Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

If only what Senator Polley said were true. It would be fantastic if that were true and Senator Polley's conclusion actually accorded with the facts. I'll get to the facts in more detail in my contribution, but the facts are that we know of at least 30 aged-care homes that have shut over the first year of this government's time in office and shut because of a botched decision the government made to enforce a 24/7 nurse requirement in aged-care homes. As I said, I will get into more detail on that, given its important in the aged-care sector, but I did want to say to begin with that the coalition does support this bill, the Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023, and the other piece of legislation within this package. We always support measures that are going to help ensure that there is greater oversight and the establishment of performance standards in the aged-care sector. Of course, this bill—an inspector-general of aged care—is a recommendation from the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. It was the former coalition government that established that royal commission, and we accepted their recommendations, including this one, recommendation 12. So we're proud to ensure the passage of this bill and see this established.

We do believe the creation of an inspector-general is important to ensure that the aged-care sector remains supported, and the core function of the inspector-general will be to improve the transparency and accountability across our aged-care system through monitoring, reviewing and publicly reporting on systemic issues. Obviously, we've seen some systemic issues come to light before, during and following the royal commission. While an inspector-general won't be able to stop all of those things happening, shining a greater light on these issues may help alleviate some of the harm that can occur or avoid their occurrence in the first place.

The bill enables the inspector-general to use their information-gathering powers to monitor decisions, programs, operations and funding under aged-care laws to maintain a compressive understanding of what is occurring, what trends are emerging, what systemic issues are prevailing and what insights can be made from a holistic view. We support creating this inspector-general's independent arm, independent from the Department of Health, other government bodies and regulators. It's important for that independence to be maintained to ensure appropriate safeguards.

I believe the government has appointed Mr Ian Yates as the Interim Inspector-General of Aged Care. He has long experience in the aged-care sector. I welcome, and I'm sure the coalition welcomes, that appointment.

I note that the Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs has reported on this bill, and most submitters gave broad support to it, but there were some concerns noted—that the inspector-general should regularly consult with the aged-care sector and older people, particularly on the development of annual work plans. The opposition agrees this is critical to the role of the inspector-general to ensure that he or she understands the issues on the ground, not just those that come out of Canberra.

There is a lot to support here, and I do hope this makes a difference in the aged-care sector, but there are some pressing concerns in the aged-care sector right now, especially one's that have been brought to me by my community of Central Queensland. My office was contacted just a few weeks ago, in the parliamentary winter recess, by some victims of a botched policy process from this government that has unnecessarily seen the closure of an aged-care home in Central Queensland.

Mount Morgan is a proud town. It's got a venerable history as a town. It was once home to the biggest goldmine in the world. But, like many mining towns, once the mine goes, it's tough for the residents there. But they're hardy people, and still 2½ thousand people live at Mount Morgan. It's lucky enough to have an aged-care home—or does, for now, have an aged-care home. That's good for it. While it's relatively close to Rockhampton, it's still a 30- or 40-minute drive to the major town of Rockhampton. Those in an aged-care home—and their loved ones—quite often will have mobility issues, which makes moving even a 30- or 40-minute drive away a really big deal. These people contacted my office because, in the last month, the provider of aged-care services at Mount Morgan Carinity announced that they plan to close the aged-care home probably by Christmas this year because they simply can't comply with the new government's ill thought through measures to require a registered nurse to be on site 24 hours a day seven days a week.

Let's put into context what this requirement means for a town like Mount Morgan. As I say, it has 2½ thousand people. They've got a small aged-care home; it's not large. The government is saying they need to have a registered nurse 24 hours a day seven days a week. Obviously, they'll only work eight-hour shifts or thereabouts, so immediately they will need three full-time registered nurses on their books. They won't work seven days a week though. They want to have weekends. There will also be holidays and absenteeism. I'm told by Carinity and others in this space that, to meet this requirement, they'd need to have five registered nurses on their books or thereabouts, even for a small aged-care home like the one at Mount Morgan. You're not going to get five registered nurses in Mount Morgan. It's not going to happen. It doesn't matter how long you wait. It doesn't matter what we do in skills development or all these things. It's 2½ thousand people. You are not going to get five registered nurses in Mount Morgan. It's just not going to happen. So the government's plan is to not have aged-care homes in towns of about 2½ thousand people. That is the absolute consequence of their policy. It's not a debate. It's not a matter of judgement. It's just not going to happen.

All the residents that have contacted me love the aged-care facilities, they love the people they work with, they love being close to their relatives, but now they're going to have no aged-care home. I can understand the government's attempt to lift standards across the country. I'm not quibbling with that in the major cities, where getting a registered nurse to be there 24/7 should be possible. But for these small towns, why can't there be some flexibility? Why can't there be a little common sense applied so that people in small country towns aren't separated unnecessarily from their loved ones?

I want to relay one story here that's been passed onto me. Not everyone that's contacted me wants their stories made public, I understand that, but I thank Ms Sealy for agreeing to have her story made public. Marlene Sealy is a long-term resident of Mount Morgan. She's 80 years old. Her husband, Fred, is 83 years old and he has dementia. He's been in the aged-care home for the last few years at Mount Morgan. Marlene lives just down the road from this centre. Mount Morgan is a small town. She normally visits her husband, Fred, six times a week. She can walk there. That, obviously, is lovely for Fred and Marlene to keep up their relationship as a long-term married couple.

