Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to put forward the opposition’s position on the Aged Care Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008. The bill amends the Aged Care Act 1977 and the Aged Care (Bond Security) Act 2006, to strengthen the aged-care regulatory framework so that it reflects the current structure and nature of the aged-care industry. This bill is largely uncontroversial, and the opposition support it. However, at the outset I would like to put on record our concerns about certain aspects of the bill.

As a nation we have always placed significant importance on ensuring our frail and elderly have access to good-quality aged care. Significant pressure is building up in the aged-care system, and it is building up exponentially. Our capacity as a nation to ensure access to appropriate levels and appropriate quality of care for our frail and elderly will erode unless the correct policy settings are put in place, and put in place urgently. And it is the Commonwealth government that is responsible for both the regulation and the funding arrangements for aged care, including the regulation of the fees and charges providers can pass on to residents.

Australia’s ageing population is one of the biggest social challenges we face as a nation. There are currently about 2.8 million Australians aged 65 and over. In 40 years time there will be a staggering 7.2 million Australians aged 65 and over. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, in its latest report, Projection of Australian health care expenditure by disease, 2003 to 2033, projects:

Between 2003 and 2033, health and high-care residential aged care expenditure overall is projected to increase by 189%, whereas the high-care portion of residential aged care is projected to increase by 295%. Residential aged care is dominated by dementia, which is projected to have a large increase due to the ageing of the population.

Expenditure on high-level residential aged care is projected to increase by 519% for type 2 diabetes, 457% for other neurological conditions, 408% for sense disorders and 363% for dementia. …

The cost of increases over the period are projected to be greatest for dementia—an increase of $10.5 billion, from $2.9 billion in 2003 to $13.4 billion in 2033 …

These are staggering figures. Demand for quality aged-care services will continue to increase dramatically. That growth in demand will only accelerate in years to come and, as these figures indicate, so will the cost of providing that care.

Are we ready for what is coming our way? Is the Rudd government making today the decisions that are needed to ensure Australia is well placed to meet the current and emerging challenges faced by the aged-care sector? Is the Minister for Ageing ensuring that her government is making the decisions that need to be made for the future? At present it is the view of the opposition that there is serious doubt about that. The government needs to act more decisively and with a greater sense of urgency.

Right now, the aged-care system is in freefall and unravelling at the seams. This is due largely to the underfunding of the aged-care sector. Right now, the industry is in crisis; I do not know how to put it more clearly. Evidence of this can be seen in the number of nursing homes that are closing down across Australia. Only a few days ago it was reported that Blue Care in Queensland was handing back 210 bed licences, and Blue Care’s decision follows a similar announcement by Western Australian provider Bethanie, which handed back 110 bed licences last month. Two of Victoria’s largest providers, Uniting Aged Care and Benetas, have also announced that they will not apply for standard high-care beds in the current aged-care approvals round. Undersubscription of places, licences being handed back, liquidations, banks not lending to providers—what will it take for the government to do something? The Rudd government needs to start taking notice and do something.

No business can exist on wafer-thin margins. The net exodus of providers from the aged-care industry is evidence that the industry is in freefall. Aged-care providers are very clear: there is no business case for setting up new facilities because banks will not lend on the small margins in aged care—on average, a 1.1 per cent rate of return for a high-care bed. Last year, for the first time in my home state of Western Australia, only 67 per cent of available beds were allocated, leaving a shortfall of 362 places.

Insiders in the aged-care sector in Western Australia believe that this current round of licences, which is due to close on 19 December, will again be significantly undersubscribed. I doubt whether many not-for-profit providers will be able to take on additional bed licences in the current environment and in the current policy context. Overall, expectations in Western Australia are that, at best, only half of the available licences will be taken up. As we have heard, large and well-respected providers are already handing back bed licences. There used to be a time when applying for additional bed licences was extremely competitive; providers would chase every single available bed as soon as they became available—not anymore. In the context of significant increases in demand for aged-care services around the corner, with both a growing and an ageing population, this is of great concern. The competitive strength and attractiveness of the sector have been replaced by too great an exodus of operators and insufficient incentives for new providers to enter the industry.

