the work that was being asked of them.

The government has now introduced a retention bonus, that the minister referred to today, which we're pleased about. But, of course, we're not pleased that some aged-care workers have been excluded from this bonus and we think it needs to be equitable. We've also raised our concerns around what has happened in the Dorothy Henderson Lodge and more recently in Newmarch House. I was concerned to hear that there were more infections in Newmarch House announced today. To date, indeed, there are around 71 infections associated with this facility—37 residents, 34 staff and, sadly, we've seen some deaths.

We have called for the royal commission into aged care that is currently working in Australia to look at and do a special investigation into Newmarch House. The commissioners have written back to me to say that they will look at it—perhaps not in a special investigative way but it would be included in their final report. I would ask that the government consider a special investigation into what has occurred at Newmarch House. We need to learn from this so that we don't have another outbreak of this kind.

In conclusion, I want to say this bill will make a difference to families who have a loved one in residential aged care. We're pleased that the families will not have to bear any further financial burden as they care and support their loved ones who are unable to return to their residential aged-care home at this point in time of the pandemic. As I've said earlier, in our view there are still some things the government needs to do. We'll continue to be constructive and we'll continue to offer advice to the government on what we think it needs to do better. I am also pleased that the government has listened to some of our concerns and acted.

I also want to take this opportunity to put on record again, as I did yesterday, our thanks to all of our aged-care workers, who continue to work tirelessly throughout this COVID pandemic and worked tirelessly prior to the pandemic. We all know that, prior to this pandemic, there was a crisis in aged care so bad that the government called a royal commission. It has been in charge of aged care for seven years. It essentially called a royal commission into itself. It has not been doing a good enough job, and it has been letting the workers in aged care down. It needs to do better.

To the aged-care workers I say: we know it's been a tough and challenging time for you and for your families, but we appreciate the work that you do, we value the work that you do and we say a thankyou for all the work that you do to care for and support older Australians. I commend the bill to the House.

Fiona Martin (Reid, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand in support of the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Emergency Leave) Bill 2020. Our aged-care sector has been under unprecedented pressure over the recent months with the challenges brought on by coronavirus. Aged-care facilities are responsible for caring for some of our most vulnerable in the community. We have seen several examples of how devastating a widespread outbreak of coronavirus would be for our older Australians.

An integral part of ensuring older Australians are treated with dignity and respect in the aged-care sector is empowering them with the ability to choose their level of care as well as allowing them to make decisions about their own physical and mental health. This is particularly significant when facing an emergency such as a pandemic or the recent bushfires.

In response to feedback from residents of aged-care facilities, the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Emergency Leave) Bill 2020 allows residents in aged-care facilities to choose to take leave from their aged-care home for the period of the emergency without incurring a financial penalty and without fear of losing their placement. Currently, under the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997, government subsidy payments cease to aged-care providers if a resident takes more than 52 days of social leave in a financial year. We've seen that many families have sought to take on the care of their loved ones and remove them from aged-care facilities not only during the coronavirus pandemic but also during the bushfire season. Currently, these residents have been eroding their social leave balance, and many have exhausted the allocation of 52 days entirely. This results in residents remaining in their aged-care facility, which may not be the best choice for their mental health or mean they incur significant extra costs to retain their place. This is particularly concerning where limited visitation by family members is leading to social isolation.

The amendments in this bill introduce a new type of emergency leave for permanent aged-care residents which will be activated during pandemics, natural disasters and other large-scale emergency situations, as determined by the government. It is important to note that this leave will be available for only a limited period and in exceptional circumstances. The current emergency period will be marked from 1 April 2020 to ensure that residents who have already been impacted by the pandemic will be able to receive financial assistance. It also provides financial certainty for aged-care providers in an already challenging time for these operators. I support this bill for the steps that it takes to prioritise the social and mental wellbeing of older Australians and the recognition it gives to the importance of choice and flexibility in the aged-care sector.

