Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Hansard source

I move the amendment on sheet 3081:

(1) Clause 284, page 281 (line 32) to page 282 (line 2), omit subclause (5).

In moving this amendment I draw to the attention that, even though it wasn't a recommendation of the Aged Care Taskforce, agreement for additional services must not be made until after a resident has moved into aged care. Whilst, on the surface of this, it probably appears to be quite innocuous in terms of its recommendation, the coalition or the opposition is really quite concerned that this may have an adverse effect on future builds, particularly in providing the services that some Australians may well want.

We're not talking about additional services like a glass of wine with dinner. We're talking about additional services that are structurally built into the actual build of the facility. It might be a hydrotherapy pool, a gym or a swimming pool. There are a whole heap of services that many aged-care providers seek to provide to their residents on the basis that they are of additional cost to the resident, and the resident has a choice as to whether they go into a home with those additional services.

We think that this should be removed from the bill until such time as it is more thoroughly investigated. It was another addition to the bill that the sector hadn't been fully consulted on. We spoke to a lot of older Australians who were living in aged-care homes. Some of these homes are quite extraordinary, and the people who live in them obviously have to have quite significant wherewithal to afford to do so. But they've worked hard all their lives and can afford to do so, and should be able to make those choices during their aged-care journey.

We think this has not been thought through very well. We're not suggesting that there may not need to be changes in relation to this, but it hasn't been thought through. There was a divergence of views around this, and we think that the government should remove this particular provision out of the act. It can always be reintroduced at a later date, after further consultation has taken place on it, but we would seek for the government to remove it. It has clearly been underconsulted, and nobody has taken into account the unintended consequences over the choice and control of older Australians.

I reiterate, once again, that the main purpose of this bill was to give choice and control to older Australians. By doing this, the unintended consequence is that we may well be taking away some of that choice. If providers are not building the facilities in the way that they would build under the existing arrangements, it will deny older Australians the ability to access some of these additional facilities that are currently being provided, because the government has not thought through the consequences of this particular provision.