Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Ageing, Senator Santoro. Would the minister please inform the Senate of steps taken by the government to protect the finances of Australians in aged care facilities, and would the minister further explain: is he aware of any alternative views?

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

Before answering the substantial part of Senator Parry’s question, can I acknowledge his longstanding interest in the welfare and safety of the aged and frail in our community. Can I also particularly say thank you to Senator Parry for his strong representations to me in relation to the abuse issue, which has been in the public domain during recent weeks. I acknowledge those very strong and effective representations by Senator Parry. I am pleased to inform Senator Parry and the Senate of the passing of legislation yesterday that will protect more than $4 billion worth of accommodation bonds held by the aged care industry on behalf of residents. These new prudential arrangements will protect older Australians from being financially disadvantaged in cases where nursing homes or aged care facilities go into bankruptcy, as well as ensuring that the bonds of aged care residents—often representing an individual’s life savings—are repaid in a timely manner in the event of such a bankruptcy.

While there has never been a situation in Australia where bonds have not been repaid in such a case, it was essential that the government take steps to reduce the risk of this occurring, as recommended by Professor Hogan in his report to the government on pricing arrangements in residential aged care. This legislation underlines the Howard government’s commitment to ensuring choice for residents, quality services and financially sustainable aged care industry structures. I am proud that we have taken these measures to further protect our elderly citizens when they need the protection the most.

Turning to the second part of the Senator Parry’s question, of alternative views on the finances of Australians in aged care, I have been intrigued in the last few weeks by the differing views of the Australian Labor Party on this matter. On 14 March here in Canberra the member for Rankin delivered what I thought was a thoughtful and measured contribution to the debate on the finances of Australians in aged care, through a speech to the ANU. We know that the member for Rankin has been active in writing and contributing to public policy of late but, following his very serious contributions to ageing and the challenges it presents—indeed, the most serious contribution to come from the opposition, I would say, with respect, in a long time—one must ask the question, ‘Who is the opposition’s real spokesman on ageing: Senator McLucas or the member for Rankin?’ Further to this, we need to ask the question, ‘Was the member for Rankin’s speech cleared by Senator McLucas or her office?’ Are we to take it that the views expressed by the member for Rankin have been endorsed by the opposition spokesperson on ageing, or is the member for Rankin just free ranging from the backbench, just as Mark Latham did a few years ago—and couldn’t we tell a story or two about Mark Latham! We might do that one day, while he waits for Bob Hawke’s demand that he be reinstated to the front bench to become a reality.

These are the questions that need to be put so that those Australians in aged care and the families of those Australians in aged care know exactly what the Labor Party stands for when it comes to aged care policy in this country. Let us hope that Senator McLucas will follow the lead of Dr Emerson and that of her state colleagues—and I wish to stress ‘that of her state colleagues’—who I will meet with here in Canberra on 10 April as we work cooperatively on the troubling matter of abuse of the elderly and start making positive contributions to policy discussions on how to improve aged care services in this country, rather than the cheap politicking that we have seen of late, including during the debate on the prudential administration bill yesterday.