In addition to efforts to provide additional leave for residents of aged-care facilities, I commend the minister for the other measures taken to facilitate social support for residents in aged-care facilities during the pandemic. This includes the development of the Aged Care Visitor Access Code to provide assurance for families of residents that the health and safety of their relatives is being prioritised while allowing visitors to continue to provide support for residents. This is especially important for the continuity of care for patients with dementia. The code provides for the screening of visitors, provides dedicated visiting spaces where possible, limits the number of visitors and limits requirements for visitors to have had flu shots.

The Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Emergency Leave) Bill 2020 is an important mechanism to provide the dignity of choice for aged-care residents during this difficult time while also prioritising the mental and social wellbeing of residents. I commend the bill to the House.

Ged Kearney (Cooper, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Skills) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor supports the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Emergency Leave) Bill 2020. It's a good idea to introduce a new type of leave that permanent residential aged-care residents can utilise during situations such as natural disasters, pandemics or other large-scale emergencies that can affect the safe provision of residential aged care and, indeed, the safety of the resident.

I don't blame many families for wanting to have their loved ones home with them during this terrible time. The shadow minister has outlined the measures that have been taken by the government and also where we think the gaps are. I thank her for outlining that. The reason many families of loved ones in aged care want to take them home during this time is that the coronavirus has highlighted the longstanding flaws in the aged-care system. When we look back on Australia's response to the pandemic, the catastrophic situations unfolding at Newmarch House and Dorothy Henderson Lodge will surely stand out as specific failures.

In the case of Newmarch, after scores of infections and tragic deaths—which we've just heard have, unfortunately, increased—the regulator finally stepped in, forcing Anglicare to appoint a government approved manager and threatening to revoke its licence. They were allowed to refuse extra staffing and oversight. Why is that so?

Why were relatives left distraught and desperate for news when none was forthcoming? It's been reported that families felt excluded from significant medical decisions and further reports of failure of care. We wouldn't know what was happening inside, as the regulator had suspended spot checks during this time. We've heard that testing of staff was delayed and that infected residents were not isolated from others. It was only when the situation became absolutely dire that the minister insisted on intervention. The shadow minister, the member for Franklin, called for the situation to be investigated by the royal commission, and it will be. That is a good thing, and I congratulate her.

The minister has said that this poor example is not indicative of the sector at large, and it's true. It seems that the Australian aged-care sector has been spared the full extent of what we've witnessed overseas, but it doesn't mean that we can take our eyes off the ball or that we don't consider the impact of what the control measures have had on the sector. I'd like to read a section of an article published by Dr Sarah Holland-Batt, a well known advocate for better aged care. She writes:

While Australian aged care has been spared the full extent of the horrors that have unfolded overseas, we cannot become complacent. Federal Aged Care Minister Richard Colbeck told Sky News this week that if the royal commission focused its attention on Newmarch House, 'they’re not doing a service to the aged-care sector because I think that across the board they’ve done quite well'. This rose-tinted assessment may prove naive.

While the sector—with the tragic exceptions of Dorothy Henderson Lodge in Sydney’s Macquarie Park and Newmarch House—appears to have controlled the spread effectively so far, we don’t yet know what the effect of time-consuming infection control measures has been on the standard of basic care. We don’t know how well providers have responded to the significant vacuum left by volunteer carers and relatives, who usually supplement their workforce by helping feed residents and undertaking other duties. We don’t know how residents’ mental health and wellbeing—already areas of grave concern—have been affected during punitive lockdowns, in which residents have been cooped up in their rooms, isolated and lonely. We don’t know whether the already alarming prevalence of physical and chemical restraint has increased further because of additional pressures on staffing.

These are all good points, and ones which we should be tuned into acutely and be keeping our eye on during this time.

