Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

In the contribution I am about to make, I want to deal with the last answer first. It was very interesting that, while the minister was reporting what the minister in the other place asked him to say on his behalf, there was I believe an attempt to suggest that we were not going to go down the path of multicrew pilot licensing until this process of review—this consultation—had taken place. But no, in answer to my supplementary question what is being made clear is that the training is starting now. The only thing is that they are calling it a trial and that at the end of the training they will have completed the trial. So those who have completed the training will be able to be licensed under the regulations. That is in fact what the minister was saying. Let us get away from the cant we were given on Monday about this government putting this on the backburner until consultation has been considered.

The truth of this matter was revealed back in February—you can see it on the internet today at Alteon’s website. Alteon is the training arm of Boeing that is running this simulator based training. Alteon has been saying from as early as February this year that Alteon:

... will present the proposed training syllabus to industry partners in April—

which it did—

and finalise the programme by June—

which it did, and—

the first MPL training course would take place in Brisbane, beginning in November and producing the first batch of qualified pilots—

qualified in its terms—

by January 2008.

How can you commence a course before you know whether the qualification exists? But the fix is in, because CASA, according to Alteon, is one of its industry partners, and there is general agreement that, ‘We’ll go through the process and we’re going to approve this multi-crew pilot licensing system, so let’s get on with the training now; let’s have Alteon start the course in February this year.’ I think Alteon believes it will have six to eight cadets start this program next month in Brisbane, and I understand there are other courses being contemplated on the eastern seaboard of Australia. Alteon is saying, ‘Let’s start that process, let’s get it underway.’ Despite what has been promised about consultation, and despite what has been promised about the standards expected, there is an expectation by Alteon and by CASA that by January 2008 people who will have gone through the course will be able to get the tick, because the fix is in and these multi-crew pilot licences will be approved.

The multicrew pilot licensing proposal from ICAO has not been approved in the United States or Europe. It has not been adopted as the alternative standard. It is still in contemplation. So how do the proponent and CASA get around that? How does the government get around that? Ultimately, it is responsible. What is being said is, ‘We’re going to call this training a trial.’ So what do we say about the people who have participated in the trial? Are they really undergoing training? Are they qualified pilots who are being tested against the standards they already have or are they, as I understand it, cadets who are not experienced pilots and who will be undertaking this sort of training for the first time? At the end of that period in January 2008, they will be expecting to come out of it with a qualification so that they can sit in the second officer’s seat at the front of one of the larger aircraft flying around in whatever part of the world they seek to fly in, and that could well be Australian airspace.

I do not know who will be engaging these pilots when they are qualified, but clearly CASA and this government believe that they will be qualified. Certainly, Alteon does; it would not be starting the training if it did not have that expectation. Frankly, we have had a very slippery answer from the minister’s counterpart in the other place, because he has been representing what has been said to him. Frankly, the Australian public should be very concerned because it is clear that we have been given a bit of spin about a process that will be followed. But, at the end of the day, the fix is in and this multi-crew pilot licence will get the big tick.

Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take part in this debate on the motion to take note of answers, and in particular I refer to the answers given by the Minister for Ageing, Senator Santoro. It is important to remind those opposite of the system that the Australian government has in place for the monitoring of residential aged-care homes for compliance with their obligations under the Aged Care Act 1997. The act states that approved providers are responsible for meeting the accreditation standards, which include meeting the individual care needs of their residents.

It is very important that the resident must come first. Issues of concern are acted upon promptly and monitored until compliance is achieved. On occasion, for example, due to management issues or staff changes, there can be unexpected lapses in care. However, poor care is never acceptable, whatever the circumstances, and in these cases sanctions action must be taken.

The department may impose sanctions in a range of circumstances, including where there is a continued failure to comply with the obligations of the Aged Care Act 1997 or where there is an immediate and severe risk to the health and safety of residents. In determining whether there is an immediate and severe risk to the safety, health and wellbeing of residents, the department must consider the information that the agency has identified during their visit to a home. In most instances where immediate sanctions are imposed, the agency has determined that the noncompliance is a serious risk.

