Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution on the Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023 and the Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023. Before launching into my remarks regarding the specifics of this bill, I think it's important to frame up the importance of the aged-care sector in Australia.

I think every senator in this place likely has had a personal experience interacting with the aged-care sector, whether through their role in this place meeting with aged-care centres in their states, back at home, or through a loved one. I would put myself in both the former and the latter categories. I had a grandmother who saw out her final days in an aged-care facility in Hobart, and I had a great-grandmother likewise see out her final days in aged care when I was quite young. My memories of one are certainly better than of the other; I was very young when my great-grandmother passed away. I have seen firsthand the very good work that is provided in our aged-care facilities and the support provided to older Australians. That is incredibly important work and we here in this place should always be cognisant of doing what we can to support the aged-care sector, particularly in a situation where we know our population is ageing. I am here representing the great state of Tasmania, and the Tasmanian population is ageing; a large proportion of our population are elderly now. We need to do everything we can to support older Australians regardless of whether or not they end up interacting with the aged-care system—but we know that, fundamentally, many of them do—and make sure that the system that is in place is one that serves their needs adequately, that is compassionate and that supports them as they need to be supported. I think it's important to consider all this when discussing this very important matter here today—these important bills before us we are debating.

The coalition believes the establishment of an inspector-general of aged care is important to ensure the aged-care sector remains well supported. We will support this legislation we're debating, to permanently establish an inspector-general of aged care and an associated statutory office. Like I said, in this place we should be cognisant of supporting the aged-care sector and we think this legislation here goes some important way to doing that.

As has already been raised in debate this evening, the establishment of an inspector-general implements recommendation 12 of the royal commission, which was supported by the coalition. It will also cast a light on some of the most pressing challenges for the aged-care sector at the moment. Again, referencing those remarks I made upfront, we need to make sure that we support our aged-care sector. We need to understand the challenges that that sector is facing. The royal commission has gone a very long way towards identifying and addressing some of those concerns, but this didn't end when the royal commission did. This is something that, as I say, with an ageing population we need to be continually cognisant of and we need to be continually monitoring to ensure that our aged-care sector provides older Australians with the quality of care that they deserve.

In talking about what those pressing challenges within the aged-care sector are at the moment, we know that the important issue facing the sector is workforce. Workforce shortages are putting serious pressure on Australia's entire health system, not just the aged-care sector. It is clear that this crisis is impacting on the viability of aged-care homes across our country. According to recent reports, a shortage in directly employed nurses is increasing demand for agency nurses, which is costing aged-care providers significantly more. Agency staff now cost providers just over $17 per bed day, which is an increase of $9.86 per bed day compared to the same period last calendar year. This isn't sustainable for aged-care providers who are trying to comply with government regulation. That is why the coalition has been calling out for a whole-of-care sector workforce plan. When we know that there are these workforce issues, I think it's only sensible that we work with the whole sector to come up with a plan to address their workforce needs.

That's also why the government must facilitate operators being innovative and creative in delivering the best possible care for older Australians, instead of enforcing a once-size-fits-all model. We have heard some very good contributions from my coalition colleagues in this place this evening in relation to some of the issues that are facing aged-care facilities, particularly in terms of workforce and particularly in rural and regional Australia. Instead of implementing punitive measures, the government must look at encouraging providers to use technology like telehealth and support the sector to value and upskill enrolled nurses to become registered nurses and remain in the sector.

During the election campaign in May last year, the Prime Minister promised that every aged-care home would have a nurse on site at all times by July 2023. That month has just passed. As a result of this requirement being demanded a year earlier than recommended by the royal commission, under the Labor government's watch we know aged-care homes are closing down. The first of July was a date that was dreaded by aged-care providers across the country as the expedited 24/7 registered nurse requirement as implemented by Labor sooner than originally anticipated by the royal commission—they made an election commitment in relation to that—hit the sector amidst a severe workforce crisis. I'm advised that, to the best of our knowledge, more than 30 homes have tragically closed down as they weren't able to meet the government's legislated requirement. This means that residents are often being forced to move out of their homes and away from their families and their communities, all because the government hasn't enabled a more flexible approach to staffing requirements during a workforce crisis.

