Santo Santoro (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Hansard source

Senator McLucas was right when she said that there have been cases where people have observed some heinous events in terms of abuse within aged care facilities and that those cases have caused a lot of public concern over recent months. She is right when she said that examples have recently been reported in the media. In fact, I was the person who made public one such example. I made it very public in a major speech I made to the Aged Care Queensland conference. I did that because I wanted to place the industry on notice; that these things were happening within the industry. Senator McLucas and others would appreciate that that attracted a lot of media attention. I wanted people within the industry to appreciate that that particular issue had come to my attention, and the last thing I wanted to do was to keep the knowledge to myself. By being very open and totally up-front, I think we can all contribute to reinforcing the very strong culture of disclosure and mandatory reporting that already exists within the industry.

The vast majority of people who observe abuse of any sort within an aged care facility report it. I am glad that Senator McLucas, towards the end of her remarks, pulled back from saying that there was a crisis of confidence within the industry or particularly within the minds of residents and relatives. She talked about not wanting to threaten the confidence of people who are involved in the industry, and I commend her for that. By using the words ‘not wanting to threaten the confidence’, she acknowledges what I have been at great pains to do in this place and outside this place—that is, to tell the public that it is my belief that the vast majority of residents and their relatives, the carers, the providers and anybody else involved in the industry believe that the vast majority of people operating in the industry and, in particular, caring for our elderly people in aged care facilities are caring for them in a way that is exemplary. As a result of that, there is much confidence in the industry. As a result of that very dedicated effort and commitment to looking after our aged and frail residents, there is a strong level of confidence. I am never going to stop saying that.

I acknowledge that some bad things have happened, and never at any stage have I sought to hide any knowledge of bad things that have happened—I have sought to answer questions as truthfully as I can, given my level of knowledge at the time I am asked the questions. However, there are some very strong privacy issues involved. The aged care legislation and other acts that impact on the Aged Care Act 1997 have some very strong privacy provisions ingrained in them that prevent the government and other people from impinging in a dramatic way on the privacy of people that are being looked after in our aged care facilities.

I certainly assure the Senate that, whenever I can, I will be totally honest—and that will be in the vast majority of cases subject to, as I said, privacy provisions. The Senate has my assurance that I will always be up-front. I think we need to adopt that approach. If any government, any minister or anybody within the sector seeks to hide wrongdoing, I think that is when confidence will be severely affected. I can assure Senator McLucas that I will be totally up-front with her.

Senator McLucas asked me to talk about the amendment and she asked some very reasonable questions: if you are not supporting it, why aren’t you supporting it and what are you doing? I now wish to address those reasonable questions in a formal way. We have before us an amendment from the Democrats which seeks to make changes to division 86 of the Aged Care Act 1997. That particular division deals with protected information. The amendment attempts to provide whistleblowers with broad-ranging protection. However, these particular measures are piecemeal and, with respect, I think they are ill-considered in the context of the broader aged care system that these bills specifically provide for. It is generally considered that an effective whistleblower regime should, at the very minimum, address four main issues: what information may be disclosed under the legislation, who may make disclosures, to whom disclosures may be made and, lastly, the process for dealing with a disclosure once one has been made.

I am concerned that on each of these points the Democrats amendment appears to again, with respect, miss the mark. In terms of the information that may be disclosed, this amendment is cast extremely widely and the technical advice that I have is that it allows any protected information as defined in the Aged Care Act 1997 to be disclosed. This includes personal information or opinion, whether true or not, about any individual, including residents. This raises a number of concerns, not least of which is the fact that a person could disclose highly personal information about a resident, including information such as medical records and financial information, to a very wide range of individuals and organisations. The individuals to whom disclosure may be made include any company auditor, regardless of whether they have any connection at all with an aged care service, and any person who has been authorised by an aged care service to receive disclosures.

In an extreme example, this could mean that personal medical information about a resident could be disclosed to the local media merely because the aged care service authorised the media outlet to receive this information. I acknowledge that it is an extreme example, but I think sometimes extreme examples, by their very clear definition, are good examples to put forward.

Under the Aged Care Act, protected information may be disclosed to a court, yet even in this case there must be the consent of the person to whom the information relates. No equivalent protection exists in the Democrats amendment, and that is certainly one of its major deficiencies. The amendment also fails to describe what is to be done when a disclosure has been made. For example, the legislation enables disclosures to be made to company auditors, yet company auditors have no power or responsibility to investigate possible breaches of the Aged Care Act. Overall, the amendment appears to expose residents to the risk of their personal information being disclosed, yet, even if a disclosure is made in good faith in an attempt to address a problem, there is no mechanism or process to deal with any such problem.

In contrast, as honourable senators have alluded to in this debate, I have already announced that the government is constructing a package of reforms to further strengthen our already robust aged care system. At the Prime Minister’s invitation, I will shortly seek cabinet agreement to measures to reduce the incidence of abuse of elderly people within our aged care facilities. I have already, as Senator McLucas and other senators in this place know, widely consulted the stakeholders, including some of the people who have suffered the abuse and their families, providers of aged care services and the Aged Care Advisory Committee. I will also soon be consulting with my state and territory counterparts. That meeting is arranged for 10 April, and so far all states and territories, with the exception of Tasmania and the Northern Territory, have indicated that they will be attending. I certainly can assure Senator McLucas and Senator Bartlett on behalf of the Democrats that I will be placing the issue of whistleblowers legislation well and truly on the agenda for some discussion, and we will see what comes out of that.

As I previously publicly announced, my key expert advisory committee has expressed general support for a range of measures. At this point I want to address briefly what seems to be emerging as the main criticism from senators opposite about the structure or the membership of that committee. The big point that is being made is that somehow that committee is not as good as it could be because advocacy groups are not represented. I want to stress very deliberately again today what I have stressed at aged care organisational conferences and in other forums that I have addressed. That is that, I respectfully suggest to all senators in this place, every member on that committee—whether they be a representative of the providers, nurses unions, doctors, pharmacists or carers—is an advocate, and I use that word very deliberately, for the welfare of the aged and the frail within our aged care facilities. Senator McLucas and other senators, when they criticise the make-up of that committee because of that perceived lack of expertise from formal representation of advocacy groups, are saying that they should be represented. But I am saying to Senator McLucas that I think they are all advocates for the aged and frail within our aged care facilities.

The question that I think can legitimately be asked—and, if it has not been asked of me, I will now ask it of myself and answer it—is: how do we get the opinion of the organised advocacy groups within the system, within the current deliberations, on the solutions or some of the measures that should come out of the process that we have undertaken? I have spoken to three of the leaders of the representative groups. I have not spoken extensively to them but I have invited them to provide me with their extensive and formal contributions, and they have done that. There are many pages in combination, and they make many very good points, in my view. A lot of the points that they make are in fact the points that are overwhelmingly coming through not only from the community generally but also from the advisory committee that I convened a few weeks ago.

There are some suggested refinements, some of which I think would be quite useful. At this stage that is only my personal opinion; I still have not gone to cabinet. But some of them will be in the mix and will be considered. I can assure the Senate that over the next three weeks I will be travelling to the cities where these advocacy groups are based and I will personally be making time to meet with them for an hour or so, which will enable them to also provide me with more direct input. I do stress that I personally have received, at my invitation after speaking with the chief advocates, comprehensive formal representations, the content of which is generally very good and is being considered.

I hope that people accept that and do not try to somehow not besmirch but water down the quality and the good reputation of the committee that advises the minister. I am not suggesting that any individual has been attacked as being incompetent or not worthy of being a representative of a particular part of the aged care sector. But I do not want the suggestion that, because there is no formal representative on the committee for the three or four advocacy groups that take an interest in this area of aged care policy, somehow the members of the committee are not advocates, individually or as a whole, for the interests of residents within our aged care facilities or somehow the committee is not as high quality as it could be.

As I have previously and publicly announced, the key expert advisory committee that I have just been referring to has expressed general support for a range of measures. The measures under active consideration include a uniform system of police checks for workers in the aged care industry, an increase in unannounced spot checks for aged care facilities, a review of the current complaints resolution scheme, and enhanced training for all aged care staff in relation to knowledge and awareness of abuse of the elderly and how to deal with complaints. I do not intend to deal in a piecemeal fashion with the important areas of reform that this debate is prompting us to consider. I intend to be as consultative as I have been. I understand the urgency that exists in the minds of the general community, senators opposite, the media and a whole lot of groups in the community. I will be acting expeditiously and the Senate has that assurance from me.

In terms of the amendment, we will not be accepting it. I have previously had discussions along these lines with Senator Allison. She withdrew a similar amendment a little while back for reasons which I thought she understood. I hope that my additional explanation will be of assistance to the Senate and particularly to the Democrats.