Ms BURKE (4:33 PM) —I rise today to also add my concerns about the legislation before us, the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 . This government's record on aged care leaves a lot to be desired, and this latest piece of legislation is another attempt to fix up the mess this government has made of this crucial piece of public policy.

Leading up to the 1998 election, one of the biggest issues raised by the voters in Chisholm was the debacle of aged care. The option of nursing home care for a near and dear relative is not an easy choice to make and it is generally something that is not actually based on choice but on necessity. You do not generally make a lifestyle choice to be put in a nursing home or to have your relatives make this choice for you. It is based on a medical need—a need many more Australians are facing each year.

Going around Chisholm leading up to the election, I was continually met by people concerned over the prospect of selling their home to support themselves or family members in need of nursing home care. The other major concern was the move away from qualified staff and the decline in staff ratios in nursing homes. So the government's great reform to aged care was to leave already distraught families with the prospect of selling their home to put their loved one into a facility which could get away with providing reduced care through a lack of accredited staff to look after patients in nursing homes.

This great reform agenda was just another cover-up for an enormous budget cut by this government. These changes were to hide the fact that $500 million was being cut from the aged care budget. So a brave new world for nursing homes was just to hide the fact that a massive amount was being taken out of the sector because of budget cuts. I will not labour the history of this bill, but the obscene haste in introducing the original bill, which resulted in that great piece of TV journalism where the Prime Minister used A Current Affair to make a ministerial announcement, is again being repeated with the changes in this bill.

As speakers before me have indicated, we will be opposing this bill primarily because we have had no chance to deal with the bill in the normal fashion of this House. We had a day's notice before the bill was actually tabled. It is a very important bill with many measures that we actually support—and one of those amendments I will be speaking about today—because they address several of the concerns that had arisen from the government's Aged Care Act. But the bill fails to address all issues of concern, and there just has been no time for consultation with all the parties.

Chisholm has an ageing population, with 15 per cent of the population being over the age of 65. A significant proportion of this group are age pensioners, and a higher than average group are self-funded retirees. These are the people who are facing issues of ageing for themselves, their parents and their spouses. These people continue to be worried about the quality and affordability of nursing home care, and this bill is not going far enough to alleviate their concerns.

One of the other issues facing the people of Chisholm is the enormous ethnic mix within my electorate, and there is a huge concern about ethno-specific nursing home facilities. The choice of putting a family member into a nursing home is generally a greater issue amongst many of our people from non-English speaking backgrounds as it does not sit well with many of their cultural beliefs.

I wish to concentrate on one issue in this bill that relates to an area where I know a constituent of mine can feel proud of himself for having had the courage to stand up and question the system. As many in this House will know, it is not an easy thing to take on the establishment or question a wrong. For people with loved ones in nursing homes it is even more courageous, for they often feel any action on their part will be taken out on their wife, husband, mother or father who resides in the nursing home. Be this a real fear or not, it is a fear that many constituents have when they approach my office over issues concerning nursing homes.

Often we will have questions and complaints about the treatment at a particular nursing home or the way fees have been charged, but it is always on the basis of, `Please don't use any names. We don't want Dad to be upset. We worry that, if we kick up a stink, Mum will be out of the home.' People know from experience the difficulty of getting decent nursing home accommodation, particularly accommodation close to their homes, and they fear they will have their loved ones at home and not be able to cope.

The case, which I believe has in some part led to the change in this legislation, was brought to me by a constituent whose wife, who was in a nursing home, was presented with a bill for $1,464 for four months accumulated charges. This gentleman's wife has been in a nursing home for some time, and well prior to the introduction of the original bill in October 1997. The bill that they received was like a slap in the face and left my constituent very perplexed and concerned for his wife, a woman who was already frail and was most distraught by this expense that her husband was going to incur on her behalf.

Not only was this bill something that left a great deal to be desired but so also was the way in which the nursing home and its collection agency acted in pursuit of its moneys. The man's wife had been in a nursing home in Surrey Hills, which closed down, and the facility and all residents were moved to Oakleigh. The nursing home issued the bill when the resident was moved from one facility to the other. This move was through no action of my constituent or his wife but at the instigation of the nursing home. This, the nursing home then determined, meant that she was now a new resident and could be charged the accommodation fee.

This flies in the face of a promise by this government leading up to the 1998 election. In the House last night the minister said that it was fantastic that they were resolving this. Yes, they are—some 18 months after the date. I would like to quote from a letter from the previous Minister for Family Services, Warwick Smith. I think the tone of the letter indicates the electoral issue that this was leading up to the last election. It reads:

Over the past two and a half years, the Coalition Government has addressed in a fundamental way the structure and administration of aged care services in Australia.