We don't blame the nurses and carers, of course, in the sector. We thank them, as the shadow minister has done. Rather, we look to the abysmally slow governmental and regulatory response, because we know that workers in the sector and the sector at large have started behind the eight ball. We've had years of neglect from this government that led to a crisis in the sector, a crisis that led to a royal commission. Alarm bells should have been pealing madly when the COVID crisis began, with the possible consequences for the elderly in aged care—a cohort that we knew was most vulnerable to the virus. We should have known because the royal commission has laid bare the issues plaguing Australian aged care, including chronic understaffing. I've had personal experience of what that is like in an aged-care facility, where, as a nurse, you are trying to feed a couple of patients while keeping an eye on a wandering patient who's at risk of falling, and you're looking out for other staff members to make sure that they themselves aren't struggling with a resident's issue. It may be that you have to leap up and stop feeding your clients because you have to help elsewhere. I know what it's like to have inadequate staff training and skill mix in facilities. Aged care is not babysitting, nor is it simply someone's home—like they were coping independently in their own house. They are in a nursing home because they need nursing care, care that is often complex. They need hygiene care, sure, but there is caring for wounds and medical conditions like diabetes or cardiac problems, or, more seriously— and, sadly, more often—dementia. All of this requires skills—high-level skills—to deal with. And providers of aged-care services enter into a contract to manage all of this. They agree to manage these conditions as best they can for their clients. They have a duty of care to do so.

The royal commission has laid bare an issue of overreliance on chemical and physical restraints, often as a direct result of understaffing or lack of clinical expertise. The system is plagued by a total lack of transparency and accountability. Providers, sure, have been given extra funds—as an example, they've been given extra funds to deal with this crisis—but we don't know where those funds have gone. They're not necessarily tied to quality care and they're not necessarily tied to the provision of PPE. We don't know where those funds have gone. Have they gone to cross-subsidising other parts of the business, or have they been tucked away in the Cayman Islands? We don't know because there is no accountability and no transparency of taxpayers' funding. All of these things have led to overall neglect, and none of these issues would have gone away during the coronavirus crisis. Rather, it would all have been exacerbated under an already very tired system.

I have stood in this place before and said that the workforce is one of the most crucial parts of fixing our broken aged-care system. We've heard time and time again that staff want more time to care. It has emerged as a key issue of the aged-care royal commission, and it is something that the wonderful aged-care unions—the United Workers Union, the ANMF and HACSU—have been raising for years. Staffing numbers, skill mix and staff training, qualifications and experience are key concerns which negatively impact on the ability of staff to provide quality care for all residents. This is true in normal times, let alone during a health crisis. The impetus to get this right is huge. We must have a quality workforce that sees aged-care workers getting the respect and dignity they deserve. As I said, it is not babysitting. COVID-19 has highlighted that this is a system that lacks accountability and transparency, as I said before. All funding that goes to aged care must go with tighter regulations to ensure that providers put money to better care. It's a simple premise.

Again, I too would like to thank all the workers who have struggled though this difficult time, doing the best that they can—the carers, the nurses and everybody in aged care. Unfortunately, the government's inaction and neglect of the system over years has helped exacerbate what is a terrible situation right now. It's time that the government put real effort and real resources into fixing the aged-care crisis.

Melissa McIntosh (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd first like to thank and acknowledge the workers, carers and nurses of Newmarch House in my electorate of Lindsay for the extraordinary work they have been doing over the last few weeks, looking after the residents and the families of Newmarch. The Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Emergency Leave) Bill 2020 ensures that our older Australians have access to high-quality aged-care services whilst ensuring they are treated with respect and dignity. These are such concerning times for everyone, none more so than people in our aged-care facilities across our country. I know firsthand that, if coronavirus enters an aged-care facility, the results can be devastating. In these situations, not only is the immediate health risk a concern; so is the mental health of residents who are isolated from loved ones for extensive periods.

Even in a facility that is free from coronavirus—and, thankfully, this has been most facilities in our country—the isolation due to restricted access is difficult for both residents and their families. Window visits are no substitute for face-to-face contact and, if residents want to be able to be at home with their families for this time, they should be allowed to. This bill is essential in giving them this freedom of choice. We should be empowering residents in aged-care facilities to make their own decisions regarding their emotional wellbeing, physical health and safety. The families of residents need a greater say, and that's why this bill is so important. During emergency situations such as the coronavirus pandemic, if a resident or their family are concerned about the current health emergency in an aged-care facility or if they're worried there is an impact on the safe provision of aged care, this gives them the choice to take leave from the aged-care home and, more importantly, they can do so without incurring a financial burden and they don't have to worry about potentially losing their room.

