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

I move:

That:

(1) a joint select committee, to be known as the Joint Select Committee on Oversight of the Implementation of Recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety be established to inquire into and report upon:

(a) the Government response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, including the development of a new Act to replace the Aged Care Act 1997 and the establishment and operation of a new person-centred Aged Care system which focuses on the safety, health and wellbeing of older people; and

(b) any matter in relation to the Royal Commission's recommendations referred to the committee by a resolution of either House of the Parliament;

(2) the committee present its final report on or before the final sitting day of the 46th Parliament;

(3) the committee consist of nine members—four senators, and five members of the House of Representatives, as follows:

(a) two members of the House of the Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips;

(b) two members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips;

(c) two senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;

(d) one senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;

(e) one senator to be nominated by any minority party or independent senator; and

(f) one member of the House of Representatives nominated by any minority party or independent member;

(4) participating members may:

(a) be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Government Whip in the House of Representatives, the Opposition Whip in the House of Representatives, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator or member of the House of Representatives; and

(b) participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee;

(5) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;

(6) the members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until presentation of the committee's final report or until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier;

(7) the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy;

(8) the committee elect:

(a) a Government member as its chair; and

(b) a non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee; and

(c) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;

(9) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote;

(10) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;

(11) the committee have power to:

(a) appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to examine; and

(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;

(12) two members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;

(13) the committee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit;

(14) the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;

(15) the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public;

(16) the committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;

(17) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and

(18) a message be sent to the Senate seeking its concurrence in this resolution.

The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety final report comprises 148 recommendations, setting out the pathway for a future system of aged care with older Australians at its heart. In handing down its response to the report the government has accepted 107 of its recommendations and another 19 in principle. Ten were flagged for further consideration.

I must say that I am disappointed that the government has rejected Commissioner Pagone's recommendation to establish an independent aged-care commission. I believe that this important area of public policy deserves its own commission rather than the aged-care system remaining within the remit of the Department of Health. In handing down the 2021-22 federal budget the government has committed an additional $17.7 billion to deliver generational change to the aged-care system. My fervent hope is this will be a system that affords everyone the care, dignity and respect that they deserve.

But we all know the devil is always in the detail. The budget commits $6.5 billion to an additional 80,000 home-care packages to help older Australians to stay in their homes for longer, and that's what many tell me they want to do. The budget allows for 40,000 packages per year over the next two years, but this means little if packages aren't available because the providers and care workers aren't where they need to be to meet the demand. That's why the $10.8 million investment promised to design and plan a new support and home-care program in that 2021-22 year will be vital.

The commitment to grow the skilled, professional and compassionate aged-care workforce is laudable, but without measures to address low pay in the sector it is going to be a difficult challenge. With disability support workers earning 25 per cent more than aged-care workers, it's clear that we need to address this gap. There is an opportunity for government to actively grow this workforce by supporting the aged-care work value case presented before Fair Work Australia.

The government has also committed to invest $10 per resident per day in residential aged care for improved food quality and nutrition. However, there is no way for government or the taxpayer to ensure that this money is spent as intended. I receive many complaints from my constituents regarding the quality of food in aged care, and I'm told that at one aged-care facility at least in my electorate, even when a resident goes to hospital—in one case, for months at a time—they are still invoiced for food that is never eaten. As I said when the report came out, this additional funding cannot be a blank cheque for aged-care providers. Greater transparency means we need to ensure providers are accountable and give old people real care controls and choice.

That's why I've moved this motion calling for an establishment of a joint select committee so that we can work together in a bipartisan way with oversight of the implementation of the royal commission's recommendations. This will be a true working group focused on meeting the needs of our older Australians. The joint select committee will comprise representatives from the government, from opposition, from independents and minor parties and importantly, come from both chambers, and it would ensure the redesign of the aged-care system is afforded the highest priority.

We can make sure that the royal commission report does not suffer the same fate of tens of reports before it and sit on the shelf until the media reports on the next crisis that should have been addressed decades ago. For us to plan for, design and deliver a new aged-care system with care, dignity and respect for older Australians at its heart, we need to grasp the nettle. The time is now, and the shared responsibility is all of ours—every single one of us that sits in either one of these chambers. I've said before that we cannot wait for a new aged-care system and we need to come together to ensure that it achieves the very best outcomes for the most vulnerable Australians.