Even more frustratingly, in a blatant attack on transparency, the government won't provide the exact details on how many homes have closed in total as a result of this premature policy. They are in effect hiding these important facts from the public. Like I said, to the best of our knowledge, we in the coalition understand that more than 30 homes have closed, but we don't know that for a fact. I suspect the government do, but they haven't availed us of that information yet. Their refusal to table the documentation that was requested in Senate estimates to advise exactly how many homes have closed since their time in government flies in the face of the transparency platform they campaigned on during the 2022 election. Frankly, I would like to say I'm surprised by this, but to be perfectly honest I'm not. We have been in this chamber many times since the election last year, holding the mirror to this government that pledged transparency and pledged accountability in the lead-up to the election in May 2022, and since then has been anything but accountable or transparent.

Now we're a month on from when this expedited and somewhat rushed policy, I must say, came into effect, and we know that it was not just the rushed policy but also the extremely limited exemption criteria that forced aged-care homes to close. The prescriptive exemption criteria only offered an exemption to providers with fewer than 30 beds in Modified Monash Model locations 5, 6 and 7. For providers to become exempt from the requirement to have a registered nurse on site 24/7, they must report every period of 30 minutes or more that a registered nurse wasn't on site or on duty and the reason why that was the case. Every 30 minutes to me seems pretty impractical at best and a massive administrative burden on these aged-care facilities. Quite frankly, I'm sure that there are better things that the people who work at these facilities could be doing with their time than reporting some nominal noncompliance every 30 minutes.

In the last month we have seen a number of providers close, stating that it was this reporting requirement that placed such a high administrative burden that they simply could not fulfil it. I find it a little disappointing that the government is comfortable watching homes shut down, not just because of these legislative requirements that they have placed upon aged-care facilities but also because of a seemingly very narrow approach to applying exemption criteria. These aged-care providers are crying out for help; they're not crying out for more restrictions. It is time that this government should step in so that more aged-care facilities are not forced to close. It is for this reason—and this was foreshadowed by my colleague Senator Canavan earlier—that the coalition will be moving an amendment to encourage the inspector-general to immediately review the impacts of the government's expedited policy and to provide advice on how the sector could be better supported through its current workforce shortages.

Of course, we unequivocally support older Australians receiving the best care possible. However, bringing forward the time lines that were set, for very good reason, by the royal commission and imposing rigid constraints on the aged-care sector is reckless and damaging to that sector. We are certainly hopeful that, by establishing an inspector-general of aged care, that officer's independent oversight of the sector will be able to assist governments and policymakers through overseeing the whole sector. We support the independence of the inspector-general and we endorse the separation of the role of the inspector-general from the Department of Health and Aged Care and the other government bodies responsible for administering and regulating aged care. This is an important safeguard that will guarantee the impartiality required to monitor, investigate and report on systemic issues across the aged-care system.

Regarding matters that we would like the inspector-general to consider, once established, I would like to raise that the provisional lack of the COVID-19 Aged-Care Support Program Extension Grant is one. It is disappointing that, according to the last data that was provided by the health department, more than $570 million worth of grants remain outstanding. The Department of Health and Aged Care revealed in May that 561 aged-care providers have outstanding applications. Since this astonishing revelation, the government has again not been able to provide any update on the status of the payment of these grants, despite the fact that we in the coalition have requested this information repeatedly. These grants, which were introduced by the former coalition government to reimburse aged-care providers with the additional costs of managing COVID-19—which we know were significant—are simply being withheld and delayed by this new government. This is money that providers have already spent and, in some cases, even borrowed to support their residents during the pandemic with the promise from the coalition government that they would be reimbursed. At a time when, like I said earlier in my contribution, the sector is battling with serious workforce shortages, massive financial stress and these rushed regulations that we're discussing here this evening, which they are not able to meet, it's frankly astonishing that such a huge amount of money, $570 million, is being withheld from hardworking aged-care providers.

As I said in my initial comments, our aged-care sector in this country does a huge amount of work supporting older Australians. We need to be doing everything that we can to ensure that that sector is run in a way that provides a good and genuine service to older Australians. This legislation that we are debating here this evening goes some of the way to do that, but, as outlined in my contribution and the contributions of several of my coalition colleagues, we still have some genuine concerns about what is in this legislation and the impact of this regulation on the aged-care sector.

(Quorum formed)