Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aged Care, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Santoro, the Minister for Ageing. Is the minister aware that the current owners of six residential aged care facilities in Queensland and Victoria were jailed for defrauding the Commonwealth of aged care subsidies in 1999? On their conviction, didn’t they simply transfer the directorship of their company—the approved provider—to their daughters while maintaining ownership of the company even during their jail term? Haven’t they subsequently returned to participate in the operation of these facilities, which received a total of $16 million from the government in aged care subsidies in 2004-05 alone? Can the minister now confirm that this same approved provider is now again under investigation by the department for fraud? Can the minister explain to taxpayers why the government allowed convicted fraudsters to own aged care facilities and receive millions of dollars in aged care subsidies?

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

I thank Senator McLucas for her question, because she raises issues that have been in the public domain and which have been of concern to people who take an interest in these matters. I will not deal with the specifics of Senator McLucas’s question, because, as she quite correctly said, the particular issue that she refers to is under investigation and, I understand, is also subject to legal proceedings. So I will not proceed to address the specific issues, Senator McLucas, although I would be happy, if you wish, to provide you with a private briefing relating to the legal situation that applies now.

But I am able to inform the Senate about policies that apply to changes of key personnel, which I think is at the core of the question asked by Senator McLucas. The Aged Care Act 1997 sets out requirements for approved providers and their key personnel. Key personnel are those persons responsible for the management of the approved provider’s business and aged care services. Approved providers are required to notify the department of changes to their key personnel. A person convicted of an indictable offence is a disqualified individual and is not permitted to be a key personnel of an approved provider. It is an approved provider’s responsibility under the Aged Care Act 1997 to ensure that none of its key personnel is a disqualified individual. Approved providers are required to notify the department of any changes to their key personnel and to notify if changes are the result of key personnel becoming disqualified individuals.

Under the Aged Care Act 1997 it is an offence for a disqualified individual to be a key personnel of an approved provider. If the department receives information that a person who is known to be a disqualified individual appears to be participating in the management of an approved provider’s business or aged care services then the department investigates the matter thoroughly. Where the investigation identifies evidence which supports allegations that the person is undertaking key personnel activities, the department refers the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who decides whether the evidence is sufficient to support a prosecution of that matter. Under those guidelines and those policies, it seems to me that issues that are as sensitive as that raised by Senator McLucas have been appropriately dealt with, and I am confident that the specific issue which has been raised by Senator McLucas is similarly being dealt with currently.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aged Care, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. How does the department then verify whether an individual is key personnel under the act? Doesn’t this case clearly show that the government carries out no real checks on the ownership or control of approved providers of residential aged care? Under current arrangements, isn’t it a fact that the department does not know who actually owns and controls the approved providers that are operating government funded nursing homes? Given that the sector receives over $5 billion in taxpayers’ money every year, why hasn’t the government done more to ensure that owners of residential aged care facilities are of proper character?

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

Again, Senator McLucas raises some issues which I think are relevant enough to explain further. The senator would obviously appreciate that to prove whether a shareholder is acting in a way which meets the definition of ‘key personnel’ is problematical. It is an issue that I have raised with the department, and I have asked for some further explanation of process. This is especially so where the shareholder is exercising control indirectly—for example, through a director who is key personnel or is acting on behalf of the shareholder, or where no formal record of involvement is made. That is just one instance where there can be difficulties in identifying who the key personnel are. I asked the department to review the process, subsequent to the issue that Senator McLucas has raised becoming a public issue a month or two ago. The department is to provide me with further advice and, at that point in time, I will be happy to inform Senator McLucas and the Senate of any further developments.