In many parts of Australia and particularly in Lindsay, the coronavirus pandemic and also the recent bushfire season have demonstrated that there is a gap in leave entitlements of aged-care residents, particularly during emergency situations. This can be distressing for families who only want the best outcomes for the residents living in these facilities. Having spoken to many families impacted by coronavirus in Newmarch House, I know this will be a welcome step.

Under the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997, subsidy payments to aged-care providers cease if a resident takes more than 52 days of social leave in a financial year. Providers are then able to pass on the equivalent cost of the subsidy payment to residents. Introducing this bill means that the many aged-care residents who want to stay at home with their families and loved ones due to the risk of contracting coronavirus or the isolation caused by this pandemic will now have the option to do so.

In my maiden speech I spoke about the importance of taking care of our older Australians, and it's now more important than ever that we do so. Working in community housing, I saw many older people who were experiencing loneliness, which concerned me greatly. It is so important as people get older that they have a support network with their family or friends in the community and that they have that choice to be at home with their loved ones. I worry for people who in their old age don't have that, especially when they need it most. Currently for many residents the only option is to use their social leave allocation or they will have to remain in the aged-care facility. This is what we saw during the devastating bushfire crisis and what we have seen during this coronavirus pandemic. This will mean that many residents will exceed their social leave before they are ready to return to the facility. If they choose to stay with their families on leave, they will incur this further cost to keep their place at the aged-care home, placing further financial hardship on them or their families during an already difficult and stressful time. Because of this, residents may not be able to afford the additional charges or they may not be able to take leave with their families.

The government has received a large number of representations about this issue, and recently the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator the Hon. Richard Colbeck; the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner, Janet Anderson; and I held a teleconference with families of residents of Newmarch House. We spoke about many things on this teleconference, including the immediate action required within Newmarch at the time, and many families also expressed, as they have with me, the need for more chases in aged care. For residents in many situations the families' experience of not being able to protect and take care of their loved ones is frustrating and heartbreaking. The isolation, the lack of visitation and inability to stay with family for the duration of the current coronavirus pandemic has caused great anxiety for a significant number of aged-care residents and families.

Many residents and families are fearful of the risk of contracting or spreading the virus while in an aged-care home, and the amendments in this bill introduce a new emergency leave type for permanent aged-care residents. This can be activated during pandemics, natural disasters and other large-scale emergencies as determined by the government. The leave will be available for a set period and can apply nationally or to a specific area. We now have flexibility, and this will come into effect retrospectively from 1 April 2020 to ensure that residents and families who have been financially impacted during this coronavirus pandemic will be supported. The bill ensures that permanent aged-care residents and their families are supported to make decisions about personal safety in emergency situations and not suffer that unnecessary financial burden as a result. Following an emergency, residents are still able to use their social leave entitlement to maintain their normal visiting and special events routine with their family and friends, which is important for their emotional and mental health.

It has been a privilege to support the residents and families of Newmarch House and support my community through this very difficult time. I also support wholeheartedly the introduction of this very important bill.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Emergency Leave) Bill 2020, which allows a new type of leave that permanent residential aged-care residents and their families can use during situations such as natural disasters, pandemics and other large-scale emergencies. For a region that faces fire and floods as well as disease outbreaks like coronavirus, this flexibility is needed and will reduce the financial burden on people. There are around 500 Australian families currently caring for their loved ones under these so-called social leave arrangements. With the COVID-19 pandemic many family members have made the decision to continue caring for their loved ones in their own home and not to return to a residential facility. The result of this is that many Australians will pass the 52-day cap mark for social leave arrangements and will therefore be required to pay the government subsidy of around $230 a day to save their place in the residential aged-care facility that they're taking leave from. For many families this is just unsustainable. So I welcome the flexibility in the scheme that this legislation provides for and the application of it retrospectively to 1 April so that families are covered as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. I understand it will continue until July at this stage.

Whether to leave your family member in aged care at this time or remove them has been much on the mind of families of aged-care residents. I particularly feel the anguish of the decision because in our family we've had to make the decision for my 90-year-old father to go into aged care in recent weeks. These are really hard decisions for families to make, especially at this time.

