Mr MOSSFIELD (12:22 PM) —This Aged Care Amendment Bill 2000 is catch-up legislation. It is hard to find any other issue where this government has been so widely criticised by the general public than in its aged care policies. From the time the government announced its intention to charge up-front accommodation bonds for people seeking to enter nursing homes and then the Prime Minister's backdown on this issue due to public outrage, through to the more recent scandals concerning the Riverside and Kenilworth private nursing homes amongst others, the government's aged care policies have been in total disarray. It is not possible to differentiate one aspect of aged care policy from another because they are complementary to each other. Whether we are talking about residential aged care or community based care, financial accountability or accommodation standards or medical care, they all lead in the one direction, which is to ensure that adequate aged care services for our elderly citizens are available.

Specifically, this bill gives more power to the Department of Health and Aged Care over providers who cannot or will not comply with the act. The question that needs to be asked is: will this prevent the mistreatment of our elderly citizens in nursing homes or will this be like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted? This bill is also designed to require notice to be given to residents and relatives when the approved provider of a residential aged care service faces a withdrawal of approved provider status, the revocation of places or the evacuation of residents. One would think the notification of residents and their families would be not only a simple common courtesy but also standard practice. Unfortunately, this seems not to be the case. I feel that just giving notice in such circumstances is rather insufficient action. What should happen is that the disqualified provider should be required to find and arrange the transfer of people affected into an approved residence at their company's expense.

This bill also enables action to be taken to remove key personnel of the approved provider of a residential aged care service where that person has been convicted of an indictable offence, is of unsound mind or has become bankrupt. This of course is an appropriate step to take in such circumstances. But, in speaking with a number of people who work in this industry, an interesting point has been raised in relation to this clause dealing with the removal of a person because of an indictable offence. The questions posed were: how long ago, and what type of indictable offence would be covered by this provision? These are both interesting points. Will a minor transgression, say, 40 years ago in somebody's younger years prevent him or her from working in a nursing home today? It is certainly a question that needs answering and needs some further clarification by the government.

I believe that the commercial aspect of a privately run aged care facility will always raise the possibility of corners being cut to maximise profits. On a recent visit to the Qantas air base in Sydney on a committee hearing, I noticed the Moran private jet parked alongside the Packer private jet and the Tom Cruise-Nicole Kidman private jet, and I wondered about the excessive profits being made by operators of privately run aged care facilities. I ask the question: would not the general public be better served by the government providing more assistance for not-for-profit providers of aged care facilities, such as the Mayflower aged care centre and Southern Cross Homes—both of which operate very efficient aged care facilities in Western Sydney—than by the government lining the pockets of private providers?

This bill will introduce a range of sanctions available to the Department of Health and Aged Care when dealing with nursing homes that do not or will not meet the standards demanded by the Aged Care Act 1997. I will not catalogue the many horror stories that we have heard relating to nursing home neglect. There is no need to go into the graphic details regarding the kerosene baths, festering gangrenous wounds, malnutrition and drugs being forced on patients against their will; but this is all part of the scene under this government's aged care policy. The newspapers and television have been rife with such stories, and honourable members need only access the newspaper clippings on the parliamentary database to acquaint themselves with these details. These horror stories that we hear are symptomatic of what is wrong with the system of aged care in this country. The neglect we hear about in the newspapers has been mirrored by the neglect that the Minister for Aged Care has shown to her portfolio. She is quick to take the kudos for the positive programs that have come out of her department, such as the Senior Australian of the Year awards—which are excellent awards—yet she refuses to take any of the blame when these horror stories appear. The department has fallen down on a number of occasions, but it seems that the buck stops just a little short of the minister. She can only be associated with good news stories, not bad news. Well, Minister, I am afraid it does not work that way. If you want to take the good, you must also take the bad, and in this portfolio there is certainly plenty of that.

The measures contained in this bill seem sensible enough, so sensible that it raises the question: why were they not introduced previously? It seems the minister only reacts when the disgraceful state of some of our nursing homes is splashed across the newspapers and televisions. That, of course, is what this bill is about—a reaction. I doubt if we would have seen this legislation had the Riverside scandal not come to light. The bungling and ineptitude shown by the minister during that particular crisis showed up the shortfalls in her own legislation, and now she has to fix it or at the very least be seen to be doing something to fix it.

To demonstrate just how reactionary this minister is, we only have to look back to 15 February this year, an infamous day in this minister's history. It was on this day that the newspaper reports appeared that not one—not one—surprise visit to any nursing home in this country had taken place in over two years to check on standards. Later that day, the minister ordered spot checks. One wonders how long the minister would have continued to do nothing had these newspaper articles not appeared. Even if inadequacies are found, this government still stands impotently by. I would like to quote from an article from the Age of Friday, 22 September entitled `Nursing homes face penalties'. It stated:

On 24 March this year, the Kenilworth home was found to be substandard. The department imposed its first sanctions against that home. It went tut-tut at the home. It must have worked! The home did nothing to rectify the situation. The department subsequently imposed two more sanctions at various times. It wagged its finger at the home then gave the home a severe finger-wagging. This obviously jolted the home into inactivity. The newspaper article was describing the fourth set of sanctions imposed by the government since 24 March. The article went on:

They have been invited to participate in discussions. I bet they are quaking in their boots about that! This is a nursing home that has been classified as posing a `severe' risk to residents and has had four separate sets of sanctions imposed on it and it has only now been invited to participate in discussions. How hollow! It has lost the licence on five beds. Well, at least five seniors will be saved; but what about the rest of the residents? What happens to them while these discussions are taking place? After the tut-tutting, the finger-wagging and the severe finger-wagging comes the slap on the back of the wrist. What next for those nursing homes that ignore the standard of care set down by this government? The situation is simply not good enough. How long will it take for the government to act? While I applaud the recognition of senior Australians for their valuable community service, neither I nor other members on this side of the House will stand by while forgotten seniors in our community are forced to live in substandard and dangerous facilities while the government watches on and does next to nothing about it.