And so I urge people to put party politics aside. Let's all work together—both chambers, all sides—and put older Australians front and centre in this place.

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

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. The final report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety obviously presents a shockingly grim account of the reality for many people ageing in Australia. Indeed, you need look no further than the title of the report to see what is lacking in aged care in this country: quality and safety, though just as easily I would add care, dignity and respect. No wonder any member of the House or at least any member with compassion and understanding of good public policy would not only acknowledge Australia's aged-care crisis but also support this motion from the member for Mayo.

Care, dignity and respect for older Australians are surely not too much to ask of our rich and lucky country. But, shamefully, until now it has been too much for a series of federal governments to deliver, raising the question why. Why is it that we have failed so spectacularly to adequately support this vulnerable group—victims most often not able to advocate for themselves?

In the electorate of Clark, as across the country, the royal commission uncovered many examples of substandard care, neglect and abuse. Indeed, my community was confronted with heartbreaking stories of older Australians suffering in an aged-care system that failed dismally to protect and support them. Again, it's no wonder that, if only because of the volume and severity of these reports of elder abuse, we have lost trust in the integrity of service providers and the regulation of an industry which has been shown to prioritise revenue over care.

However, despite the commission's devastating revelations, I do believe we are now presented with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fundamentally change and improve our aged-care services. Indeed, the commission has provided a clear blueprint on how to achieve this reform, and it is imperative we make the most of the opportunity to overturn the failures much the past. But there must be adequate funding allocated to drive this change, and it must be used for this purpose and not to line the pockets of service providers. Moreover, we must ensure that there are tangible changes to the care for the elderly and their families, with adequate safeguards to protect older people and relieve their suffering.

It's way beyond time to acknowledge that older Australians deserve and need the first-class aged-care system our country is capable of delivering—one underpinned by a rights based act where funding is based on need and essential workers are supported through improved training and wages. But systemic change such as this not only needs to be delivered; it also must be seen to be delivered and delivered properly. Unfortunately, though, based on past experiences, the community has little confidence in the ability of any federal government to manage such a monumental task, and that makes this government's challenge all the more difficult. We have seen, for instance, little reform in the banking sector following the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, and we have seen appalling lack of action on the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. This time it must be different. Australians deserve to be reassured that the work of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety will not be in vain, and we as a nation need to see evidence that things are changing for the better. At the same time, it is important for the government to win back the trust of Australians and restore their faith in the government's ability to deliver and monitor aged care in this country.

To that end, I believe that confidence in the implementation of the essential aged-care service reforms will only be achieved through an independent review and analysis of progress against the commission's recommendations, and that is why I support the proposed Select Committee on Oversight of the Implementation of Recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. Care, dignity and respect—that is what all Australians must have, and we need someone other than the government to reassure us that we're on the right path to achieving it for older Australians, in particular, through the implementation of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety recommendations. That's what this motion proposes, and that's why it has my full support.

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

I rise to speak on the motion put forward by the member for Mayo for a Joint Select Committee on Oversight of the Implementation of Recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. Labor supports this proposal and, if it is successful, I need to say that we will take this very seriously.

The aged-care royal commission provides the government with a once-in-a-generation blueprint for reform, yet we've already seen the government fob off, delay, or outright reject key recommendations. Worse, we know this government avoids scrutiny just as it avoids vaccinating Australians. Think of the things we only know about because we as an opposition have used this parliament to hold this government to account: sports rorts, safer seats rorts, robodebt, and the fact that a staggering 17 of 30 former ministers in the Liberal government have been appointed to cushy government positions or get paid to lobby their mates in government. It goes from jobs for mates to endless ministerial scandals. It's been hard to stay across all the scandals that the minister for energy and emissions—sorry, emissions reduction, but he's failing on that part—has been involved in. We've had 'grassgate', 'watergate' and the forged documents affair. Remember when the government spent $7 million on COVIDSafe app ads and the app then only found 17 people, or when the Prime Minister's solution to the bushfire crisis was to shell out $190,000 of taxpayers' money to a mate to make a flashy video, or when the COVID committee asked the grossly incompetent aged-care minister how many people had died from COVID in aged-care facilities and we had that awful folder-flipping moment before he admitted that he didn't know?

