Senator TAMBLING (11:28 AM) —This is an important debate relating to the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 , and a number of comments have been made by the various speakers in the Senate over the past couple of days. Certainly a number of the issues that have been brought to the attention of the government are important to note. However, I also note that to a very large degree the ALP speakers have, in effect, engaged in what I can only describe as sanctimonious hectoring and have indicated that they have put forward amendments which will not be acceptable to the Senate and therefore are not obviously in tune with this very important issue in the community.

I think the only speaker who raised substantive questions in his contribution was Senator Quirke. Senator Quirke was making a point with regard to the South Australian resident classification reviews and implied that there was a higher rate of downgrade in his state. I can say only that Senator Quirke is obviously using old data which is out of date. Creditably, Minister Bishop took action to improve consistency in the approach between states. I am happy to report to Senator Quirke—if he has not been able to get his information up to date and to ascertain this—that South Australia is now comparable with the national average and, in the July-August downgrades, appears to be below the national average. I hope that Senator Quirke will acknowledge that and will also acknowledge that the government has responded and was never going to threaten this important viability.

The Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 formalises the accommodation charge in principal legislation and introduces a range of resident protection measures. It also addresses anomalies in the act in relation to the revocation of approved provider status and the imposition of sanctions for breaches of approved provider responsibilities under previous aged care legislation. This bill also implements the 1999 budget initiative to exempt from paying an accommodation charge those nursing home residents who were in care at the commencement of the Aged Care Act 1997 and who would otherwise have been liable to pay an accommodation charge on moving to another aged care service. The implementation date for the budget initiative was 1 July 1999.

The initiative ensures that those residents who have already moved will be reimbursed for accommodation charges already paid. Some residents have already moved, paid an accommodation charge and rented their homes to pay the charge. In these cases, the exemption of home and rental income from the pension income and assets tests will continue. This will be achieved through amendments to the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.

Due to Labor's refusal to accord the bill non-controversial status, the bill could not be passed through the Senate in time to implement the budget initiative by the stated date of 1 July 1999. Labor's refusal to pass the legislation is disadvantaging many older Australians who are currently still paying the charge because of the delay. People who were in nursing homes when the Aged Care Act 1997 was introduced can still be asked to pay an accommodation charge on moving to another facility after 1 July 1999. The repayment of charges already paid by qualifying residents is delayed pending passage of the legislation.

The government amendment to the bill simply changes the implementation date of the budget initiative from 1 July 1999 to the date of passage of the bill due to Labor's refusal to pass the bill in the last sitting of parliament. The amendment is necessary to ensure that elderly Australians do not suffer as a result of Labor's delays in passing the legislation.

Senator Chris Evans —Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The parliamentary secretary is deliberately misleading the Senate. The timing of the legislation listed on the paper is a matter for the government. They list it when they are ready. There has been no delay by the Labor opposition. They can bring it on whenever they like. It is clearly misleading for the parliamentary secretary to claim, as he has been trying to, that we have delayed the legislation.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg) —Senator Evans, there is no point of order. That is a debating point which you can take up later.

Senator TAMBLING —The government's amendments ensure that people who become charge exempt residents after 1 July 1999 but before the passage of the Aged Care Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 1999 are covered by the provisions exempting the principal home and rental income earned on a principal home to pay for accommodation charges from the pension income and assets tests. The government's amendment fully implements the election commitment to ensure that residents of nursing homes on 1 September 1997 do not pay the accommodation charge on moving to another facility, including those who move after the proposed implementation date of 1 July 1999, as stated in the budget. The amendment is required only as a result of Labor's unnecessary and cynical delays and ensures that elderly residents who qualify as charge exempt residents after 1 July 1999 are not disadvantaged by Labor's intransigence.

It is important to note that other important resident protection measures have also been delayed by Labor's refusal to pass the legislation. These include: ensuring that elderly people are not inappropriately charged pre-entry leave fees, extending deadlines for entering agreements where a resident has a mental impairment, formalising in principal legislation the qualifying period of co-residence of a carer from five to two years for the home to be exempted from the assets test, ensuring that residents paying accommodation charges have the same protections as residents paying accommodation bonds and allowing those residents who move from a hostel to a nursing home to negotiate a rollover of bonds. I have seen the opposition amendments, even though they were provided only late last night. It is definitely not a case of better late than never.

Senator Chris Evans —Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Tambling is deliberately misleading the Senate again. The government received the amendments on Tuesday. I wish you would correct the record.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order, Senator Evans. You can again take that up as a debating point.

Senator TAMBLING —I do acknowledge the point made by Senator Evans with regard to the availability of the amendments, which did come in on Tuesday. I should have corrected that point; I correct that point now. Unlike the government amendments, which have been out in the public arena for months, the opposition amendments have not been subject to consultation. Industry and consumers have had no chance to comment. Patently, the opposition is not interested in their views. Looking at these amendments, it is no wonder. These opposition amendments would condemn aged care residents to inadequate care in substandard facilities. Providers would be hamstrung in their attempts to manage their finances effectively, to transfer their places to better quality services or to attract finance to make necessary improvements.

The amendments would encourage older people and their legal representatives to give away their homes to attract additional taxpayer subsidies of around $4,000 a year—subsidies that are intended for genuinely financially disadvantaged older people. However—and this is the nasty twist—older people who did this could be much worse off. They could lose their pensions and face higher fees due to Centrelink and Veterans' Affairs gifting provisions.

I note also that Labor provided another amendment this morning—again, no consultation and, again, totally unworkable. In fact, the draft amendment that I saw did not even spell `Labor' properly. I do not know which country the drafter came from in that they cannot recognise the proper spelling of the Labor Party in Australia. This morning's amendment is a complete shambles. The opposition has already delayed this legislation long enough. Every day over 2,000 older people who were in nursing homes before October 1997 are paying an accommodation charge that is totally unnecessary. They are sick of waiting for this legislation to be proclaimed so their money can be refunded. How much longer will they have to wait?

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that consideration of this bill in committee of the whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.