Adams Paul: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Adams Paul: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17358] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 My main concerns with regard to this legislation are not so much about what it does as what it does not do. As the previous speaker Katherine Rich said the Government has been amazingly quiet during the whole of the debate on this legislation and that is what the submitters told us at the Social Services Committee all the way through. They asked what the Government would do about the serious concerns that we are addressing. I received letter after letter from rest homes and other aged-care facilities and I have also been getting letters from those who look after the disabled. I realised the bill does not cover that sector but the disability sector faces very very similar challenges in the care of disabled people and we should also be very concerned about that. I implore the Government to become involved in the plight of those older people and their families who are dependent on the services of rest homes and private hospitals. As I understand it since 1977 the rest homes have had only a 6 percent increase in the fees they can charge which I believe happened in about June 2003 and the hospitals a mere 0.25 percent increase. 
There have been additional costs coming upon those institutions every day especially when one considers a lot of the compliance costs that have been put upon them which they have had no control over. Many of them have said the cost of doctors’ visits can be $70 to $110 per visit and many of their residents need to have those visits if the facilities are to truly care for residents. They have pharmaceutical costs which have increased with the introduction of the pharmaceutical schedule change as well as with the normal cost increases. Medical supplies and all those things have gone up. Health and disability sector standards compliance costs require significantly more time to be spent on documentation and reporting than has ever been required before. Many aged-care facilities have been telling me that they now have to employ extra staff just to deal with those particular issues not to mention the occupational safety and health compliance costs involving the widespread purchasing of various types of lifting equipment. All those costs have come on and been forced upon rest homes and they have had no choice but to comply with them. 
I urge the Government to address that issue. As we heard time and time again at the select committee as submitters brought up those issues it is a Government policy issue. Well if it is a Government policy issue as it obviously is then I would urge the Government again to pay serious attention to making changes in its policy at the earliest time because there are challenges in the aged-care and disability sectors. I do not think it is acceptable when it is a core business for those people—and yes they do have a genuine heart for those they care for—that they are virtually hamstrung with things they have absolutely no control over whatsoever. The aged-care facilities do not want to close putting the elderly back into unacceptable living conditions. They want to look after them. But it came through clearly at the select committee through all the submissions that the aged-care facilities are not able to do an adequate job. They are unable to do their job effectively and give residents the care and attention that most of them desire to give because of Government policy. United Future would again strongly encourage the Government to deal with the policy issues and put in place a regime that pays reasonably well so that elderly people can be cared for correctly.