In opposition, we have a fundamental responsibility to hold the government of the day to account for how it responds to key recommendations of the aged-care royal commission. The government has been tasked with development of a new Aged Care Act which aims to radically change the aged-care sector so that its only focus is the safety, health and wellbeing of older people, and the truth is that the government's initial response has huge gaps that leave our residents in aged care wanting. As someone who has spent a long time campaigning for aged care, I don't believe their response package is the generational reform that the royal commission wanted and that the system so desperately needs. It seems to me to be more untied funding for providers that lacks proper wage increases for new nurses and carers. They fobbed off, delayed or outright rejected key recommendations.

There are a couple of points on this. Firstly, nothing will change without reform to the workforce. There was nothing to improve wages for overstretched, undervalued aged-care workers. Critically, there is no plan to ensure real accountability and transparency of funding. There is nothing that seriously reforms the system to see exactly where the money goes. There is no change to auditing requirements to stop money being funnelled away to Maseratis, offshore tax havens or secret family trusts while residents suffer malnutrition, lie in soiled beds and have deep, deep wounds—some, as we've seen, with maggots in them. They're gifting $3.2 billion to providers with no strings attached to ensure that this goes to actual care and better food and not management bonuses or new office fit-outs. They've promised 80,000 home-care packages for a waitlist of 100,000 people and growing. The maths here just don't add up. Australians do want to age at home, but they need those packages to do so.

They've ignored the recommendation to require a registered nurse to be on duty 24/7 in residential care, which we know is core to improving care. Their approach shirks also the main increase to mandatory care minutes in residential aged care. Staffing levels are central to the quality of care problems in residential aged care. Given that this government has ignored so many recommendations, ignored 22 previous expert reports and neglected aged care for eight years, how can any Australian, their families or hardworking carers trust them to fix this broken system? That's why Labor is supporting this motion of the member for Mayo. We must push the government to actually respond to, and implement, the recommendations from the royal commission. Failure to do so will mean we fail another generation of our elderly who will age fearful of the treatment they will receive in their final years.

Katie Allen (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Every Australian deserves to age with dignity and respect. As we all learnt during the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, this has not always been the case. We heard of cases that shocked us all. We had to hear about them. We had to listen, and now we must act. That is why I welcome the Morrison government's response to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety which includes a five-year implementation plan underpinned by five pillars: home care to support people in their homes so that they can age at home—that is what the consumer has asked for, and that is what the government will deliver; residential aged-care services and sustainability, which will help improve service sustainability to ensure that individual care needs and preferences are met; residential aged-care quality and safety to improve access to, and quality of, residential care; workforce—growing a bigger more highly skilled caring workforce; and, of most relevance today, governance—simplifying navigation, improving governance and oversight, and introducing a new aged care act.

In this budget, the Morrison government has committed to a once-in-a-generation investment with an additional $17.7 billion in practical and targeted new funding to significantly improve the system. This includes a further 80,000 new home-care packages which will bring the total of available home-care packages to over 275,000. This is what the public wants. Further, $3.9 billion is being invested to increase the number of care minutes delivered to residents in aged-care facilities, mandated at 200 minutes per day, including 40 minutes with a registered nurse. A registered nurse will also be required to be at the residence for a minimum of 16 hours a day. We are also supporting over 33,000 new training places for personal carers and a new Indigenous workforce, along with providing retention bonuses to keep more nurses in the aged-care sector. This is incredibly important. We need to incentivise the aged-care sector. This investment in our budget brings the total investment in aged care to over $119 billion over the next four years.

The member for Mayo is calling for a joint select committee for greater oversight, but what the honourable member fails to understand is that we don't need more bureaucratic parliamentary supervision. What we need is enhanced consumer engagement. The voice of older Australians needs to be heard. That is what is clear from the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. Indeed, from the senior Australians using residential aged-care services and from providers within the aged-care sector, we heard a very loud and resounding cry for help. That is why the interim report was called Neglect. They have not been heard. They want their voices to be heard—not another committee pontificating on politics. The need is to hear the views of people, not politicians. As Winston Churchill famously said, it is the people who control the government, not the government the people.

