Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022. I'd like to begin by commending the new government on the important decisions that have been made in bringing forward this bill—particularly the Minister for Aged Care, Anika Wells—as a matter of urgency so early in the government's period of being newly elected.

The former government was handed the final report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety in February 2021. That's almost 18 months ago. In fact, it is almost three years since the royal commission's interim report was tabled. It doesn't sound like it was a matter of urgency for the former government, regardless of what Senator Van just put to the Senate and to the Australian people. The title of the report summed up the state of the industry in just one word, all those 18 months ago, which this previous government failed to act on—'neglect', neglect to expose. The royal commission concluded residents were left languishing with maggots crawling in infected wounds—it took the previous government 18 months to still not respond. Residents were left sitting or lying in their own faeces—that wasn't enough to get them to do anything in 18 months. Dreadful food, hydration and oral health, leading to widespread malnutrition and excruciating dental pain—they still did nothing for 18 months. Widespread use of physical restraints and sedatives on residents not for their safety but to make them easier to manage—and they did nothing in 18 months. There were 4,013 allegations of physical sexual assault of aged-care residents in just one year—and they could still do nothing for 18 months. The royal commission made 148 recommendations. The sheer volume and breadth of recommendations is reflective of how bad things were allowed to get. It demonstrates how urgently the reforms in this bill are required.

This bill will improve the health, safety and wellbeing of older Australians. Schedule 1 provides for the Australian National Aged Care Classification model for calculating aged-care subsidies. Schedule 2 facilitates the publication of star ratings, which will enable senior Australians, and their families, to make informed decisions about their aged care. Schedule 3 introduces the code of conduct for the aged-care sector. Schedule 4 extends the Serious Incident Response Scheme to approved providers of home care and flexible care. Schedule 5 strengthens the governance of approved providers. Schedule 6 facilitates increased information sharing between care and support sector regulators. Schedule 7 of the bill will increase financial and prudential oversight in respect of refundable accommodation deposits and bonds. Schedule 8 of this bill expands the functions of the renamed Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority. And Schedule 9 enables an interim solution with respect to the requirement to obtain informed consent for the use of restrictive practices.

The content of this bill clearly demonstrates that, under this new government, aged care is finally an urgent priority. Of course there's another aged-care bill making its way through the House currently which legislates Labor's commitment to 24/7-hour nurses in aged-care homes—a royal commission recommendation that was ignored by the last government. That bill will also enable the government to cap the fees charged by home-care providers, among other important reforms that I look forward to debating next week. I commend the urgency with which this government and the minister have acted to bring forward critical reforms. After 18 months of inaction and delay we finally have decisive action for our older Australians.

Of course, there is also much more to be done. I'm speaking particularly about the conditions suffered by aged-care workers. The former government has allowed a situation where aged-care workers are second-class citizens—a situation where, I'm certain, they would never want a member of their family working in the conditions experienced by aged-care workers. Through the Select Committee on Job Security, I heard firsthand from aged-care workers across Australia about these very issues. There are inadequate time and resources for staff to adequately care for each resident. Anu Singh, an aged-care worker in Melbourne, said:

The worst thing that I've gone through is that, at the workplace where I used to work, we used to have two carers for 15 to 20 residents, and they just gave us a time frame of 20 minutes. In those 20 minutes, we used to wake up our residents, who were about 90 years old, and do showering, toileting, dressing and undressing; tidy up their rooms; make their beds; and then take them slowly to their dining. Can you imagine doing all this just for yourself in 20 minutes? Well, we did that with our residents. We had to push ourselves. We don't just push ourselves physically. We are mentally stressed and emotionally broken.

And for that physical, mental and emotional strain, what do aged-care workers get in return? They get insecure work, usually part-time contracts with few, if any, guaranteed hours. They are required to be available for a shift any day of the week at just a few hours' notice. They never know how much money they earn in a week. They don't know if they can pay the bills or their rent. They can't make any personal plans or financial commitments. And on top of all that, they are some of the lowest-paid workers in the country.

Tracy Colbert, another aged-care worker, told us during the inquiry:

I work permanent part-time hours. I would love to have permanent hours. I don't know from one week to the next how I'm going to afford to pay for all of my living expenses. There are workers that only get five hours a day. They can't live and support their families … I've had a lot of friends that have left the sector because they just can't afford to make a living, and some of them had two or three jobs.