During 2005-06 the department imposed 12 sanctions. There are currently six homes under sanctions. Five of the homes are operating and one no longer has any care recipients. Information on sanctions imposed is available on the Department of Health and Ageing sanctions website once all residents and relatives have been advised of the sanctions being imposed on their homes. This is a very practical way of dealing with things, because no-one likes to see headlines in the newspapers regarding homes that do not qualify under the standards having sanctions put on them without their first being notified.

At the end of June this year, 2,937 residential aged-care homes were accredited Australia-wide. The majority of the homes—2,727, which is 93 per cent—received at least three years accreditation. During 2005-06 the agency and department undertook 5,495 visits to homes, including 1,070 unannounced visits. Since 2000 the agency and department have conducted in excess of 22,000 visits to aged-care homes, which includes over 4,500 spot checks. When I visited a frail aged facility in Port Hedland the spot check assessors had arrived just before me, so it was a really good opportunity for me to be able to discuss what they were doing and, to the delight of the authorities and the residents of that home, it passed with flying colours. They were very happy to have the assessors there because they could learn from other people who may have different ideas. You can speak to the assessors and probably obtain information that you may not otherwise have been able to get. So it is a win-win situation for both parties—for the assessors to take ideas to another facility and for the facility that is being spot checked to be given information that may help it in the future.

Recently announced measures will provide greater protection for residents and improve the overall quality of care delivered in Australian government subsidised aged-care services. These measures include more frequent unannounced inspections of aged-care homes by the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency, in order to provide for about 3,000 unannounced visits each year, and ensuring that all homes will receive at least one unannounced visit each year. This is a very valuable tool and, as I said, it can be a reciprocal arrangement in that information— (Time expired)

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

I do not think that the residents and the families of residents at Elizabeth House or Plumpton Villa will have found any comfort in the responses that we received today from the Minister for Ageing, Senator Santoro. There are 30 residents in Elizabeth House, most of whom are high care, and 90 residents in Plumpton Villa. If those residents or their families had the opportunity to hear the minister today, I do not know that they would have a lot of confidence in the operation of the aged care that Senator Adams has quite eloquently described. I hope Senator Santoro has an opportunity to listen to it; he might learn something.

The facts are that earlier this year Plumpton Villa failed 22 of the 44 care outcomes that are applied by the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency. As I said in my question, no sanction was applied, and they had a reduced accreditation of a number of months. Elizabeth House, a larger facility, failed 30 out of 44 care outcomes. It is one of the worst reports that I have seen in my time as shadow minister for ageing. But once again we had no sanction applied and a reduced accreditation of five months. A sister agency, Berwick House, failed nine care outcomes this year as well.

As I said earlier, I do not think those residents or their families will take any comfort in the aggressive and defensive behaviour exhibited by Senator Santoro today. They will have no comfort in his attacking me for performing my legitimate role to ask him questions about the actions of the agency, of his department or of him himself.

Elizabeth House was found to be compliant with only 14 out of 44 outcomes. Senator Santoro is quoted in the Ageand I had to bring it to his attention—as defending that situation. He defended the fact that there was no sanction implied, and he said that no-one was at risk. If you read the report, look at the comments on medication management. The report says:

There is no system in place to ensure that residents’ medications are managed safely and correctly. Management have not conducted medication management audits for some time. Not all registered staff are aware of safe and/or correct practices when administering medication.

That sounds pretty risky to me. In terms of nutrition and hydration, the report says:

Residents’ nutrition and hydration needs are not monitored. Residents identified with unexpected weight gain or loss are not referred to appropriate health professionals.

In terms of pain management, the report says:

Management cannot demonstrate that they are assisting residents to be as free as possible from pain.

Maybe those residents are not at risk, but it sounds like risk to me.

