Ms MACKLIN —My question is directed to the Minister for Family Services. What is the minister's reaction to this case brought to my attention this morning? It concerns a family who yesterday had sought admission for their mother to a nursing home in Melbourne. When told the entry fee was $90,000 and being faced with having to sell their family home, they decided to take their mother home, even though a nurse at the nursing home believes the woman must have proper nursing care. Why has the government put this family in such a terrible situation?

Opposition members —Resign, resign!

Mr SPEAKER —Order! Order!

Mrs MOYLAN —They wish. I have absolutely no doubt at all that the shadow minister will keep trotting out these particular cases for many months to come. In fact I have no doubt either that many of them will be fed to her from the New South Wales government, the Labor government, who have failed miserably to deliver decent health and aged care systems in that state.

Ms Macklin —Mr Speaker, on a point of order that goes to relevance: this is a specific case from a nurse in Melbourne.

Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Resume your seat.

Mrs MOYLAN —Let me reassure the House that, if the shadow minister can produce evidence of nursing homes and hostels not abiding by the law which came into effect yesterday and that are not abiding by the strict requirements that are laid down for establishments to charge bonds, I want to know about that and I want that evidence because the Commonwealth will take action against them, as the law provides.

Furthermore, let me clarify the allegations of the shadow minister that it was okay—I am sorry that the member for Prospect has left this place; she needs to be listening to this answer because she clearly does not understand what her own government's policy was in the last 10 years when they were in government—for Labor, when they were in government, to charge bonds in hostels because—wait for it!—people who go into hostels are there because they make a choice to be there. That is what she said on radio this morning. The truth is this—

Opposition members interjecting—

Mrs MOYLAN —Why don't you listen for a change. You might learn something.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mrs MOYLAN —Why don't you listen? Do you want to know the answer or don't you? The truth is that less than 10 per cent of residents in hostels are there by choice—less than 10 per cent. They go into hostels because they have social housing needs—the 10 per cent that are there by choice. That is why they are in hostels: they have social housing needs. They do not want to be living by themselves; they feel insecure. That reflects the failure of the previous Labor government to develop appropriate housing options for elderly people in the wider community—something we have now begun to consider and are working on so that we can ensure that people will have appropriate choices.

There are thousands of people in hostels today who are not there by choice; they are there because they are either mentally or physically frail or a combination of both, and most of them are not capable of managing their own affairs. That is the fact.

This did not stop the opposition from introducing entry contributions in 1988. Why are they now concerned about extending the measures of this system to nursing homes? Their criticism is nothing but hypocrisy and scaremongering of the very worst kind. As always, access under our legislation to care facilities will be determined not on somebody's ability to pay but on their clinically assessed need to enter a hostel or nursing home. Those in opposition that argue for the continuation of the existing system by default condemn residents to a continuation of the failed Labor system.