David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to also offer a contribution to the debate on the Aged Care Bill 2024. Over the last few months, I've been speaking with Canberrans about these proposed changes and about what they want from our aged-care system here in Australia. My team and I had a great time speaking with seniors about this bill at the COTA ACT Seniors Expo. We also conducted a survey of Canberrans and, with the support of the amazing team at COTA ACT, we held a townhall at the Hughes Community Centre to walk through what has been proposed and to listen to what the Canberra community has to say about the government's proposal.

Broadly, Canberrans have told me that they are comfortable with these changes but with some caveats. The vast majority of people I have spoken to have told me they are happy to contribute more to their aged care in the future but only if it means that they have access to better services. The reality at the moment is that people are not getting what they need from our aged-care system. They are not getting the services that they are paying for. Many can't even find the services that they need.

There is still concern for people's wellbeing while they are in residential aged care. Recently, I had somebody tell me that they fought with a provider for a full year just to get them to stop feeding their diabetic partner sugar. This should not be happening. It should not be happening given what we learned through the royal commission and given the commitment of the parliament to actually looking after senior Australians.

That complaint was left unresolved by the commission, even after that man passed away. For this reason, I was not surprised to learn that 58 per cent of people that are surveyed said that they weren't confident that the aged-care system would be able to meet their needs. A further 51 per cent of people told me that they didn't think aged-care providers had people's best interests at heart. The trust in the system is not there, the trust in aged-care providers is certainly not there, the trust in our regulators is not there, and the services simply don't exist to meet people's needs, even in our nation's capital.

That's clearly why change is necessary, and that's why I'm supportive of what is being proposed today. We need a system that is available for the next generation and the generation after that. We need more funding entering the system to improve wages, quality standards and accommodation. In general terms, this bill delivers on that, helping to secure the future of the aged-care system and regear it so that it focuses on providing support to keep people at home for as long as possible.

However, there are a few issues that Canberrans have raised with me that I want to call out today, the first being aged-care assessments and the time it takes for someone to get a home-care package. Before anyone can even start receiving support, they first need an assessment. Here in the ACT, the wait to get an assessment has been unacceptably long. I've heard from people who've waited a full year for an assessment—12 months just for an assessment—and then they have to wait another year for the package to come through. The end result is that a lot of Canberrans have ended up hospitalised waiting for their package, or Canberrans are told, 'Just go to the hospital, and you'll get your assessment much faster if you say it's an emergency.' That's disgraceful. It is truly disgraceful to have a system where people are resorting to going to emergency and landing in hospitals that are already clogged, just to get an assessment for a home-care package.

I want to put on the record my frustration with the finger-pointing that has occurred between the federal government and the ACT government, who can't seem to provide a straight answer on where things have been going wrong here. The ACT government say that they've been dudded on funding and they haven't been given enough, and the federal government say that that's not true—that the ACT government have been given funding and they haven't actually employed enough people to do these assessments. Whatever the case, we need both governments to work it out so that our senior residents are not paying the price. We have people who are paid big bucks, and they need to accept responsibility for actually fixing things rather than pointing at the other government and trying to handball this issue.

I recognise that the government has committed to lowering waiting times to three months. But let's be real: that three months presents just one component of the journey. It doesn't account for the time it takes to get an assessment and then the time it takes for the services to actually commence. So we need to be much more transparent about the whole process, not just the element that the government feels that it can control directly, where it can go out there and promise three months. Let's break it down and be upfront about what that process will actually look like and how long it's actually going to take to be delivered. That's why I'll be asking the Senate to support amendments to provide greater transparency around wait times so we can keep a sharp eye on where we may be failing communities across the country.

The other big issue I want to raise is how we're treating people who become disabled over 65. From a number of people I've met and whose stories I've heard, it's pretty appalling. If you become disabled over the age of 65, you are guaranteed to receive far less support than a person with a disability aged under 65. This was brought to my attention by two Canberrans who have become familiar faces in these halls—Peter and Lorraine.