Last week I was contacted by a constituent who works at a senior level within the aged-care sector in Western Australia. He asked the question: ‘Is aged care going to be the next ABC Learning?’ Given the small margins in the aged-care sector, given the impact of the global financial crisis on the aged-care sector—an impact that can be expected to continue for some time, when the sector is already facing a funding crisis—and given the significant wage pressures faced by providers in Western Australia as a secondary effect of the resources boom, how are aged-care operators who are already cash strapped going to weather the storm, particularly those in Western Australia? How many providers are secured against the real estate their facilities are located on? How long will it be before a revaluation causes a provider to end up in serious financial difficulties? If that were to eventuate, the consequences could well be even worse than what we are experiencing with the collapse of ABC Learning. Where would the frail and elderly be able to access the quality care they need and deserve if their aged-care provider were to go broke? Where would somebody who is too frail and too vulnerable to be cared for at home go?

I understand that there are at least two aged-care provider groups doing it very tough in Western Australia at present—good operators who are doing it tough—in the current policy settings and in the context of the global financial crisis. Things were already bleak but, with 362 unallocated bed licences in the last round—with the same scenario likely again in this round—and with providers handing back licences, you do not have to be Einstein to figure out that we are about to hit the wall given the increases in demand at a time when capacity is not keeping up. The Rudd government ought to make some decisions and take action. To date, that is just not happening.

I will speak about the specific provisions in this bill. The bill proposes amendments to streamline assessments by the aged-care assessment teams to allow for more timely and consistent assessments for aged care. The opposition urges the minister to ensure that more timely and consistent assessments do in fact take place. The delays experienced in the reassessment of a resident’s care needs is a serious issue that is continually raised with us by aged-care providers.

Since the introduction of the Aged Care Funding Instrument in March 2008, aged-care providers have found too often that the aged-care assessment team’s assessment of a resident’s care needs do not reflect the resident’s true care needs. This is having an impact on subsidies that providers receive and, given the funding constraints that the industry is under, can only erode the ability of aged-care facilities to provide the level of care that we expect older Australians to receive. We urge the minister to make some quick and sound decisions following the review of the Aged Care Funding Instrument when it takes place. There are numerous concerns and shortfalls with the funding instrument as it currently operates that urgently need to be addressed.

The minister needs to start working with the aged-care industry to work through many of the issues that have been highlighted. The care of older Australians is too important for us not to address the shortcomings in the system. As I said at the outset, the reality is that the aged-care industry is regulated and funded by the Commonwealth, and the obligation falls with the Commonwealth to meet its full obligations. Older Australians will feel the brunt of the government’s inaction when they are unable to find themselves a bed or when services are stretched so thin that they are not able to receive the level and quality of care they need.

The opposition does not oppose the bill, as it strengthens the aged-care regulatory framework. It will provide for greater consistency between the regulatory framework and contemporary business practices, recognising the change in business models over the last 10 years. However, the bill will also increase the compliance obligations and red tape for providers. Those approved providers will face additional financial burdens as a result of having to comply with these new and amended obligations under the act. The increased obligations proposed by the bill will have an impact on investor confidence in the aged-care industry—investor confidence which is already at an all-time low.

Today, the future facing the industry is dire. If the government does not start making decisions soon about how best to ensure that the aged-care sector can get through this difficult period and be positioned well for the long term, it will be older Australians who will suffer. We on this side of the chamber say to the government: ‘Let’s take action; let’s ensure that our older Australians have access to the level and the quality of aged care services that they need and deserve.’

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I table a government response to a motion agreed to by the Senate on 25 November 2008.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Australia’s population ages, we face an increasing responsibility to ensure that older generations are provided with quality, accessible aged-care services. The Australian Greens firmly believe that the provision of these services should be designed to ensure that people of all ages are an integral part of our communities, that they are able to live their lives in safety and comfort and that they can maintain strong links with their family, friends and broader community.

The government must play a central role in coordinating and regulating the delivery of aged-care services. This regulation should give us confidence that residents will be treated respectfully and will be able to live fulfilling lives. Regulation should give us confidence in the standard of aged-care services infrastructure, both now and in the future. Regulation should also contribute towards a good working environment for staff and a viable financial framework for providers of services. However, the regulatory environment is only just keeping pace with the current model of aged-care services. It is not facilitating the essential restructuring required to assist the sector to provide for a changing demographic, and many older Australians are faced with a lack of choice about where they will live in their older age and they are forced to leave their communities.