It was not done in a very good way, but they were trying to deal with it. It continues:

The problems residential aged care services confronted just two and a half years ago were extensive and systematic. While accepting that mistakes were made in the policy prescription adopted over our first term in Government, the Coalition is nevertheless proud of the many achievements that it has been able to record. In particular, as a result of our policy changes we have established a more responsible and financially sound aged care industry which will, I believe, have long lasting benefit for older Australians—provided they are given time to settle and become part of the aged care matrix.

As we approach a vital election on 3 October the choice for the aged care industry becomes even more stark.

The most important part of this letter reads:

Furthermore the Coalition will amend the Aged Care Act 1997 to provide concessional resident status for any resident of a nursing home who was resident prior to 1 October 1997 and who by moving home would otherwise have been classified as a new resident. This protection will be backdated to 1 October 1997. Providing this protection will secure the access for pre 1 October residents to all aged care facilities.

That letter was dated September 1998. We are now in this House trying to deal with an issue that was guaranteed before the last election. This commitment was given in September 1998; it is now 23 June 1999. Still my constituent is paying the accommodation charge. Only last week he received a bill from the nursing home and a follow-up letter from the collection agency. When he pointed out that they would only have to pay him back the money, they told him that he was being ridiculous and that they had every right to collect the fee.

At Senate estimates hearings, this matter was brought up, and I think it was through the actions of Senator Chris Evans that this change has now come about, regardless of the government's claim that it would do something about it. In the Senate on 22 April 1999, Senator Chris Evans asked Senator Herron the following question:

My question is directed to Senator Herron as the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care. Can the Minister explain why, despite the Prime Minister's assurances, nursing home residents who were in a nursing home before 1 October 1997 are being required to pay the government's accommodation charge when they are forced to transfer into a new nursing home? I have a letter from an aged care provider to a nursing home resident that includes a bill of $1,464 for `accrued accommodation charges' after the resident was transferred to a new home following the closure of the facility they had occupied prior to October 1997. Why are pensioners being forced to pay accommodation charges when the Prime Minister made it very clear that it would apply only to new residents?

The fantastic response is:

Nursing home charges are a responsibility of the people who run the nursing homes and are not a Commonwealth responsibility. So it is the responsibility of the individuals who are occupying that accommodation to pay the charges.

It is a pity that the minister did not actually understand the question. But it did get resolved, finally, and I would now like to read the Senator Herron's later response in the Senate on 28 April:

As I said previously, Senator Evans has asked this question before. The government will be honouring—and the answer was given to Senator Evans on that—

I do not think so, from what I have read—

its commitment in full as part of the budget. Where providers have been charging pre 1 October 1997 residents the accommodation charge, these residents will be fully compensated. Senator Evans was told that. Senator Evans was informed of the material that was provided to him. Furthermore, the government will pay providers additional supplements—

That was 28 April 1999 and still, as I say, my constituent is being charged this very fee that the government now say does not have to be paid. Finally, in the budget, almost 12 months later, an election promise will be delivered on. So in this regard I support the amendment in this bill to allow for the refunding of accommodation charges to residents in care prior to October 1997. I thank my constituent for his bravery in bringing this matter forward, to the benefit of countless people in a similar situation. We all owe him a debt of thanks. However, the matter has still not been resolved, as my constituent is still being charged, and the nursing home where his wife is a resident has not been advised of any change.

We need detail on this matter, not more shallow promises. So I ask: will the government ensure that all nursing home proprietors are informed of the budget measure immediately? Will the government also ensure that the moneys collected inappropriately by nursing homes are refunded to residents, their families or their estates? Further, how will these moneys be refunded to residents and, most importantly, when? Without these further steps, the budget measures and this bill are worthless. Not all people have the gumption of my constituent who is now keeping the nursing home informed of these changes. It is the government's responsibility to wind back the mess it created in the first place.

At the last election this government was prepared to sacrifice the interests of aged care residents in Australia for short-term political gain. It must now be called to account and resolve these problems. After all, it sought re-election by promising the industry that it would fix the mess it had already created. Good government should be about well thought through policy, not the rushed, slash and burn measures that this government has tried time and time again.

This bill should be opposed because all these measures have not been well thought through and it has not resolved all the problems. The haste with which it has been introduced again indicates that we will be back here shortly, plugging the holes created by the haste to mend an already faulty process. We will be opposing this bill.