Senator TCHEN (7:30 PM) —Anyone coming into a completely new environmentnot only new but quite out of the ordinary environmentlike I have had the great good fortune to have done by becoming a member of this chamber would inevitably experience a greater or lesser degree of culture shock. In my case, thanks to the friendship and cooperation of my colleagues not only from my own side but also from the other side and the support and assistance of the professional staff and the management of the Senate, my learning process has been a fairly smooth and easy one.

However, there is one part of the culture we seem to have in this place that I shall probably never get comfortable with—nor do I want to ever get comfortable with it. I refer to our practice of carrying the adversarial system of opposition to the extreme, regardless of the consequences to innocent parties or to the national interest. It is of course the rightful role of the opposition to put every proposal, every action of the government, under the microscope. Like everyone in the community, I understand that, and I approve of that.

For more than a year now, the opposition has maintained the fiction that it does not like the GST, and has pursued the government with a lot of smoke and mirrors on every minor twist and turn of how a GST might or might not disadvantage or give unfair advantage to this or that individual. That much is all right. It is a good sport and a game for grown-ups, and no-one is overly concerned about it. And from time to time, we do witness instances when, for the greater good of the nation, such a role is set aside and the opposition and the government act as one. A recent example is our humanitarian intervention in East Timor.

But there comes a time when such scrutiny, such pursuit of perceived or assumed weaknesses, is carried to such an extreme that it creates its own innocent victims, especially those in the community most at risk and least able to look after themselves. It is then that such scrutiny serves no purpose except to create uncertainty and anguish. That is when such an irresponsible game of party politics ought to stop. In recent weeks we have seen a number of such instances. The question of mandatory sentencing is one on which I hope to speak on a later occasion. Nursing homes is another, where the only real victims were those frail and bewildered residents and their protesting relatives we all saw on our television screens being `evacuated'.

The reality is that Australia has a rapidly ageing population. At present 2.2 million Australians—out of a total of 19 million—are over the age of 65 years. In another 30 years, given the same population trends we have had, there will be about five million Australians in this age group. At present, just over six per cent, or about 135,000, of this group of senior citizens require and are in residential care. On these 135,000 people the government spends $2.9 billion per year. By 2030, if we assume the same proportion of the aged population will require residential careactually the proportion of the more advanced aged will probably increase so there will be greater need for residential carerealistically we will be looking at something like 300,000 residential care beds being required, an increase of more than 5,500 beds per year. By the same token, by 2030 we will have to spend at least $6.5 billion per year on residential care.

This is not new information. Australia's population trends have been much the same for more than 20 years. The plain fact is that nothing was done in the 13 wasted years of Labor government of the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s. I do not want to make this simply a political game either. I can understand that the former Labor government before 1993 did nothing because they did not realise perhaps the magnitude of the problem. I can understand that between 1993 and 1996 the former Labor government did nothing—after being warned by the Gregory report—because they were so broke they could do nothing, and because they were so dispirited and so lacking in political will that they would do nothing. But at least now the opposition should try to understand that the reforms the Howard government introduced from 1997 onward are both necessary and beneficial to the community and to its senior citizens—instead of trying to create victims where they do not exist.

Over the past three weeks of sitting, both the minister in the other chamber and the minister representing her in the Senate have delivered to the parliament literally reams of information about the improvements the government's aged care reforms have delivered and the shortcomings repaired in the short time since 1997. I have no wish to repeat them, nor do I need to repeat them, other than to note that the government's age care reforms are designed to improve not only the quantity of care but also more importantly the quality of care.

A key component of these reforms is the accreditation and certification system that gives aged care providers the opportunity to invest in quality and be recognised for excellence. This is working and working well. I am pleased to say that one of the 330 homes already accredited in the first round by the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency is the Melton Court Hostel in my electorate, an excellent example of residential care that provides a happy and safe environment for our senior citizens.

The reality is that 99 per cent of our nursing homes are operated by caring people, both the owners and the staff, and are enjoyed by their residents. But nobody seems to want to know about that, least of all the opposition. It is far better for the opposition that every one of the 135,000 residents of our nursing homes go to bed every night afraid.

I want to close with a far more accurate picture of aged care under the Howard government than the opposition would dare to admit. Yesterday, on 14 March, the Australian Nursing Homes and Extended Care Association issued a media release, which I commend to the Senate. It states:

The media release of this association opens:

It says:

It went on to say:

However, they also undertake that providers who do not meet the minimum standards of care should be deregistered and that sanctions should be enforced by government. But the important message I think the Senate should note is the concluding paragraph in this news release, which again I commend to the Senate. It said: