Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Hansard source

I understand the motivation of Senator Siewert and the Greens and recognise their desire, but can I suggest that, though the amendments are well-intentioned, the way in which the amendments are framed means the outcome potentially will be, through a blanket exclusion, to miss people who are key personnel.

The policy intention of the amendments is to provide certainty, as you said, for approved people who will not be considered key personnel and to ensure voluntary board members are not unintentionally captured by the provision. However, it is important to note that voluntary and paid board members of an approved provider are already, and will continue to be, key personnel. Where an entity is related, such as a parent company, board members, whether voluntary or not, will only be considered key personnel if they are making financial or management decisions. That is the key difference. We are talking about a parent company where there may be—particularly if it is a not-for-profit company or entity—volunteers. They will only be captured if they are making financial or management decisions. But under your proposal they are excluded.

The reality is that there are people who sit on parent bodies who do make financial and management decisions, and this amendment bill is intended to ensure that those people are identified as key personnel. If they are making financial and management decisions about the operation of a residential aged-care facility, we need to know who they are so that other people do not get picked up and have to carry the burden if they make mistakes.

So I think your intent is well founded, but there are relationships between parent companies and their subsidiaries, not only in the voluntary sector but also in the for-profit sector, where there are people at that higher level who are making financial and management decisions that affect the operation of the service and who need to be identified as key personnel. As you know, Senator Siewert, being ‘key personnel’ under the act does provide a fairly important set of responsibilities, for good reason. We are caring for very vulnerable people. If people are making decisions that affect the operation of a facility, even at that somewhat extended level, they need also to be responsible for their decisions in the operation of the facility. I hope that explains the intent of our position and why we will not be supporting your amendments.