Andrew McLachlan (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Financial Transparency) Bill 2020. This private member's bill does not find favour with the government. The honourable senator who brought this bill to this place, in his explanatory memorandum, states:

The Bill seeks factual information from providers so we will have a clearer picture of how their facilities are resourced. This will be crucial if we are to engage in sustainable reforms to the sector that will improve the experience and treatment of vulnerable elderly people living in residential aged care.

These are noble sentiments, and ones which cannot be resisted; however, it is the view of the government that the path it has taken will be more effective in assisting with the regulation of this very important sector.

I was minded, when listening to this debate, of one of my more favourite poems on growing old. The opening stanza goes like this:

What is it to grow old?

Is it to lose the glory of the form,

The lustre of the eye?

Is it for beauty to forgo her wreath?

Yes, but not this alone.

The aged-care sector is critically important, and the government has an excellent record and, in more recent times, has a minister who has pursued reform of the industry and, indeed, assisted in its navigation through the more difficult parts of this year with the impacts of the virus, and I take this opportunity to congratulate him. He has answered a barrage of questions in this place with a great deal of verve. We discuss and we debate in this place much about our youth—this was also my experience in the state parliament—and it is heartening that we are now having a similar debate with a great deal of enthusiasm on how we handle and care for our elderly.

Archaeologists have found remains from up to 500,000 years ago. They are the remains of those who were considered old in their communities, and there is clear evidence they were cared for. So how do we find ourselves in this place, with regulated care and government funding? Well, in Greek and Roman times, it was the requirement of the family to look after those who were the aged and the elders in their community. In the early 1800s institutions were created, but they were not happy places. Later in the 1800s friendly societies and benevolent institutions moved into the space and provided care. And we now find ourselves with a great deal of government interest, and rightly so, given that we have given a large degree of funding, as has been pointed out by members on all sides in this chamber.

I've often thought that the care of the elderly is certainly a mirror to our society. A wiser mind than my own said:

… morality consists in large part in learning to deal with the unwanted and unexpected interruptions to our plans.

This is where caring for the elderly can often be the case. I would like more debate on the role of the family and community in caring for our elderly. There seems to be an increasing practice in our society to pack our elderly away into institutions. We're not incorporating them in a caring way; rather, we're simply visiting them as they have been packed away. Perhaps that's where the debate should ultimately be going, as a reflection on our societal norms, which, in many ways, are unpleasing. But this is not to distract from the requirements and expectations we have that those who seek, in an institutional way, to care for our elderly, who have our elderly in their daily care, are regulated, and rightly so. There are providers whose actions have led to significant disappointment in our community, and they should rightly be condemned.

The government is responding to the findings of the aged-care royal commission. It is a wait, but the industry does need to be consulted. We do need to understand the ultimate impacts of any regulation that comes through this place. The department is, as I understand it, currently working on requirements in relation to what is disclosed to our aged-care regulator, particularly through aged-care financial reports, the ACFR. Providers are already required to report the sources of funds they receive, and then explain how these funds are expended against the categories of care, accommodation and hotel expenses, administration and finances. All residential aged-care providers give an aged-care prudential compliance statement to the secretary of the department and all non-government residential aged-care providers must give an independently audited general purpose financial report, so there is a flow of financial information.

I appreciate that the senator putting forward this bill feels that there should be more financial information, but simply requiring more data does not necessarily alleviate the problem. As I said, the department is currently working on expanded requirements for the ACFR and expects revised reporting requirements to be in place on 1 July 2021. There is a drive, through this initiative, to introduce more transparency around operational results of the facilities that the provider operates, but just because you have more data doesn't mean you can compare like with like, in any industry. The expansion will cover some of the additional reporting requirements proposed in this bill as well as new information related to parent-entity finances. As I indicated, consultation is underway. All changes are being considered in the terms of the royal commission and the prudential standards review to ensure that they are integrated with other reforms and potential for an increased administrative burden is appropriately considered and balanced. It would be very easy for us to put in place greater regulation that does not produce the effect that we all desire.

The expanded ACFR will also play a key role in the residential aged-care funding model the government is currently exploring. In essence, we have a model that is going to be revisited and renewed. Whilst the government provides the cost, a key decision provides underwriting of the cost. The key decision for government after implementing a new funding model will be setting the price, so in essence we have government intervention in a market, which in this case is appropriate. With an intervention of this manner not only does the right data have to be provided but we have to have a proper ability to analyse it. When the new model is implemented it will support annual costing studies and pricing work on cost data, so the government will be in a position to see the viability of the industry and where its funds are going, and therefore to make the appropriate policy responses and adjustments. Having said that, it will still be critical that facilities are audited for the level of care that they provide. Those providers that take a less-than-charitable approach to those in their care will be moved out of the marketplace and their operations terminated.

It's easy to say, 'Let's bring on more transparency.' The government is taking that approach, but the transparency has to be effective. Having reams of data does not assist in the decision-making of families when circumstances require the family to move a family member into a place of care, which often is a very emotional time. That decision-making is not necessarily facilitated by this bill. I return to the fact that, whilst I find great nobility in the sentiments of the senator who introduced this bill, the government's position is that it is taking into account those matters in its road to reform. I point out, in response to some of the contributions from the other side of the chamber, that the government did, to its great credit, call the royal commission, and it is responding to its findings. I also reiterate my confidence in the minister. I'll conclude with a stanza from probably one of my favourite poems by Dylan Thomas, in relation to his father:

Do not go gentle into that good night,

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.