Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Ageing, Senator Santoro. Will the minister outline to the Senate the steps that the federal, state and territory governments are taking together to address the very serious issue of long stay older patients in public hospitals, and is the minister aware of any alternative views?

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, Senator Santoro, I cannot acknowledge you because there is somebody walking between you and the chair. I would ask senators to remember standing orders about people wandering around the chamber. Senator Heffernan, would you take your seat.

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

I wish to thank Senator Humphries for his question because it enables me to talk about something that will keep even the Labor Party senators opposite very happy. I am sure that they would be the first to agree with me that older people in public hospitals have as much right as anyone else to receive the best possible care whilst they are in hospital. Senators will be aware of the COAG meeting in February. At that meeting, state premiers and the Prime Minister agreed to the Better Health for All Australians initiative. What this particular initiative did in terms of long stay older patients was to reduce unnecessary admissions, minimise lengths of stay and improve the transition to appropriate long-term care. I am sure that all senators would agree that they are laudable objectives which are being pursued.

Under this COAG initiative, the Commonwealth is providing $150 million over four years to the states and territories to enhance the care of people over 65 who have been long-term patients. I am happy to say that the state premiers and the state governments are very active and constructive partners in terms of this initiative. The Commonwealth’s commitment to this area has attracted very strong, favourable comment and support from the Labor premiers. The Senate will be interested to hear, for example, that New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma described the COAG agreement as:

Significant progress on tackling some of the blockages in our health system.

That is from a Labor Premier. I give credit to Labor people, including Labor premiers, whenever we need to give credit. Mr Iemma went on to say that the agreement:

... will in the long term provide for sustained improvement in the quality of services in our hospitals, as well as out in the community.

Tasmanian Labor Premier Paul Lennon said:

... we need to free up beds that are currently being used by people who could be better supported elsewhere in aged care facilities. Today’s decision will benefit older people as well as it benefits those waiting for an operation.

I say thank you to those fair-minded Labor people who are prepared to accept leadership in terms of federal initiatives that are of benefit to older Australians who are long-stay patients in hospitals.

The COAG agreement is in addition to the Commonwealth’s new national Transition Care Program to help older people leaving hospital to return home rather than enter residential care. Senators will be interested to know that under this program 2,000 places available for short-term assistance will be online by 2006-07 and will assist up to 13,000 older Australians who will need that sort of care.

In addition, the Pathways Home program is providing, through the Australian Health Care Agreement, $253 million to states and territories over five years to improve rehabilitation and step-down services to help older people return home. So, as you can see, Mr President, the Commonwealth and state Labor governments are in clear agreement about how to best care for older Australians during and after hospital visits.

Senator Humphries asked me, quite astutely, I thought, about alternative policies. I note a media report today that says:

LABOR is working on a revamp of its Medicare Gold health policy including new specialist hospitals for thousands of elderly people to prevent them clogging public hospitals.

Medicare Gold was rejected by the Australian public in 2004. Not long after that, Labor’s now shadow minister for finance, the member for Melbourne, admitted that Medicare Gold ‘would add a very substantial burden to future federal budgets’. And, in May this year, the Leader of the Opposition finally put what most people thought was the final nail in— (Time expired)

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister explain why the government will not be adopting the alternative policies of which he has spoken?

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

I appreciate Senator Humphries’s supplementary question. As to why our government will not implement it, I can only quote Kim Beazley’s words on Lateline when he said:

We will not be taking Medicare gold to the next election ...

If that is good enough for Mr Beazley, it is good enough for the government. The ghost of Mark Latham has today emerged in the form of Medicare Gold ‘Mark’ II. Early in July this year, the ALP’s senior national president, Barry Jones, was quoted in the Financial Review as saying that Labor’s aged care policy was only ‘weeks away’. If this is indeed the agreed policy of Labor Party luminaries, I think that all aged people in Australia will be very sadly disappointed.