Senator DENMAN (6:44 PM) —I rise to speak on the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 . I wonder if the government have heard of the International Federation of Ageing and their Declaration on the Rights and Responsibilities of Older Persons. As Ageing International reveals on, page 15 of their fall edition, these include:

12. To obtain health care in order to maintain or regain the optimum level of physical, mental and emotional well being and to prevent or delay the onset of illness.

13. To access social and legal services to enhance capacity for autonomy and provide protection and care.

14. To utilise appropriate levels of institutional care which provide protection, rehabilitation and social and mental stimulation in a humane and secure environment.

15. To exercise human rights and fundamental freedoms when residing in any shelter, care and treatment facility, including full respect for their dignity, beliefs, needs and privacy and for the right to make decisions about their care and quality of life.

One could rightly assume that the government are not listening to the voices of elderly Tasmanians or to the International Federation of Ageing, as a lack of funding in public health and legal aid means that preventable health and legal representation on civil matters are achievable only by the wealthy. Or are they punishing the elderly in Tasmania for the last election result? Nothing else could explain the callous indifference the government is showing to the elderly in need of residential care in my state.

This bill represents inertia on the government's behalf as, after 18 months of representations made, reports given and letters written, it seems that little is getting through. I know numerous letters have been written by Aged Care Tasmania Incorporated outlining the undue pressure any cuts in funding would mean to the Tasmanian aged care industry and, importantly, to those they serve so well.

Reducing the funding to the elderly that need care is not like targeting those on unemployment benefits or other easy targets that make up the daily feeding frenzy on talkback radio. They cannot be labelled as unworthy of assistance or as somehow undeserving. Yet, apart from the minor cosmetic changes, this bill delivers little and, in the case of elderly Tasmanians, does nothing to address the problems raised over the last 1½ years.

This bill had a quasi launch on 5 March 1998, when it was tabled as the Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998. The Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 that is now being discussed is the old bill with a couple of crisis measures thrown in—and that is about it. What caused the crisis measures, the add-ons, to the original? Was it a result of well set out, planned policy objectives—other than the reduction of $500 million from the sector in 1996-97? The crisis measures were directly related to the government's own `reforms'—a word they use, but I would not—in slash and burn policies that typify this government.

Remember when they wanted to take the family home and then quickly gave it back? Some people were badly hurt by that. This bill partly compensates them with ex gratia payments. It also seeks to stop those that had to pay for not being there. Confusing, yes, but as a direct result of these glorious reforms the elderly had to pay fees for a service they had not received. The complete stupidity of this oversight is a common occurrence in the government's policies. We get used to it, but the frail and elderly should never have to.

This policy also fixes another huge oversight in previous reforms. Currently the government is unable to act on a fraudulent provider without closing the service. These fraudulent providers are currently still operating as, due to the government's ineptness, shonky operators are still running some of the homes.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson) —Order! The time for the debate has expired.