Senator CHRIS EVANS (9:47 PM) —I want to address a few remarks to the Democrats first in order to try to sway them. First of all, we ought not dismiss so lightly the views of the consumer groups because this is the issue that they are most concerned about—that is, the protection of residents. On the one hand, Senator Allison reads letters from providers—the people who run the nursing homes—which say that there may be unintended consequences. The minister says that these measures are redundant and have no effect. So the providers are saying that the unintended consequences is their reason for not being prepared to consider supporting these changes and the minister is saying that they are redundant.

That begs the question: where is the truth in this? It is the case that COTA, the APSF and other advocacy groups are supporting this approach because they are concerned about what happens to the residents in those nursing homes. I accept that the vast majority of providers act with goodwill, but they are the providers of the service. They would be reluctant to accept provisions which impose further accountability measures, if you like, on them. With the best will in the world, that would be their starting point, and I accept that. But the people whose job it is to represent the interests of the consumers are most keen to encourage this amendment in particular because it goes to the protection of those residents.

Senator Allison made general comments about the groups' concerns about or qualifications with our amendments, but most of those go to the questions that will come later on in the debate. They do not go directly to that. What I ask the Democrats to do is to not tell me the position of the providers but to tell me their position in the protection of residents' rights, because it is you who get to vote and you who get to make a determination on the issue.

I want to point out clearly to the Democrats that this amendment applies to people who are having their licences revoked. This does not apply to the majority of providers; it applies to people who the department and the minister have said ought to be out of the industry. So talking about unintended consequences and the majority of providers and those doing good work in the sector is not a relevant response. We are talking about the people who the department have finally got around to saying should not be in the industry and who are not competent to provide quality aged care. What we are saying is that a person who has got to the point where they are not acceptable ought to be monitored.

Progress reported.