Then we move to Plumpton Villa, which failed 22 care standards. Senator Santoro, the Minister for Ageing, jumped up and said that he would not be verballed by my asking a question. My question was pretty straightforward. I said that Plumpton Villa was a sister facility of Elizabeth House, that it failed 22 care standards and didn’t the report say that there were insufficient staff and at times the assessment team could not locate any staff—straight out of the report—that the assessment team heard people moaning in pain and observed a high number of skin tears amongst residents—straight out of the report. Then I asked if the minister recalled defending his decision to not impose a sanction on this facility because it was getting its act together. I said that he was defending his decision, and that is when I think he suggested that I was verballing him.

The Minister for Ageing then gave an absolutely unequivocal guarantee that the facility was providing top quality care. A colleague of mine rang a family member of a current resident since the minister gave that unequivocal commitment. Last week when that family member arrived at Plumpton Villa they could not get in, there was no-one at reception and there was no staff member in sight. When they got in, the staff were chatting to one another for about 10 minutes. They did say it does smell better, and that is good. But it is still understaffed, according to the family member of the resident in the facility. (Time expired)

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

I am happy to take part in this debate and to indicate that I was also somewhat dismayed by the answers that Senator Santoro gave in question time today. I was dismayed because I was distressed that, as the Minister for Ageing, Senator Santoro was obliged to have to raise and talk about, on the floor of the Senate, the circumstances of individual residents in Australia in a way that would not be conducive to the welfare and to the peace of mind of those people, should they happen to have been listening to this debate.

We have the privilege of raising in this place the circumstances of individual citizens—in this case, individual aged care facilities in this country. With that privilege comes the obligation to ensure that we handle the issues with sensitivity and in a way that does not put the individuals concerned, particularly vulnerable citizens of Australia, in any distressing situation. I do not know how they are going to react to the debate that has taken place in the Senate today on these matters, but I suspect that, to the extent that their cases are publicised by these circumstances, they are not likely to be very happy.

What we do know is that the circumstances of both Plumpton Villa and Elizabeth House have been investigated appropriately by the organisations responsible for maintaining standards in those places. We know because the minister has told us very directly that, in the case of Elizabeth House, the assessment team recommended that the home’s accreditation should be revoked but that the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency decided against revoking the home’s accreditation in light of immediate action the home undertook to address the deficiencies.

A number of issues were raised in that dialogue between the accreditation agency and the home concerned. For example, the period of accreditation has now been reduced in order to put them on notice that they have to meet a higher standard. In the case of Plumpton Villa, similarly the review audit led to the agency reducing the home’s period of accreditation by 20 months, and the home has again been placed by the agency on a timetable for improvement.

Those are appropriate steps to be taken to reassure those who live in those homes and their families that the government and its agencies have not ignored clear indications of problems or clear deficiencies in the way in which those homes have been operated, but the issues have not been escalated to a point which is not in the best interests of those residents—and this is the point. Senator McLucas clearly seems to think that the government should have organised for its agencies to shut down those facilities. That would not see a perpetuation of those bad standards, but it might well throw those residents out into the street and force them to find other accommodation, which as we know is not plentiful around Australia at the moment. In my opinion, that would potentially be an overreaction. Quite appropriately, the minister said that his agencies have properly taken stock of these circumstances and are gauging the best response to those situations.

I make the point first of all: what would these residents have done if these incidents had arisen 12, 14 or 16 years ago? Of course, in those days there was no accreditation agency. In those days, under the Hawke-Keating government, there was nowhere to turn to have these sorts of issues remedied. We have put in place the kinds of mechanisms which bring to light these problems, and we provide fuel for Senator McLucas and others to raise these sorts of cases in this place. I do not resile from that. We are bringing these problems out into the open, and we have engineered higher standards in Australian nursing homes by virtue of having taken those steps. An inquiry in 1995 revealed that there were appalling circumstances applying in many nursing homes across Australia, and that of course was a period that reflected on Labor’s stewardship of this issue.