The challenge for aged-care providers and the concern for family members who have someone in aged care is even higher in the electorate of Macquarie, with many connections to the Newmarch facility, which is just near us. Newmarch is sadly the Ruby Princess of the western suburbs. It lies just outside my electorate, but some of its residents come from my electorate, including one of those who's died. What's more, a number of my constituents have someone they love, a family member or a friend, living in Newmarch. Sadly, 16 people have been reported by the New South Wales government as dying as a result of COVID-19 while in Newmarch, while another two have died after being cleared of COVID. It's impossible to imagine the sadness of those families, and it's distressing to hear their experiences of not being able to be by the side of the person they loved as they died. This is a terrible toll, and it has created enormous anxiety and distress for the families of the remaining residents, particularly for those with positive tests. We learn today that now 34 staff have tested positive and 37 residents have positive tests. For these people and their families it's a waiting game that you would not wish on anybody.

Liz Lane from Bligh Park has been a frequent visitor in the past to Newmarch, where her mother, Rose, lives. She has described to me the early days of the crisis, with phones ringing out and very little communication coming from the facility to family members. They're very concerned, especially in those early days, about how their loved ones were facing the isolation and the lockdown. That concern continues. We understand that there are staffing issues when people test positive, with so many requiring isolation, but families have found it incredibly stressful. They tell me they absolutely appreciate the work that staff are doing. They know they're facing exceptional circumstances, but at the same time they're worrying about the virus and the care that their family member is receiving. Many of these people are used to being in Newmarch regularly to assist the person that they love. As Liz says, the first visit with her mother with a big wire fence between them, each in a mask, probably didn't provide very much comfort to her mum, who absolutely hated wearing the mask.

I do want to thank the minister for listening to the experiences of people like Liz and for listening to my concerns and providing information to me. But it is impossible not to have questions. How did this situation get so out of control and take so long to bring under control? That's assuming that the worst is over. Labor certainly welcomes action at Newmarch House to improve the standard of care for residents, but we're deeply concerned at how long it has taken for this to happen. The first case of COVID-19 at Newmarch House was reported on 11 April. The government must explain why it took so long to act while so many people at Newmarch have been infected and, as we learned today, continue to be infected and have tragically died.

This is exactly why a full investigation into what's gone wrong is so important. Labor is very pleased to see that the aged care royal commission is looking into what's happened at Newmarch House, which is what we called for. Only the Royal commission has the necessary investigative powers to get to the bottom of what's happened with ongoing reports of infection control failures. The residents of Newmarch House, their families, their loved ones and the staff who work there and continue to work there deserve answers.

All Australians must be assured that in Australia we have the very best infection control practices in aged care. Every aged-care facility right now is hypervigilant, but unless we really understand what's led to the problems at Newmarch, there's always a danger that the same mistakes are made.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that there is just a limited opportunity to speak on this bill, the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Emergency Leave) Bill 2020, so I will try to keep my comments very brief. I am delighted to speak in support of this amendment. As my colleague the member for Franklin made very clear, it is an important amendment that will assist families, particularly those who have taken people who are otherwise permanent residents in aged-care facilities home. I've got many such examples in my electorate of Newcastle. So these are really sensible amendments that will take that terrible financial burden off families who have made those difficult decisions about how best to care for their loved ones during this COVID-19 pandemic. This legislation will provide for a level of flexibility not just for COVID-19 but also for any future emergencies that we might face, such as floods and bushfires and natural disasters, which unfortunately we're all too familiar with in Australia.

Without going into the detail of this bill, the current legislation only allows permanent aged-care residents to have up to 52 days of non-hospital-related leave, otherwise known as social leave, in any financial year. When that limit is exceeded, the cost is borne by the resident or their family members. This was the situation that faced my constituent Jennifer, who contacted me to say that she had made the decision to take her 92-year-old mother out of residential aged care and care for her at home throughout the pandemic. She did not want to take her back to the aged-care facility whilst the virus was active. She was just about to hit that 52-day limit, the social leave cap, when she reached out to me. She and her family were just simply not in a position to be able to pay $230 a day to hold a place in that aged-care facility. This was the most diabolical and wicked of problems for any family to solve.