Being a Western Australian, I have heard the same stories that Senator Cormann has. In fact, I have heard of people having to live up to 20 kilometres away from their loved ones. Whereas they had been living quite close to their loved ones, the only place they could find in care was, in some cases, up to 20 kilometres away. I heard another story of someone having to wait nine months before they found suitable aged-care accommodation. That is just a small example of some of the stories that I have been told. This is not an acceptable outcome; yet it is the one facing many people at the moment, and it is a situation that is very likely to worsen over the coming decades if more urgent action is not taken. About 15 per cent of Australia’s population is currently aged 65 and over. That proportion will be almost 30 per cent by 2050.

Many submissions to the Senate inquiry into this bill, the Aged Care Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008, raised the issue of the need for broader reform and stated that the amendments to this bill were not sufficient to help the aged-care sector to move forward and provide the types of residential services that ageing people should be able to access. As acknowledged earlier, we believe there must be a role for government in regulation and compliance in aged care. Unfortunately, at present, the government seems more focused on sanctions and a punitive approach which seems to be missing the real crisis that is affecting the aged-care sector. Beds are being handed back, beds are not being taken up and there is a lack of choice for older Australians. There are very significant viability issues amongst providers. We have seen a number of reports recently raising those viability issues. I will just mention as an aside that, when we raised these issues in estimates, the department seemed to be in denial about, for example, beds being handed back and not being taken up. There are problems in recruiting, retaining and training staff. There are problems with the staff pay levels. The impact of negative publicity around residential homes has also had an effect on staff who are already struggling with low morale in the face of these very significant viability issues.

This bill introduces changes in the regulation of the residential aged-care sector by amending the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care (Bond Security) Act 2006. These amendments are designed to address, as the minister stated, current inadequacies in the legislation and to enhance protection for residents. They amend a number of areas, which I will go through. We acknowledge that some of these areas do need to be fixed but in other areas, while we acknowledge they do need some reform, we are concerned about the amendments in relation to them. The provisions on bonds have been extended to provide better protection of the payments made by residents when they enter aged care. They now cover a wider range of payments that were previously not protected. This move was supported by consumer groups. The Australian Greens welcome this move to improve the protection of bonds and other types of admission payments. For many older Australians, the bond they have paid is equivalent to their life savings. It is only right that the legislation should seek to protect this money. So we support that.

This bill also widens the area around police checks. The detail of some of the issues concerning police checks will come with the amendments to the legislative instruments. These were not available for providers, consumers or the Senate committee inquiry to view and, therefore, are not available for the Senate to look at during its review of this legislation. This has caused some concern amongst aged-care providers because, without the detail, they face some uncertainty as to how the provisions will impact on them and the care they provide to residents.

Police checks cost the industry a lot of money. While the Greens are not saying that they are not needed, we are highlighting it as an issue and saying that anything that is put in place needs to be cost-effective. Considerable administrative effort is taken to meet the requirements for police checks. We hold the government to its statement in the inquiry that service providers will be given very clear guidelines as to who must provide police checks. We also call on the government to ensure that the most cost-effective administrative requirements are put in place, including the use of electronic communications wherever feasible. Concerns were expressed to the committee inquiry about the extended coverage of the checks, particularly for contractors in emergency situations. But the department assured the committee that existing requirements for emergency contractors would remain the same, and we are also seeking the government’s assurance on this.

The issue of reporting missing residents also became a very contentious point in the submissions and in the inquiry process. This was raised by both aged-care providers and consumer representatives. Aged-care providers will now be required to report missing residents to the department. This is in addition to the current requirement where the police are notified once, when it becomes clear that a resident is actually missing and not just visiting family or friends. When initially giving this evidence to the inquiry, the department was unsure about what action would be taken by departmental staff should a resident be reported missing. This has since been clarified, but only partially. The department states that in some cases they might take no action at all, yet in other cases they might apply sanctions. However, the sanctions themselves are dealt with in legislative instruments that we are yet to see. This was also of concern to providers.

While everyone agrees that the safety of residents must be assured, the fear expressed by both providers and consumer groups is that the threat of sanctions that will result should a resident go missing will place pressure on providers to restrict the freedom of residents. This goes against the very basic right that residents have to be treated as adults and to have freedom of movement. Residents are as entitled as any other adult to visit family, to go shopping and to visit libraries, parks or restaurants. Being aged and in need of residential care should not mean being locked up. We urge the government, when drafting the principles that will contain the detail of the sanctions, to be aware of the potential for sanctions to pressure providers into restricting the freedom of residents. We seek clarification about what types of sanctions the government is talking about and in what circumstances they would be applied. This is clearly an example where the threat of sanctions does not lead to better models of service delivery. In fact, the impact on residents may be completely the opposite, with the risk of residents being further marginalised and isolated from their communities.