There are three new ways that the voices of older citizens will be heard. These include, firstly, a council of elders. Following recommendations from the final report of the royal commission, a council of elders will be established this year to provide a direct voice to government from senior Australians. Secondly, a national aged-care advisory council is part of the recommendations of the final report. The advisory council would provide expert advice to government on a range of matters, including implementation of the aged-care reforms. Lastly, following the recommendations of the report, an inspector-general of aged care would be established as a new office. This oversight of the aged-care system will provide greater transparency and independence. Its functions will include identifying and investigating systemic issues in the provision or regulation of aged care, producing and publishing reports of its findings and making recommendations to government.

It's important that we seek to meet the needs of an ageing population. We know Australia is ageing, and we know the residential aged-care sector is ageing even faster as people become older and more frail in aged care. In the aged-care sector, we need to make sure the services are there to support them. Following the royal commission into aged care, senior Australians and their loved ones know that the Morrison government's response comes with an absolute commitment to restoring trust in the system and allowing Australians to age with dignity and respect.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak in support of this motion. I also want to thank the member for Mayo for raising such an important issue. It's important because, if one thing has become clear in this government's budget response to the royal commission, it is that they cannot be trusted to do the right thing for older Australians. There needs to be greater oversight of how the recommendations of the royal commission are implemented and how this additional money that's meant to be spent will be spent. We've all heard horror stories during the royal commission, and in the media at other times, about the neglect and the lack of care for older Australians, and that's not good enough.

We've heard of people dying whilst they've been on waiting lists for aged-care packages that would see them looked after in their homes. We know the government has announced around 80,000 new packages, but when you have over 100,000 people on that waiting list—and the number is growing; it's not just the 100,000—you know that it's just plugging holes while other holes gush open. The government made a big song and dance when announcing the additional funding for aged care in the budget. This is what it said it would deliver: a once-in-a-generation aged-care reform package—or something to that effect. However, as we discovered after looking more closely at the detail, the measures announced will simply not deliver for older Australians, and they won't deliver the real reform that's required to fix a system that so desperately needs it.

The royal commission found that Australia's aged-care system is understaffed and that the workforce is underpaid and undertrained—understaffed, underpaid and undertrained. It is very important to pay attention to that because, at the point where you don't have enough staff to look after people, where people are not looking at that particular vocation as their career—and the majority do—and where people are undertrained, you can see why we have these problems. We need to train more people, we need to have more staff and we need to ensure that they get paid a proper wage. It concluded that the inadequate staffing levels, the skills mix and the training were the principal causes of substandard care in our current system.

So how has the government chosen to respond to these very clear recommendations? As I said, they announced 80,000 new packages, which will not go anywhere near getting rid of the waiting list that exists. We've seen stories in electorates. In my own electorate, people have applied for high-care packages. Perhaps they've been allocated a package but there is no package. By the time it comes to fruition, months and months may have passed. As I said, right now, right here, there are 100,000 people on that waiting list—elderly Australians waiting for those home-care packages—with an average waiting time of 28 months. In some cases, people who require a package with the highest level of care can wait up to 34 months. So it's not surprising that around 30,000 people have died waiting for a package. That's atrocious. It's not on. These are people who have contributed to this nation. Because of them, we live the fruitful lives that we do today.

This government's plan will do nothing to address the fundamental problem of waiting lists, because it does nothing to address the workforce shortages. Where will the staff come from to provide home-care places in the next two years? How will nursing homes provide 200 minutes of direct care per resident per day, as promised by this government, without employing a lot more staff? To date, most of this work has been undertaken by new arrivals to Australia. With the virus that's hit us in the last 12 months, that has dried up. That work supply, which is most needed right now, has dried up because our international borders are unlikely to reopen soon. There needs to be fundamental workplace reform to address the pay and working conditions of the people who undertake this very, very important work.

A very critical point is that the government's reforms don't include any requirement for a registered nurse to be on site in nursing homes 24/7, as recommended by the royal commission. This means that elderly residents will continue to be denied round-the-clock nursing care. The government will hand out $3.2 billion, or $10 per resident per day, to support aged-care providers to deliver better care and services, including food. But some providers will choose to do the right thing; others will spend it on office equipment, for example, or refurbishing.