I reached out to the minister's office. I've had fabulous assistance from the shadow minister. I really thank the member for Franklin for her negotiations on this issue. This amendment is going to release the massive pressure that's on Jennifer's family and many others in our community right now. When I did flag with Jennifer that I thought there was some good news coming—that we were very hopeful following our discussions with government—she broke down into tears and couldn't have been more thankful. It's moments like that when you realise the profound impact that lawmaking in this place has for people and their lives. So we're delighted to be able to support this measure.

Aged-care providers have been impacted by and are under incredible pressure from the COVID-19 pandemic in the same way as families have been. I entirely associate myself with our shadow minister and other Labor members when speaking to this bill and expressing their heartfelt thanks and appreciation of the extraordinary work done under incredible pressure by aged-care staff and management. Indeed, I want to give a special shout-out to Viv Allanson, the CEO of Maroba care in my electorate, who since day one has played a very strong leadership role in our community. She was incredibly diligent about infection control. She was watching very closely what was happening not too far away in other aged-care facilities and, indeed, what was happening in the US. She was very determined, as I'm sure most of our aged-care providers were, not to allow that to happen in the aged-care facility she was managing.

These are difficult conversations to have with family members. There was some pressure at different times. Families really want to be able to have a lot more access. The Prime Minister made some remarks that left some of my providers feeling very unsupported for a period of time. I needed to reassure them that this wasn't by any means a quick opening up of all nursing home doors. I am very pleased to report that, despite that initial concern about the comments of the Prime Minister and the Chief Medical Officer, providers I've talked to are very happy that the industry and government have now arrived at an agreed code, which balances the rights of families to see their loved ones with the critical need to protect residents from the virus. There's also great appreciation that an opportunity for review has been built into the code.

The costs of compliance and managing visits are incredibly high, so whilst our aged-care facilities are thankful and appreciative of the $900-per-bed payment from the government, this will not—and we should not pretend otherwise—cover the incredible financial burden caused by COVID-19 for them. I join with the member for Franklin and other members on this side of the House in calling for expanding the eligibility for the aged-care retention bonus to all workers in aged care. There are people doing the cleaning and laundry work in nursing homes who are currently not eligible for that bonus, and that is not fair. It needs to be corrected.

Finally, on a very lovely note, I was able to establish a penpal club in my electorate that connected residents of aged-care facilities who were feeling isolated with young students who were home schooling. They reported to me great excitement about crossing generational modes of correspondence. Young students are using the very old-fashioned method of writing letters instead of emailing one another. That has provided joy to both young Novocastrians and our elders in aged care. I'm really delighted to have played a small role in facilitating that joy.

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

I too rise to speak in support of the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Emergency Leave) Bill 2020. I do so with great pleasure. This is an important amendment. Mother's Day last Sunday must have been particularly hard for thousands of mothers in aged-care facilities. For many it would have meant for the first time seeing their children and grandchildren through a pane of glass or a cold, flat screen on this special day—horrible, but necessary. It's likely that these restrictions have prevented widespread outbreaks in our aged-care facilities to date, but indeed the cruellest irony of this pandemic is that the best way to love someone is to keep away from them. The heartbreak for families is profound.

The coronavirus pandemic is testing the aged-care sector in ways it could never have imagined. Facilities have plans in place for infectious diseases, such as influenza or a gastro outbreak. Coronavirus makes these pale in comparison. These times call for exceptional courage on all fronts. Older Australians living in aged-care facilities, having seen a lifetime of ups and downs, are now the ones most vulnerable to this pandemic. The aged-care workforce, working part time or casually—and many are from overseas—are doing hard work with dedication and care. Like so many other members of this place, I add my words of thanks and gratitude to them.

The aged-care facility management are making tough calls, balancing the respect and dignity of their residents with the care and protection of them and their staff. I know how this feels. Prior to coming to this place I was on the board of such an aged-care facility—St Catherine's aged care in Wangaratta—and I know that balancing the needs of residents, the needs of families and the compelling needs for protection is very difficult indeed.

Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.