I now turn to the amendments to the Aged Care Act that have been described by the minister as necessary in capturing the more complex financial and management structures of owners and operators of residential care facilities. As part of these amendments, the definition of ‘key personnel’ has been broadened in an attempt to include all those who might have decision-making responsibilities. Key personnel are judged on their financial and managerial performance and that they do not have criminal records when seeking to be approved as a provider. We definitely understand the need for expanding this definition to assist in regulating aged-care providers with complex corporate structures. But the approach taken risks an increased burden on the majority of aged-care providers who are in fact not-for-profit organisations.

Many not-for-profit aged-care providers are religious organisations. Their management structures are often made up of voluntary boards of management. In one case described to the inquiry, the board had about 300 members. It is highly unlikely that each of these persons would be actively involved in the operations of the aged-care facility. This might also be the case for other religious persons who have a senior role in the church but who do not have a decision-making role in the provision of aged-care services. The minister has stated that, under the new arrangements, church leaders who do not involve themselves in the executive decisions of the aged-care service will not be included. Yet the amendment has created uncertainty about whether these people are required to be identified as key personnel. This broadened definition of ‘key personnel’ represents a considerable administrative load on both the provider and the department. We therefore seek to amend the bill so that it specifies that membership of a voluntary management board does not necessarily imply that such members should be considered key personnel.

Overall, this bill concerns the Greens because the current regulatory environment is increasingly reliant on punitive measures and sanctions rather than adopting a consultative approach that would assist providers to meet the complex nature of the changing demand for aged-care services. As I articulated earlier, we do understand the need for regulation and support that, but we sometimes think it may go too far. Better models of service provision are not going to emerge from an increasingly punitive approach being adopted by government, given the crisis that is emerging in the provision of aged care. It is a mistake to believe that punishment and sanctions alone will lead to best practice in the delivery of aged-care services. Even where they are necessary, particularly in the case of harm to residents, it is incumbent upon the department to work consultatively with the care providers for the benefit of the residents and their families. In particular, the additional provisions for sanctions in this bill have caused a number of concerns amongst providers. Items 115 to 118 seek to amend the act so that the secretary, when making a decision to impose sanctions, must consider, in the case of 116, whether the noncompliance would threaten the health, welfare or interests of future care recipients; and, in the case of 117, the desirability of deterring future non-compliance. In the case of 118, the new subsection provides that the secretary’s paramount consideration must be whether the noncompliance threatens or would threaten the health, welfare or interests of current and future care recipients.

In evidence to the inquiry, providers found it difficult to accept how the future needs of residents would be assessed and stated that taking into account future acts placed them in a situation of having sanctions imposed in response to events that had not yet occurred. The Australian Greens remain concerned about the provisions relating to these possible future compliance issues. We believe they remain vague and ambiguous and are thus open to subjective interpretation and likely to result in uneven application. It is not at all clear how the secretary can make decisions and impose sanctions based on an event that has not yet occurred. We do not consider that an emphasis on this approach can be productive, and in those situations we believe a better approach would be a cooperative approach with the providers involved. The example that was raised during the committee inquiry was on the need for collection of bonds, for example, and where providers had failed to return bonds. The other amendments that are being made in a more direct approach to the system of bonds would be a more appropriate way rather than these rather vague and ambiguous amendments.

As their submissions to the Senate inquiry indicated, many of the providers and consumer groups giving evidence objected to various aspects of this bill. But by far the most consistently expressed concern was that the bill did not provide a way forward to address the serious long-term concerns of the aged-care sector. These issues are clearly described by the recent Productivity Commission report into trends in aged-care services. According to the Productivity Commission:

Over the coming decades, pressures on the demand-side of the aged care market are expected to accentuate a number of weaknesses in the current policy framework … There are concerns that the system is overly fragmented and difficult to access and navigate …The ability of older Australians to exercise choice is limited by regulatory and financing arrangements …

The Grant Thornton report also put it very clearly: ‘The regulatory and pricing framework now threatens the viability of the aged care sector.’ At the moment, the sector is experiencing low rates of return added to a shortfall of capital available to redevelop and update existing facilities and to construct new facilities. This limits the choices of the aged when they are seeking care. The situation will only get worse as our population ages and also as the baby boomers come down the track and start moving into aged care and expecting different aged-care services and a different way of accessing aged-care services.