Russell Broadbent (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have made some points throughout the whole debate on arguments that have been presented on the aged-care issue, but there is one point I want to press upon everybody tonight. The motion before us proposes that a committee, to be known as the Joint Select Committee on Oversight of the Implementation of Recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, be established. I want to say, firstly, that we shouldn't have to establish such a committee. It's the government's responsibility to oversight the issues that come out of a royal commission. Out of that royal commission we learned a lot of things, one of which is that there wasn't enough money going into aged care. So the government have rightly put in another $10 a day for every resident. They have come up with 80,000 new places. But, to service those new places, you might need 180,000 new workers. In regional communities, which I and others in the room represent, they're more difficult to find than in urban areas. So we have a double dose of aged-care life.

I want to make this point at the outset of my remarks: going from your home or from a package into residential aged care should be another step in life, not the beginning of passing away. It should be another step in life. We should be looking at the way we care for our older Australians as a step in living and improving their place. So what did we do? I had a lady on the phone a few minutes ago who's reasonably worried. She said, 'Russell, I'm on a package, but sometimes the people that should be visiting me'—I won't name the group—'are short of staff in Gippsland, so sometimes I don't get the fullness of my package delivered to me. You've now given out 80,000 new packages. Am I going to miss out because you've given out 80,000 new packages?' I said, 'No, you're not.' But I can't really trust in that when I say, 'No, you're not,' because that means I'm believing that we will find the workforce and we will be able to deliver on behalf of the lady who's concerned today and on behalf of everybody else that takes a package.

I said at the outset that there shouldn't be a need for a joint select committee. But, if there is, I'd love to be a part of it. I'd like to be a part of monitoring what we're doing. With an $18 billion package that the government has put forward in response to this, how can we improve the way that's spent? Where's our oversight over Defence and their spending? Where's our oversight over all the areas of government outlays where I would suggest, because it's not a whole-of-government focus, there may be wastage? We can spend billions on one thing, but we have our other priorities in other areas that do not allow the focus to be on what Australia really needs to be focusing on.

Through the aged-care royal commission and the Australian people's desire for the wellbeing of older Australians, that's how we end up here, because the Australian people say: 'These are the sorts of representatives we want. Go and tell our story, and our story is on aged care.' Our broader community and our nation of small communities said, 'We don't believe that our older people are getting the care that they need, and the government needs to address it'—therefore the royal commission, and therefore your desire, Member for Mayo, to have an oversight body, virtually to continue what the royal commission's done. That's how I see it. It would be a continuing reviewing activity on how the money's being spent.

To me, the best thing that happened in this budget in regard to aged care was the regional sites that the government's going to put out, because one of my biggest complaints was that we don't have enough staff on the ground, as we used to have, so that the knowledge that they would find in the regional areas is then transferred back to government for better decisions to be made at that level. It seems common sense, but we don't have those people in the states at that level anymore. That's one positive out of this proposal. (Time expired)

Libby Coker (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the private member's motion brought forward by the member for Mayo advocating a Joint Select Committee on Oversight of the Implementation of Recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. Joint standing committees do have value and merit. I'm a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and I believe it does add real value as a mechanism for independent assessment of performance and constructive reform. However, there must be a real commitment from the government to consider and act on the recommendations brought forward by such committees. In my experience, the Morrison government shows little commitment to acting on committee recommendations that we improve systems and respond to the feedback of participants, often very vulnerable participants.

In regard to aged care, this government has shown little interest in acting on the royal commission's recommendations. A key recommendation relates to funding. While the Morrison government did announce funding in the budget, it is underdone. The Grattan Institute argues that $10 billion per year is needed to address the issues—issues of malnourishment, physical and sexual abuse, and high staff turnover. The government remains uncommitted to looking at the fundamental problems that underpin the aged-care crisis. There isn't a commitment to improving transparency and making private providers publicly state how they're using Commonwealth dollars. There isn't a commitment to improving ratios between aged-care residents and trained nursing staff. While there is an increase in the hours of care for each resident, it is notably less than what the royal commission recommended.