In late 2012 Lorraine, at the age of 72, fell off her bicycle and injured her spinal cord. Tragically, this rendered Lorraine quadriplegic. Because she was over 65 at the time of her accident, Lorraine will never be eligible for the NDIS. The aged-care system is the system that provides support to her and she receives that support through a home-care package. But the aged-care system has not been designed for people with disability. When they first got their package, many aged-care agencies turned them down. Many of them simply said Lorraine needs disability care, not aged care. When they asked disability agencies, they were told, 'If she's not in the NDIS, we can't help her. We're not interested.'

Peter and Lorraine did find support in the end but the package simply does not provide the support that Lorraine needs. Within their package they can scrape together enough to help Lorraine get out of bed in the mornings but they do not have enough to help get her to bed in the evenings. Lorraine's husband, Peter, turns 86 next month. He has told me he fears the day he will no longer be able to help his wife in the evenings. He asks us to consider: 'What should I do when I no longer have the strength to lift my wife into bed? The only option will be residential aged care.'

Lorraine is an active member of our community. She attends lectures and is a member of the Women's International Club. She has an active life and it would be the greatest shame for Lorraine to have to enter residential aged care before she needs to, simply because the system will not give her the support she needs to get into bed at night. That's the opposite of what the system should be doing and it runs contrary to the strong recommendation of the royal commission that the aged-care system provide support to older Australians with disability comparable to supports funded through the NDIS.

I will be moving an amendment to recognise that this system is the system that has to support people who become disabled over 65. I hope that the Senate will support that amendment for the benefit of people like Lorraine, who want to remain at home and remain part of our community.

I want to finish by talking about the statement of rights. This is something we debated quite a bit at the town hall. Canberrans have told me that, while they appreciate the strong statements of right within the bill, they worry that these rights are essentially unenforceable, that they are rights on paper. They are like the mission statements that you see up on the walls of offices and businesses around the country—they are there but no-one really pays much attention to them. It's true that a person can't take action in a court if they feel their rights have been breached. But looking into the details of the bill, it's unclear to me if even the commissioner can take action if people feel their rights aren't being upheld. It seems the commissioner only has to consider whether providers have procedure manuals in place, not whether these rights are being upheld each and every day in practice. And everyone in this chamber knows it's one thing to have a procedure manual but another thing to actually use that and ensure that those procedures are being implemented.

I'd like to finish by reading to the chamber some of the feedback I've received from Canberrans. This is from Eileen:

The royal commission proved it is not a matter of a few bad apples or isolated incidents. The abuse and neglect is systemic and it continues unabated without consequence for the service providers. Nothing in the new act will change that. Many providers are still not meeting the service quality standards more than one year since they were meant to be fully implemented. These are standards for only bare-minimum care, not even for good care.

This is from Vicki: 'How will the government ensure that contributions made by senior Australians to the cost of their aged care are used to improve the quality and number of services provide to residents and not simply used to increase the profits of aged-care providers? Aged care is expensive already, and service quality varies significantly across the sector. If being asked to contribute more, then the services provided must be monitored and standards enforced.'

This is from Donna: 'Dad's strongest wish is to remain in his home until he dies. My sister lives with him and is committed to helping him realise that wish. Her role as carer is largely unsupported by the community, and avenues for subsidised assistance aren't readily apparent to her. Review of Dad's care package takes a long time, and the services he needs are difficult to access. My sister's role as carer is close to 24/7. It's not sustainable. She's in her 60s, and both of them might end up in care.'

Finally, this is from Bronwyn Vincent: 'The system is a nightmare. I don't understand how aged people without support or an advocate navigate the process. I provide support for my almost 90-year-old mother, who lives independently in her own home. I've been trying for months to get her additional support, and although her application has been approved months ago, she is still waiting for the paperwork to go through. This is ridiculous. They keep reassessing her. She doesn't need a new assessment; she just needs someone to do the paperwork. This is so frustrating.'

I thank the government for bringing forward these reforms. I sincerely hope they will support amendments that I think strengthen the aims of this bill and really ensure that we are living up to the pact that we should have with older generations. The things we enjoy are due to their hard work, and we will respect them, look after them and ensure that they can live a life of dignity as they age. As we know, for most people, that is living at home for as long as possible. Whilst a number of things in this bill will do that, the timeliness of that process to get an assessment and a package has to have more transparency, so that we can ensure it is delivered to Australians around Australia.