We believe there is a need for a new model of service delivery for the aged in Australia. The Greens would like to work with providers, consumers and the community and the government to build this new model. But the preparation for this model must start now because we are dealing with a significant crisis threatening the future of aged-care delivery in Australia, and the sooner we start dealing with that the sooner we can start delivering better outcomes for the ageing community of Australia.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to indicate my support for the Aged Care Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008, but wish to note my concerns about the handling of aged care by both this and previous governments. This bill seeks to strengthen the aged-care regulatory framework and, in the words of the explanatory memorandum, ‘to address current legislative inadequacies and maintain effective regulatory safeguards for ensuring high quality care for older Australians’. Caring for our elderly is one of the most important responsibilities for Australian society and in turn for Australian governments.

As a senator for South Australia, which has a population that is relatively older than that of Australia as a whole, I know that we feel the pinch of these responsibilities, perhaps earlier and more so than in other states. Many South Australians have found their encounters with aged care to be confusing, stressful, emotional and at times painful experiences. There is the highly emotional tearing of ties, where an elderly relative is forced due to poor health, and often against their will, to leave their home of many years. Due to a shortage of places, many of these relatives have to take whatever placement can be found, often a long distance from their home, and there is the confusion and disorientation that results from relocation to a new place later in life. Added to this is the stress that is felt by families as they seek to find not only any place, but the best place, for their loved ones. No-one wants to have to explain to their children why their grandpa or grandma is so miserable in their later years of life. And having as children shared their home with their elderly grandparents, many adult children now feel extreme guilt as they place their parents into care. Times have changed, more people work and people are living longer, meaning that staying home to care for your parents is not a viable option—something an elderly parent may often not understand.

Then there is the heartbreaking separation of life-long partners being forced to live apart because there are not enough high-care places provided with nearby low- to medium-level care. When a partner most wants to be near their loved one—as their health declines—they are forced to be apart. As people who ourselves are not yet in care, we cannot help but wonder what sort of care will be available to us in not too many years time—or in my case not too many years time! These are real concerns and are only reinforced by the regular media reports that portray the current aged-care situation as being stretched to the limit—and they reflect the reality.

In the Sydney Morning Herald on 10 November Mark Metherell reported:

The Government’s failure to deal with the financial woes hitting nursing homes will result in a drought in places for frail elderly people on low incomes …

In short, those who can afford it will have to outlay bonds ‘of more than $180,000’. Those who cannot will miss out.

Martin Laverty, the CEO of Catholic Health Australia, which represents the biggest not-for-profit aged-care provider in Australia, explained in the same article that government regulations prevent aged-care operators from charging a consumer the actual cost of care, yet government funding is insufficient to cover operating and capital costs. He warned that the result is a real risk that the 37,000 new beds that were recently announced by the government will not be taken up as providers cannot take the financial risk.

Similarly, Jim Toohey reported in the Courier Mail on 6 October that there is an aged-care crisis looming. His article reported how older Australians are increasingly finding themselves in hospital beds when aged care is not available. That, clearly, is just not good enough. Mr Toohey also highlighted the findings of the Productivity Commission report into the future of aged care, namely, that, without significant changes to aged-care funding, service standards will struggle to match current levels. This crisis will not be fixed by the repeated tightening of regulations; it requires real investment—tens of thousands of new places at a cost of hundreds of thousands each.

As my office has consulted representatives of the aged-care sector over the last few months, these reports have proved indicative of the experiences of aged-care providers. These providers report that the cost of inflation is hitting the sector hard and it is making it ever harder for aged-care providers to remain viable.

There is a shortage of high-level care places and, while there has been some investment in medium- and low-level care in recent years, this shortage is worsening. Exacerbating the situation is the inability of aged-care providers to use bonds to help fund the provision of more infrastructure and high-level care places, thus making it less financially feasible for both for-profit and not-for-profit providers.

Adding to this is the growing pressure to get nurses and carers into the profession. With low pay, demanding conditions and limited long-term career prospects, it is hard to attract and keep quality people. Estimates put the cost to aged care of matching the wages and conditions of hospital staff at around $450 million a year. Further, as Australia’s baby boomer generation becomes older and requires more intensive aged care, there will be an explosion in demand for places.

Australia’s aged-care sector is heading for tough times. My concern is that this government, along with the one before it, have been far too focussed on tightening regulations and have not paid enough attention to adequate funding. Building new aged-care facilities costs about $200,000 per bed but the government provides only $76,000.