Now, the Mount Morgan facility is closing. As I said, it will probably close by Christmas. To give Carinity credit, it says it will stay open for as long as it needs to for residents to find alternative arrangements, but almost certainly, this means that Fred will have to go to Rockhampton, which is, as I say, a 35 or 40-minute drive away. Marlene doesn't have a driver's licence. There's, obviously, very limited public transport. In fact, it will take Marlene an hour-and-a-half to two hours each way to get a bus to Gracemere and change. It's multiple buses for an 80-year-old lady. She obviously won't be able to do that six times a week. So because of the government's policy—they will get up here and spruik, and say how wonderful it is—we've separated a long-term married couple, Marlene and Fred Sealy, who will make their last time on this planet terrible and horrible and miserable. That's what you've done. You could fix it overnight. I've written to the Minister for Aged Care asking her for some common sense. You could fix it, just give them an exemption. We know of apparently 30 across the country that have shut because of this requirement, so far. Give those aged-care homes in these country towns an exemption; it's not that hard.

There are exemptions. The government senators might come back with their own exemptions. Let's go through those. It's ridiculous. They're not really exemptions; they're Claytons exemptions. These exemptions are only available to providers with fewer than 30 beds in certain Monash modified areas. I think Mount Morgan would qualify for this, but that doesn't matter because the exemption can only go for a year. They can only get exempt from the requirement until July next year, for one year. There are not going to be five registered nurses in Mount Morgan in a year's time. There won't be in five years or 10 years time or15 years time. It's not going to happen.

Can somebody over there please explain to me how the people of Mount Morgan could somehow, magically, attract five registered nurses to their town? It's not going to happen. So why don't you give them an exemption for the long-term? Maybe the inspector-general could be given extra powers to give extra monitoring of these sites in country towns that have an exemption, to make sure standards are okay, that maybe they have a registered nurse there at least every 24 hours, not all 24 hours—something. I'm flexible. Why doesn't the government and the minister get their hands dirty and go to the country towns and work out a way forward for them, instead of this Pontius Pilate approach, where we wash our hands, 'It's got nothing to do with us. Marlene and Fred Sealy: who cares?' Sorry Marlene and Fred, you're just unfortunate perverse consequences of this ham-fisted and botched approach. Just give them a bloody exemption. How hard is it? I've written to the minister asking for that. We'll wait and see.

But it gets worse. Apparently, those places that have an exemption have to report every 30 minutes that a registered nurse is not on site—I was told that, and someone can correct me if this wrong. They have to report to the regulator every 30 minutes! I believe Mount Morgan has an exemption for now because it's past the date, and it doesn't have a registered nurse 24/7, and these requirements came into effect in July this year. Mount Morgan is a small aged-care home in a country town. They don't have a lot of staff and they've got other things to do, but apparently the government wants them to call up every 30 minutes to say: 'We don't have a registered nurse.' And in 30 minutes time they call up and say: 'We still don't have a registered nurse.' In 30 minutes time, again: 'We still don't have a registered nurse.' What is this bureaucratic madness?

Shouldn't we be focusing on the patients and the people so they're happy? No-one has called me to complain about what's happening in Mount Morgan. There are systemic issues and there are problems, but it doesn't seem like Mount Morgan is one of them. Why are we imposing these ridiculous constraints on small aged-care homes? The only thing requiring the country aged-care homes to do this every 30 minutes will mean is poorer patient outcomes, because while they're making the call or worrying if they've called or will call in the next 30 minutes they're not focusing on their patients in the aged-care home. It is absolutely crazy.

I'd be very interested to know if any of the government senators have some talking points on this. I don't know if we'll get to the in committee stage on this, but if so I might ask questions about what advice they've had on the exemptions that have been put in place. Did they do any modelling or give any consideration to these smaller aged-care homes? Is there going to be a review of what's going on? Was there a regulatory impact statement done on this? What's been the evaluation? It seems to me to have terrible consequences, and this is not an area I've traditionally been heavily involved in. I'm happy to be corrected. I might be wrong about a number of things. I'm going off what I've been told and the limited research I've done since being contacted about this.

I'm going to keep fighting for Marlene and Fred because it is just not bloody right in our country for people to be treated this way. There is clearly a way the government can meet its election commitment—and I don't begrudge that for the major cities—while providing reasonable and commonsense exemptions to smaller aged-care homes where people are happy, where they're near their families and where they are part of a community. The other thing to say here is that these smaller aged-care homes are part of the community and part of what makes towns like Mount Morgan great. Everybody knows everybody, they know who works there and they chip in and help out. Apparently we instead want everybody to have to move to a soulless corporate major city where they don't know everybody and spend the last few years of their life in complete, abject loneliness.

I don't understand how anyone can defend this. Why don't you just fix it? It's not that hard. I don't know why Minister Wells doesn't just get her hands dirty. I'm not sure if she's travelled to any of these country towns. She's welcome to Mount Morgan any time to come and see what's happening. I know Marlene has said she's more than happy to speak to the minister, and I passed on her details to her. I hope something can be done about this, because it's about real people's lives and, as I say, there's an easy fix for it.

At the end of my remarks, at the request of Senator Ruston I seek leave to move the opposition's second reading amendment on sheet 2052.