The deadline for nursing homes to become accredited is rapidly approaching, but that deadline is creating problems and concerns. There is a very real fear that the department will not have finished with all the nursing homes and many will not be up to standard by then and therefore must close. On the one hand, this is a good thing because it means there will not be any substandard homes around. On the other hand, this will create a massive shortfall of beds in the industry where there is already a chronic undersupply of beds available. Members on this side of the House have on several occasions indicated the exact figure of the shortfall of beds in the health care industry. So it is a horrible catch-22 situation: close down those homes that do not make the grade and create massive problems of elderly residents being turfed out, or allow substandard homes to remain open, thus making a mockery of the legislation and the standards that it imposes.

What is the point of setting standards and deadlines if the government itself sanctions the breaking of both? I have said that it may create a chronic shortfall in the number of beds available; but what is sad is that there already is a chronic shortage and it is getting worse every day. There are now fewer beds per 1,000 people aged over 70 than there were when this minister took office. I think we should dwell on those particular figures—there are now fewer beds per 1,000 people aged 70 and over than there were when this minister took office. The other fear is that many substandard homes are being passed as fit just to meet the deadline so the department can move on to the really bad cases. I acknowledge that this is a no-win situation for the minister—it is a very difficult area that the government has to come to grips with—her department, the industry and, most importantly, all the residents of the nursing homes that will be affected by this. But a simple slap on the wrist and an invitation to discuss the problem over a cup of tea and biscuits are not the solution. They are not nearly enough. More has to be done. A national effort has to be made to get these nursing homes that are currently substandard up to par.

I indicated earlier in my speech that you cannot simply look at one aspect of aged care policy and ignore the rest. There is a linkage between all elements of aged care. I have previously written to the minister about insufficient community packages for the Blacktown local government area that I represent. Community care packages are planned and coordinated packages of community care designed to help people with complex care needs to remain living in their own homes. I advised the minister that the chief executive officer of the Mayflower Aged Care Centre had raised with me the need for increasing aged care packages in the general or English-speaking-background category. The lack of such packages places an enormous load on residential aged care facilities. I am advised that over the last four years, at least up to the current round of applications which closed in August, when the department advertised for expressions of interest to take up a new allocation of packages only ethnic specific packages were available. While there is certainly a need for ethnic specific community care packages, particularly in the area that I represent where we have possibly over 140 different nationalities, we cannot ignore the other aspect of it—that there is also an urgent need for ESB packages.

As I have indicated, applications for a new allocation of community care packages are now with the department and providers are anxiously awaiting the outcome of their submissions. I will also be very interested when these announcements are made. I think the minister's response to opposition questions on aged care also leaves a lot to be desired. The member for Lilley, Mr Swan, indicated that he had some concerns in this particular area. On Monday, the minister was asked a question by the member for Lilley and she commenced her answer by insinuating that he should not be in parliament but rather giving evidence before the Queensland CJC.

Mr Anthony —Probably a good suggestion.

Mr MOSSFIELD —This bit of political point scoring, which is still going on at the moment, naturally brought a smile to the face of some of the government members, while the Prime Minister himself nearly fell off his chair in amusement. I am sure that the people of this country would be extremely concerned that government members from the PM down accepted that opposition questions about aged care should be treated in such a cavalier manner. There is a time for point scoring, and I do not think a question about the neglect of the elderly in aged care facilities is such a time, Minister, particularly with your government's record.

I will conclude with a few final points. This bill is a start but a start only. It does not go far enough and it does not address many of the other problems that are emerging in this important area. A sign of just how civilised a nation is is the manner in which it treats its elderly and infirm. Sadly, under this minister we seem to be slipping. Labor will be moving amendments to this legislation in the Senate in order to better home in and focus on the legislation. The government will do well to examine these amendments and not simply dismiss them out of hand. On this issue no-one has all the answers and, given past results in this area, the government needs all the help that it can get. The care of our elderly is an area of national concern. The elderly in our community have contributed to the fabric of our culture over their entire lives, helping to create the very country that we live in. They deserve a better deal than this government is offering; they deserve a better minister than the one currently occupying the position.

I will make another point. Of all the areas of concern that people have been coming to see their local members in their electoral offices about in the past few years, certainly aged care has been one of the most prominent. Only recently, people have come in saying that they have had elderly relatives, such as mothers, removed from local aged care facilities and put into the local hospital. There seems then to be an argument about the condition of these elderly people: did their condition arise in a nursing home or did it occur in hospital? That particular argument seems to be going backwards and forwards. This is a particular case I have in my electorate at the moment, and I know that the relatives of this person have made the appropriate complaints to the department. I am very anxious to see how the system works in practice because I think this will be a real test of the system that the government has put in place.

This raises another issue: the lack of palliative care. Unfortunately, this is an extension of aged care facilities. In the particular case I am referring to there was no palliative care place available for the person. Unfortunately, her condition was such that she needed that particular type of care. I understand that, as an extension of the Blacktown Hospital, the Mount Druitt Hospital does have excellent palliative care facilities, but at the same time there do not appear to be sufficient places available. As I indicated, you cannot just look at one aspect of aged care and say that that needs to be fixed up; you have to look at all aspects of aged care from community based through to palliative care. Hopefully, the government will see fit to introduce additional finance to enable organisations—and I am a strong supporter of not-for-profit organisations—to provide care for our older citizens.