While proper regulation of this industry is vital for the safety of those in care, repeatedly stricter regulation should not be used as a catch 22. Providers who are pushed to meet ever stricter standards and secure ever more stretched funds are, in so doing, undermining their capacity to highlight the system’s inadequacies. Should sector representatives claim that there are problems, a minister can reply, ‘What problem? The sector is becoming more efficient and you are still meeting standards,’ or words along those lines. This is not long-term vision; this is short-term cynicism, and this is my broad concern in relation to this bill.

I am aware that the numbers are in favour of the swift passage of the bill, and I do not, in principle, oppose a stronger accountability framework, but more needs to be done. I wish to put on record that I will be watching with great interest the government’s future initiatives in relation to the looming aged-care crisis, particularly as it has significant implications for my home state of South Australia.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased today to have the opportunity to sum up the debate on the Aged Care Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008. At the outset I say ‘thank you’ to the senators who have made a contribution to the debate. I thank Senator Siewert for her thoughtful contribution, particularly about the difficulties that are faced by the sector. And I heard your comments, Senator Xenophon, as I am sure Minister Elliott’s staff have as well, and we would be happy to continue a discussion about that. But to Senator Cormann I say that it was evident from your contribution that you are very new to this sector—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Twelve years.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Twelve years, you are saying. You have experience of 12 years and you had the gall, can I say, to stand up and say what you did in the early part of your contribution this evening.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What have you done for the last 12 months?

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What have we done for the last 12 months? We have tried to fix up the 11½ years of neglect that occurred under your government. You must know that, and you know that 11½ years of patch-up has got to be turned around. We have been dealt a very difficult situation in this portfolio. There have been 11½ years of neglect by the previous government and you are demanding that in 12 months the mess of the past, in such a complex area of regulation, has to be fixed up.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann interjecting—

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Cormann, I cannot hear Senator McLucas. Can we have some order.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say to Senator Cormann and his colleague that it is very easy to play to an audience in aged care. These people are very vulnerable. It is easy to play to an audience. It is much harder to do the complex work that is required to resolve those complex issues in the mix between community care and residential care. I want to take this opportunity to commend the minister for the work that she is doing in difficult circumstances.

This bill seeks to amend the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care (Bond Security) Act 2006 to address current legislative inadequacies and to maintain effective regulatory safeguards to ensure high-quality care for older Australians. Essentially, the bill makes changes to the aged-care regulation in three key areas: the regulation of approved providers, the framework for aged care assessment and the protection of residents’ accommodation bonds. In addition, the bill contains a range of other more minor operational changes to clarify and improve the administration of the legislation so that it operates more efficiently and more effectively.

The bill, as the Senate is aware, has been the subject of an inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs. I thank Senator Moore and her committee for the work that they did through that inquiry. Sixteen submissions were received and a public hearing was held. The committee recommended, as we all know, that the bill be passed. The committee found that, as the aged-care services sector grows and evolves, this legislation is a valuable step to ensuring that legislation and regulation designed to protect residents will keep pace with that evolution.

There was strong support for the bill, though some concerns were raised about some of the measures that it contained. The committee, however, is of the view that some of the concerns raised by industry were based on misunderstandings about the new arrangements. For example, when it comes to the requirements associated with the notification of missing residents, we have to agree that the rights and freedoms of aged-care residents should never be curtailed. That is simply not the purpose of this measure. A notification to the department would be required only when the approved provider has decided that a person is unaccountably missing and is sufficiently concerned to notify police. This will allow the department to determine whether appropriate action has been taken by the service in respect of the missing resident and whether there are adequate systems and processes in place to ensure other residents’ safety. The department’s response to the notification will be proportionate to the risk posed to the residents of the service. With this measure, frail older Australians will have increased protection. It will not restrict the basic human rights of older Australians and was never intended to do so. Nor will it restrict the freedom of movement of those residents.

Caring for our ageing population is one of the major challenges facing our nation this century. It requires careful planning, adequate funding and comprehensive safeguards to ensure the protection of older Australians. Debate on this bill has highlighted the importance of achieving a balance between protecting the needs and rights of individual frail aged persons entering residential aged care and the long-term viability of the aged care sector. These changes will better protect residents, will promote public confidence in the aged-care sector and will complement the government’s funding of more than $41.6 billion over four years to support aged and community care for older Australians. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.