Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am happy to take part in this debate and to indicate that I was also somewhat dismayed by the answers that Senator Santoro gave in question time today. I was dismayed because I was distressed that, as the Minister for Ageing, Senator Santoro was obliged to have to raise and talk about, on the floor of the Senate, the circumstances of individual residents in Australia in a way that would not be conducive to the welfare and to the peace of mind of those people, should they happen to have been listening to this debate.

We have the privilege of raising in this place the circumstances of individual citizens—in this case, individual aged care facilities in this country. With that privilege comes the obligation to ensure that we handle the issues with sensitivity and in a way that does not put the individuals concerned, particularly vulnerable citizens of Australia, in any distressing situation. I do not know how they are going to react to the debate that has taken place in the Senate today on these matters, but I suspect that, to the extent that their cases are publicised by these circumstances, they are not likely to be very happy.

What we do know is that the circumstances of both Plumpton Villa and Elizabeth House have been investigated appropriately by the organisations responsible for maintaining standards in those places. We know because the minister has told us very directly that, in the case of Elizabeth House, the assessment team recommended that the home’s accreditation should be revoked but that the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency decided against revoking the home’s accreditation in light of immediate action the home undertook to address the deficiencies.

A number of issues were raised in that dialogue between the accreditation agency and the home concerned. For example, the period of accreditation has now been reduced in order to put them on notice that they have to meet a higher standard. In the case of Plumpton Villa, similarly the review audit led to the agency reducing the home’s period of accreditation by 20 months, and the home has again been placed by the agency on a timetable for improvement.

Those are appropriate steps to be taken to reassure those who live in those homes and their families that the government and its agencies have not ignored clear indications of problems or clear deficiencies in the way in which those homes have been operated, but the issues have not been escalated to a point which is not in the best interests of those residents—and this is the point. Senator McLucas clearly seems to think that the government should have organised for its agencies to shut down those facilities. That would not see a perpetuation of those bad standards, but it might well throw those residents out into the street and force them to find other accommodation, which as we know is not plentiful around Australia at the moment. In my opinion, that would potentially be an overreaction. Quite appropriately, the minister said that his agencies have properly taken stock of these circumstances and are gauging the best response to those situations.

I make the point first of all: what would these residents have done if these incidents had arisen 12, 14 or 16 years ago? Of course, in those days there was no accreditation agency. In those days, under the Hawke-Keating government, there was nowhere to turn to have these sorts of issues remedied. We have put in place the kinds of mechanisms which bring to light these problems, and we provide fuel for Senator McLucas and others to raise these sorts of cases in this place. I do not resile from that. We are bringing these problems out into the open, and we have engineered higher standards in Australian nursing homes by virtue of having taken those steps. An inquiry in 1995 revealed that there were appalling circumstances applying in many nursing homes across Australia, and that of course was a period that reflected on Labor’s stewardship of this issue.

The other point is that the minister indicated in his answer today that he is at arms-length from these issues. In blaming Senator Santoro, the Minister for Ageing, for these deficiencies, Senator McLucas overlooks the point that we have put in place mechanisms at arms-length from the minister to make these decisions. It is not his decision to shut down individual homes. It should not be politicised, but of course in this place, in the course of question time, it has been. (Time expired)