Senator WEST —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Family Services. How does the minister justify the circumstances that are causing so much concern around Australia where, for example, a daughter who has lived with a frail aged parent and cared for that parent for a number of years, but not five years, and managed to hold down a job at the same time must face homelessness if the parent has to go into a nursing home?

Senator HERRON —I think Senator West is the one who should be asked to justify the statement that she has just made because again it is part of the disinformation that the opposition are going on with. I think we should ask Senator West what their Labor finance minister, Ralph Willis, said on 8 November 1990.

Senator Faulkner interjecting—

Senator HERRON —That was this question. Senator Faulkner may not like it, but it is part of the answer to this question.

Senator Cook interjecting—

Senator HERRON —It is, Senator Cook, with respect. I will read what Ralph Willis, the then Labor finance minister, said:

New funding arrangements were introduced in January 1989 which enable hostels to charge residents entry contributions and ongoing fees according to their ability to pay. Under these new arrangements hostels can receive higher fees from non-financially disadvantaged residents who are better placed to contribute to the costs of their care.

A range of protections are in place to ensure that all residents retain a set amount of their assets—

Senator Faulkner —I raise a point of order, Madam President. Madam President, you would be aware that Senator West has directed a question to Senator Herron in relation to the nursing home issues. She has asked a question about a specific example. I really do think that Senator Herron's attempt to read some quote from a former Labor finance minister, however interesting that might be, has no relevance to the specific question that was directed to Senator Herron by Senator West. I would ask you, Madam President, to ensure either that Senator Herron answers the question he has been asked or you sit him down if he is unable to do so.

The PRESIDENT —At this stage Senator Herron is leading to the answer to the question.

Senator HERRON —On the point of order, Madam President, the relevance is that the principle is the same. The Labor Party does not know anything about principle; they have not got a clue when it comes to principle. Senator Faulkner cannot see the—

The PRESIDENT —Senator, you have strayed from the point of order. I think the minister is getting towards answering the question, setting the basis for it. He would need to be aware of the question as he proceeds.

Senator HERRON —The point that I was making when reading out what Ralph Willis said is that the principle is the same. Senator Faulkner objects to that being read out because he does not want to hear it, but I will finish reading that out because it is relevant to the answer to the question. I quote again:

A range of protections are in place to ensure that all residents retain a set amount of their assets and level of disposable income. These measures are intended to ensure that individuals are protected from any form of financial exploitation. . . . The abolition of the subsidy to those not financially disadvantaged will enable Commonwealth funds to be targeted to financially disadvantaged persons needing hostel care and on those needing a higher level of personal care.

In relation to the question, it must be accepted that the principle that we are espousing is the same as that espoused by Ralph Willis when he brought in the legislation in relation to hostel care.

Senator Murphy —That has nothing to do with the question.

Senator HERRON —No matter how much Senator Murphy cries out across the chamber, the principle is the same. But, as I said previously, the Labor Party would not know what principle was. They would not know the difference, because they are running on expediency now. They are running on a fear campaign; a campaign to try to disturb not only the elderly of this country but also their relatives. The hypothetical examples that are being trotted out are part of the fear campaign that they are trying to bring into the community.

We have accepted the principle that those who can afford to do so should pay for nursing home beds, and we will not be resiling from that. There needs to be something done in this regard because of the rapid ageing of the population. The Labor Party accepted the fact that 40 per cent of those people in nursing homes were either in four- or more bed accommodation, often without the privacy and the dignity to which they are entitled; that 11 per cent of nursing homes had facilities that did not meet fire standards; and that 15 per cent—

Senator Faulkner —You've already given those figures.

Senator HERRON —Senator Faulkner said we have already given those figures. That is true, but I have to repeat them because they do not seem to sink in with those opposite. They are thick. They deny that these things existed under their administration.

We are going to do something about them. We are not going to do so by printing money. We are addressing the problem by asking those people who go into nursing homes to contribute something to their own accommodation. That is fair and equitable. There will be protection against the hypothetical examples that are being put to me this afternoon. There is protection for those people when they need protection. We will provide that protection. They can keep asking about hypothetical examples—by all means do so. They will be addressed in the detail that I will be happy to give Senator West when we get the chance to do so.

Senator WEST —Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The question I was trying to get the minister to answer was: what is going to be the impact upon often middle-aged children if they move into their parents' home to care for a frail aged parent? They may well continue to work and hold down a full-time job, but they will still be able to keep their frail aged parent out of a nursing home for a number of years, but less than five years. I wanted the minister to look at the impact on those middle-aged children. Has the government chosen the time period of five years deliberately because it has evidence that most carers who do this crucial work do it for less than this time period before their parents become too fail for them to stay at home?

Senator HERRON —We are happy to look at that and, as I said, I will come back to Senator West. I would be interested to know what proportion of the population is affected by those hypothetical statements. Senator West was not aware that, when the Labor Party introduced their hostel bonds, only two per cent got over that high limit, and there was no cap put on it. Undoubtedly, as for everything in life, there is a bell curve—there will be people at both ends of the spectrum, particularly the upper end of the spectrum. But it will be interesting to see what percentage it is. Senator West, I will get back to you with those figures that you have requested, and I will let you know the outcome of that in due course.