Kay Patterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Ageing, Senator Santoro. The proper care and humane treatment of older Australians is a key responsibility for all levels of government and, indeed, the wider Australian community. Recent reports of alleged abuse in nursing homes are disturbing for all concerned, particularly the elderly and their families. Would the minister please outline to the Senate what actions he has taken since these reports came to his attention and any future initiatives he might have to support elderly Australians in nursing home care?

Santo Santoro (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to Senator Patterson for her question. I recognise her longstanding interest in and commitment to this vital area of public policy. As I indicated to the chamber yesterday, this government has been very proactive in moving to address community concerns about abuse of the elderly in nursing homes. As I have just said in my answer to Senator McLucas’s first question in this place today, I was particularly disturbed to hear that in one nursing home the alleged abuse was not reported immediately to police. This lent some strength to the call for the introduction of some form of mandatory reporting of such incidents. However, before ruling that in or out, as I indicated yesterday and also last week, I intend to consult the Aged Care Advisory Committee on that issue and on a range of other options such as compulsory police checks, whistleblower protection and possible improvements to the complaints resolution scheme. The meeting of the advisory committee, as I have sought to indicate, will take place on Tuesday, 14 March here in Parliament House.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not a summit.

Santo Santoro (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is well positioned to provide me with the kind of expert advice that I need before deciding how to proceed in relation to these matters. I hear the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate say that it is not a summit and it is not a meeting. For the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and Senator McLucas I would like to outline the membership of that particular committee. It comprises representatives from the following organisations: the Council of the Ageing/National Seniors; the Royal College of Nursing, Australia; Catholic Health Australia; Carers Australia; the Baptist Community Services; the Australian Society for Geriatric Medicine; the Older Women’s Network; the Australian Nursing Federation; the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners; Aged and Community Services Australia; Alzheimer’s Australia; UnitingCare Australia; the Aged Care Association Australia; the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia; the Health Professions Council of Australia; the Australian Medical Association; the Commonwealth Department of Veterans’ Affairs; the Brotherhood of St Laurence; the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency; and the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants League. Call it whatever you want—you can call it a summit—but I think that committee is so representative, so authoritative that it could legitimately and reasonably be described as a summit. Call it a meeting. Call it whatever you wish.

Following this meeting, I will be meeting with my state and territory colleagues to discuss a collaborative way forward. I have already received assurances from at least one of my state and territory colleagues that they are keen to participate in this endeavour. In fact, the Minister for Ageing in Victoria made that attitude very clear on Lateline last week. Whatever collaborative approaches are determined with my state and territory colleagues, we could never give a 100 per cent assurance—and none of my state parliamentary colleagues who have got responsibilities in the area of ageing will give a 100 per cent assurance—that the incidents that we have been discussing today will never be repeated. But what I can say is that we will do our best, and I will certainly leave no stone unturned in order to improve the system and make sure that these bad deeds do not keep occurring.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is also to Senator Santoro, the Minister for Ageing. My question relates to the response of the minister yesterday in relation to the Immanuel Gardens Nursing Home on the Sunshine Coast. Can the minister now explain why sanctions were only imposed in February 2006 when an inspection found serious breaches of care standards in August 2005? Minister, why that six-month delay? Why wasn’t the provider forced to appoint a nursing adviser in August 2005 when there was clear evidence that residents were not receiving proper care. Didn’t the agency’s report of that time note that the facility has ‘a record of persistent failure to comply with the Accreditation Standards over the last three years’? Why weren’t the residents at this place properly protected?

Santo Santoro (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Moore for her questions. Since question time yesterday I have sought further advice in relation to the sequence of events that have been mentioned within Senator Moore’s question, and I am able to assist her and the Senate in a very comprehensive way. It is important that the Senate understand the sequence of events related to Immanuel Gardens Nursing Home and the role of agencies within my portfolio in this case.

In the case of Immanuel Gardens, the recent imposition of sanctions and claims of abuse against residents are two separate matters, and I want to address both of those matters very comprehensively so that there can be no misunderstanding. Sanctions were imposed on Immanuel Gardens in February this year relating strictly to non-compliance matters such as clinical care, infection control, human resource management and pain management stemming from a review audit undertaken by the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency on 11 and 12 August 2005. That particular review audit was ordered after a scheduled support contact on 26 July 2006 found some noncompliance. That was a scheduled audit. This review audit led to the placement of Immanuel Gardens on a timetable for improvement—and I will explain during the course of the answer why a timetable for improvement is important.

As a result of ongoing noncompliance, the department issued a notice of decision to impose sanctions on 6 February this year. The compliance process in this case was managed strictly in accordance with the legislation, the main focus of which is bringing about improvements to care standards for residents. The process here was transparent and accountable. The department instigated the legal compliance process based on the recommendations of the agency. When the home failed to achieve the required improvements within the time frame set, the department did impose sanctions. This is one of the important points that I need to make for the benefit of all senators. It is important to remind them all that the quality framework in aged care is aimed at ensuring the best possible outcome for residents, not punishing providers at the expense of residents’ care. That was a prime objective of the department and of the agency when they adopted the time frame that they did in relation to this issue.

I want to stress something else. I want to say very deliberately that, separate to the sanctions process I have just referred to, Immanuel Gardens stood down an assistant nurse on 10 October 2005 on the same day that the allegations of abuse were made. I fear that as a result of the exchange yesterday there might have been some confusion as to when that person was stood down by the management of the nursing home. I want to stress that that person was stood down on the same day that the allegations were made. The matter was referred to the police, where, as I advised the Senate yesterday, it is the subject of an ongoing investigation. It is terribly important that these two issues are in fact not blurred.

I am serious about bringing positive changes in the aged care sector to increase the protection of elderly and vulnerable residents who are in the care of the aged care system within the states. I am engaging in responsible and extensive consultation with all components of the aged care system in this country, and we will deal with these serious allegations in a measured and constructive way. I will not be bulldozed into knee-jerk reactions and I will not respond to any abuse of the department or myself. These are serious matters that require serious consideration and serious input from the professionals who have the facts and the figures and lifelong experience in this matter, and I intend to conduct myself accordingly.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Following the process the minister outlined, can the minister also confirm that the standards agency report of August 2005 also recommended that the facility’s accreditation expire on 6 March 2006, which is next week? Has this period been extended? If so, why, given the recent imposition of a sanction and the agency’s observation about the repeated noncompliance with care standards at Immanuel Gardens Nursing Home?

Santo Santoro (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not aware of the details of the extension that the senator is seeking or whether it has happened. However, I remind the senator of a point I made—and it is important to remind the Senate: the quality framework is in place to ensure the safety and the wellbeing of residents, and I am sure that has been considered in any decision made by the agency.