Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

In my speech on the Aged Care Bill 2024 last night, I got to the point where I was going to reference a few quotes from submissions that were made. I'll pick up there. This quote was from the National Older Women's Network, appearing at a hearing in the inquiry to this bill. They said:

It appears that the framers have been convinced that the aged-care sector is too big to fail, and so their demands remain a priority. The act, by not making the rights enforceable and actually spelling out the fact that they aren't enforceable, means that we know the words of rights are window dressings to offer appeasement and focus our attention.

We must not back down to for-profit providers. We must have a rights based aged-care act that is able to be enforced.

This bill has also raised concerns in relation to the legislative process. Once again this government is pushing through an enormous bill that will directly impact the lives of so many in our community with limited inquiry time and much still unknown. The inquiry was only allowed two weeks for submissions. For individuals and volunteer advocacy organisations, this is a very short period of time to give feedback on a bill that will have profound impacts on the lives of so many people. Furthermore, like we saw in the recently passed NDIS legislation, much of this bill leaves critical elements and components to rules that will come later, down the track. This means that submitters to the inquiry were giving feedback based on an unclear picture of what the legislation would mean. It also leaves the parliament in the position of voting on something that we do not have visibility of. The Greens encourage the government to give the public and the parliament the visibility of these rules so that they can be assessed and that the community can consider this type of process in its entirety—in the whole, not just in part.

I want to turn now to the issue of young people in nursing homes and the challenges and dangers created when older people do not get the disability supports that they need. This is a very concerning aspect of this bill. It is a very concerning issue that we continue to confront. This bill leaves a loophole for disabled people under the age of 65 to be eligible for aged care, regardless of what disability-specific supports they may be eligible for through other avenues. Currently, 95 per cent of people who are under the age of 65 and who reside within residential aged-care facilities are NDIS participants. The latest figures that we have available, published in the NDIA quarterly report, show that about 911 individuals are in this circumstance.

The Minister for Aged Care said in her second reading speech:

The bill continues our mission to take younger people out of aged care and into accommodation that meets their needs.

Despite her saying that, this loophole actually hasn't been addressed in the bill. We have a dynamic right now where young people continue to be placed within residential aged care. It's been a so-called priority for this parliament and for many governments for about 10 years to end this practice and to achieve the goal that no person under the age of 65 resides in residential aged care, yet this bill solidifies the process by which they may be placed in precisely that situation.

We need the government to stop the approach that is categorised accurately by so many as 'talk without action'. We need the government to get it together and to take a whole-of-government approach to once and for all put their money where their mouths are and champion the rights of young disabled people, particularly those who are below the age of 65 who end up within these settings. Younger disabled people shouldn't have to go into aged care to have their needs met from this government. Convenience, cost savings and so-called efficiencies seem, in the mind of this government, to trump the rights and aspirations of disabled people. The government needs to begin to work in good faith to ensure that younger disabled people don't continue to end up in aged care because this government has no other safety net.

Despite the NDIS participant status of many people under the age of 65 in aged care, they aren't actually provided NDIS or other disability-specific supports, particularly those with a need to exit residential aged care. Instead they are often being provided the same care as an older person without a disability. In fact, no disabled people in aged care are provided with disability-specific supports regardless of their age. Recommendation 72 of the aged-care royal commission is that disabled people in aged care should receive support that is equivalent to the NDIS, yet, under this bill, the maximum number of at-home support hours a person can receive is 18 hours a week. That is 18 hours where you can maybe have a shower, get some food, be supported to go outside and do more than just sit in a chair looking at whatever somebody else put on the TV for you or staring at the ceiling, watching the broken fan go round.

Think about what that means across a week, if you break that down. Think about how the people in the government and the opposition would feel if they were only able to have any semblance of independence for a couple of hours a day during their week. You think about that, and think about whether it is appropriate in a bill like this not to end such an absolute insult to the human rights of human beings but to codify it, to make the passive and unwritten pathway that currently exists the law of the land. It really is sickening. The only way to ensure that disability supports remain consistent into older age is to allow people aged 65 and over to apply to the NDIS. It is clear that aged care isn't a fair solution for older disabled people. The government should work to ensure that the NDIS is available to all people who need it regardless of age, because age discrimination in this situation or any other is, in fact, not okay.

One of the issues that has also been consistently raised to my office has been the guardianship laws that will be baked into aged care by this legislation. The Greens have long been calling for reform of the guardianship system, including a supportive decision-making approach that is nationally consistent and transparent, and that aims to enable the full autonomy of those subject to it to the greatest extent possible. I would like to read a quote from a constituent about these guardianship laws:

Under the Bill, there are no true checks and balances, no clear legal tests of decision-making ability or exceptional circumstances, no accessible review pathways, no enforceable obligations and no natural justice.

The Bill calls those given decision-making authority over older people 'supporters'.

In some cases, people in that situation are supporters, but in many cases those government entities, bureaucrats and appointed individuals are, in fact, the administrators of people's lives. They have great control over their lives. These are dynamics which people wish to remove themselves from. Where they must be recognised and where they must exist, transparency and accountability must also exist, and a pathway back to agency and independence. All of that is absent from this bill.

In conclusion, there are so many issues in this bill at present that will affect the lives of millions of Australians. The Greens urge the government to work in good faith with older Australians to address these issues. I foreshadow a second reading amendment that I will be moving on behalf of the Greens in relation to keeping young people out of aged care.