She also said:

We only get $22 an hour, so I have to work weekends, for low money. I do 11-hour days on a weekend, away from my family, to be able to support them. I've had a lot of friends that have left the sector because they just can't afford to make a living, and some of them had two or three jobs.

The disgusting reality is that this has become the norm in aged care. The people we depend on to look after senior citizens are being treated in a way that borders on contempt. Sheree Clarke, a nurse from Queensland, said:

When my mother went through cancer, I couldn't tell her that I would support her to her cancer appointments, because, if you're not available to pick up a shift, they don't offer you that shift the next time.

How disgusting is that? She went on to say: 'The people we rely on to care for our parents and grandparents are put in a position where they can't care for their own families.' Under the former government, this became the norm for aged-care workers. Nine in 10 aged-care workers are on casual or part-time contracts. Those part-time contracts usually have so few guaranteed hours, they are just casual contracts without casual loading, and that is the reality for 90 per cent of aged-care workers.

Somehow, that isn't the worst of it. In aged care and the NDIS, there are bottom-feeding platforms—gig platforms, like Mable—which have a business model based on paying workers below the minimum wage. As the Health Services Union's Lauren Hutchins told the job security inquiry these platforms:

are a combination of Tinder and Uber. You put your profile out there and people with disabilities or their carers then make a decision based on the information that is provided.

Mable told the job security inquiry that their workers can earn hourly wages as low as $25. The Mable workers are engaged as contractors, which means $25 is without superannuation. It's without any paid leave or any loading in lieu of paid leave. It's without any penalty rates. It's without consideration of any costs incurred by Mable workers travelling to home-care appointments. The fact is, when you strip all those costs out, Mable workers are paid only a fraction of the national minimum wage, let alone earnings anywhere near the award minimum for workers. And, if you let Mable grow in aged care, as the previous government did, we'll have aged-care workers living in their cars. We'll have aged-care workers having to skip meals to make ends meet. We will see the quality of care provided to senior Australians go into freefall.

And what did the former government do in response to the threat posed by Mable? They gave them $7.2 million to provide surge workforce in aged-care homes during the early waves of the pandemic. The former government paid Mable, a company that pays workers below the minimum wage, $7.2 million. And how did they go? Well, Mable's service quality was so woeful that they were hauled before the aged-care royal commission. Anglicare, which owned a facility in Penrith where Mable provided workers, told the royal commission: 'It quickly became apparent the staff that Mable could provide did not have the skills and qualifications that were needed.' That is what the Australian taxpayer paid Mable $7.2 million for: a workforce that was underpaid, exploited and incapable of providing the service that was required. What an utter boondoggle! Unbelievable! For much of the last year, Mable was being spruiked on the NDIA's website as a preferred provider!

So how did they even get there? Perhaps we need to look at Mable's owners and board, courtesy of reporting by Crikey. We know that, to our great shock and surprise, this dodgy outfit that exploits workers and got millions from the former government—surprise, surprise!—is owned and operated by donors to and associates of the New South Wales Liberal Party, such as the prominent Liberal fundraiser Matthew Playfair, prominent Liberal donor Lucinda Aboud and Liberal Party Double Bay branch vice president Ray Whitten. Here we see how the disgusting sausage gets made: mates of the New South Wales Liberals pile money into an outfit that underpays aged-care workers and disability workers and doesn't provide a service. The Liberal government pays them $7.2 million to provide care that is so bad it earns them a spot in the aged-care royal commission. Yet Senator Hughes comes into this building regularly and sings Mable's praises at every given opportunity. And—surprise, surprise!—when the royal commission recommended that these shonks shouldn't be used in aged care, the former government did not accept the recommendation!

This whole Mable saga encapsulates everything wrong with the former government. I'm glad that at least the Productivity Commission is now reviewing that issue, because there is a broad consensus that gig platforms—not all gig platforms, but gig platforms like Mable—are not conducive to an acceptable quality of care in aged care and disability care. That is the position of unions involved in the industry. That is the position of sector employers like Anglicare. That is the position of the Australian Medical Association. That is the position of numerous academics who made submissions to the Productivity Commission and to the job security committee. And that is the position of the aged-care royal commission.

So I again commend this new government for moving so quickly to introduce these reforms, and I look forward to the report of the Productivity Commission, because we need to end the scam being perpetrated by Mable and others with the support of the Liberal Party.