When it comes to wages of those who care for our elderly citizens, our most vulnerable, there is no commitment to increasing wages. From a government that says it wants to reduce the gender pay gap but does nothing for women who work in female dominated sectors, this is disgraceful. How are we meant to attract workers to the aged-care sector when the wages are so poor? The average hourly rate in Victoria, for example, is just $23. As a result, there are high turnover rates. Instead of retaining women with skills and experience, the system fails to reward them for their care and compassion for others.

We know that in Australia we have an ageing population, and with this will come significant future demand for aged care. It's estimated we will need to recruit an additional 70,000 workers by 2050. If we do not value these workers and pay them well for their skills and expertise, we will be facing a workforce crisis in the years to come. We are already facing a shortage in the aged-care workforce now, and this must change. Now, I acknowledge the government has acted on the issue of home-care packages, which is a good thing, but this commitment is 19 months late and will still leave over 20,000 older Australians on the home-care waiting list. It's vital that people who want to stay in their home can do so. In my region over 2,000 older Australians are on waiting lists, including 275 people with high-level needs. Across Victoria that figure has blown out to just under 30,000.

In closing, there is still significant work to be done in this sector to ensure people in aged care are treated with respect and dignity. While a Joint Standing Committee has merit, unless the Morrison government has the will to introduce comprehensive reform, nothing much will change. In the words of Commissioner Briggs, 'The government must step up and embrace its responsibilities'. It's time to do so now.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the call from the member for Mayo to establish the Joint Select Committee on Oversight of the Implementation of Recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. The breadth of the recommendations of the royal commission and substantial sums of money involved in implementation warrant a multipartisan committee to review its implementation. The 148 recommendations include legislative change to governance, establishment of specialised facilities and care models to improve public awareness of aged care and conditions for workers. The diversity of issues and the dire need for reform demand ongoing parliamentary scrutiny through a joint select committee, not to mention the expansion of funds to be spent in this sector. An additional $17.7 billion in the budget is allocated to aged care over the next five years, short of the $10 billion a year required to achieve all of the landmark Australian social policy reform as desired by Commissioner Briggs. But it is all the more reason to ensure the funding is spent effectively so that we get maximum value from every dollar spent.

The commissioner recommended that the government establish an Australian aged-care commission to oversee the implementation of the royal commission findings, yet the government did not accept that recommendation, instead preferring a recommendation to elevate the minister to a cabinet role and establish a council of elders and replace the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission with an independent aged-care safety and quality authority.

Given the long-term nature of the implementation of these recommendations and the absence of an independent overarching commission, it's essential that appropriate parliamentary oversight from both houses and multiple parties be established as an enduring body. The proposed joint select committee on oversight of the implementation of the recommendations absolutely is a sensible measure to deliver oversight of the implementation. The committee would have the power to establish subcommittees to inquire into the recommendations that the government committed to investigating further. There has been so much focus and attention on this royal commission, so many people have participated and the stories have been so horrific that we absolutely must make sure that the full implementation is done and that any further investigation is also done.

It includes recommendation 72, which aims to achieve equity for people with disability receiving aged care. My constituents have repeatedly raised this issue with me and were disappointed with the government's response to recommendation 72. Also, a subcommittee to further investigate the feasibility of the recommendation would very much have the support in Warringah. I commend the member for Mayo for taking the proactive steps to ensure that the oversight of this huge expansion of public spending is considered and subject to multipartisan review. It's a matter of integrity and good governance that this committee is established.

We've seen with this budget a huge increase to public debt. We know we are an ageing population and the young people of today are going to be burdened with a huge level of public debt. They have so many responsibilities and crises looming.

We must ensuring that all the public money that is being spent in this sector in implementing the recommendations of the royal commission are done soundly, with integrity, with proper accountability and with proper diligence. You can only ensure good governance if there is scrutiny and that needs to be independent and joint scrutiny. That oversight is incredibly important and will give the Australian people confidence that their money is being spent well, that their concerns are being addressed and that after two long years of this royal commission—of all these horrific stories being told—that there is actually going to be meaningful change, and that recommendations are actually implemented, not just given a passing approval. We don't want announcements. What we really need, what the Australian people are asking for, is real change to this sector and we need to ensure that happens. That is our responsibility as members of this place, to ensure that the stories we heard during the royal commission into aged care do not ever happen again.

Debate adjourned.