The other point is that the minister indicated in his answer today that he is at arms-length from these issues. In blaming Senator Santoro, the Minister for Ageing, for these deficiencies, Senator McLucas overlooks the point that we have put in place mechanisms at arms-length from the minister to make these decisions. It is not his decision to shut down individual homes. It should not be politicised, but of course in this place, in the course of question time, it has been. (Time expired)

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of the answers by the Minister for Ageing, Senator Santoro. When the minister took on the Ageing portfolio earlier this year, I posed the question:

Is he going to be a minister who fudges and hides behind his bureaucrats or is he going to be a minister who is prepared to call a spade a spade and decry mismanagement and scandal? Is this a minister who will seek to sweep things under the carpet, as so many of his predecessors have done?

It appears so. Sadly, this minister continues to fail the test. Older Australians and their families—indeed, the Australian community—expect that our government will ensure that aged-care facilities are held to the highest standard and that the community can have confidence in the residential aged-care assistance for their loved ones in their greatest time of need.

We have seen previously—and earlier this year there have been more—revelations of elder abuse and failures in our aged-care facilities. Today we have seen the minister again refuse to act, refusing to impose any penalty on an aged-care facility reported to have failed 30 of the 44 care standards. Elizabeth House Private Nursing Home failed 30 of the 44 care standards—70 per cent of the care standards put in place to ensure that frail older Australians receive quality care and are treated with dignity. The care standards failed included residents not getting the clinical care they needed, medication not being managed properly, pain not being effectively managed, intimidation of families complaining about the quality and standards of care, and staff shortages.

Australians in aged care deserve more than this. Working Australian families deserve more than this for their loved ones. The Herald Sun reported on the matter:

A MELBOURNE nursing home has been allowed to remain open despite failing to comply with basic standards.

The article goes on to say:

The decision comes after two other homes run by the same company—Glenn-Craig Villages—were also accredited despite major failings.

In the latest case, auditors were concerned the home’s high-care residents—

and I remind senators that high-care residents are some of our most vulnerable and frail residents in aged-care homes—

were not getting enough food and fluids and those showing unexpected weight loss were not referred to medical professionals.

Auditors found medications were “not managed safely or correctly”, while residents may have been left in unnecessary pain.

The report goes on to say:

The audit team that examined the home said its accreditation should be revoked.

So why, despite this recommendation, despite this facility’s almost complete breaching of care standards, has the minister failed to act? As I have already said, Elizabeth House Private Nursing Home is not the only facility that has failed to meet standards. This aged-care provider operates two other facilities, both of which have failed to meet care standards and many of the problems of which are clearly long running—some, as we have heard, dating back to 2005.

We are getting no answers or solutions from this minister in this place. All we get from this minister is failure: his failure to boost confidence in the sector by taking on a Labor amendment that would have provided for one unannounced annual spot check on all residential aged-care facilities in Australia on all 44 care standards. This government needs to do more than just concede that standards are not being met. It needs to ensure that they are met and that those facilities that are not meeting their obligations, not meeting standards of care, will be dealt with properly. How can the Minister for Ageing allow the continuance of substandard care in aged care when he has the capacity to stop it? How can he, on his watch, allow identified substandard care providers—and I do not wish to be accused of verballing the minister—time to get their act together, when poor care of the elderly is happening here and now? How does the minister live with the knowledge that frail Australians suffer whenever there is any delay in addressing the serious issues surrounding the abuse of the elderly in aged care?

Every day of delay in dealing with these serious issues continues the suffering of needy Australians, suffering that is completely unnecessary. Residents should not have to moan in pain for days because staffing levels are inadequate. The elderly do not deserve to be treated in such a manner as to ensure numerous tears to their fragile skin as an everyday matter of living in these places. The elderly do not deserve to be shunted aside and forgotten in this deplorable way. The minister has the capacity to change this, but it appears he does not have the will. Australians in aged care are an important part of our community. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.