Mr HAMILTON (Groom) (16:44): I hope the member for Fraser knows how much I appreciate his contributions, and it’s a very important point he makes around the long-term bipartisan approach to providing that safety net that Australians do enjoy.
In speaking to the Aged Care Bill 2024, I am going to make a request of the minister, on behalf of a constituent of mine—someone who has become a dear friend. But before I do so I want to be very clear: the opposition seeks to work in good faith and closely with the government to ensure that our aged-care system provides older Australians with the dignity they deserve, particularly in those last years when dignity can be easily taken away from you as old age sets in. At the heart of our contributions there has been a question, not of right or wrong or absolutism, but, simply put: how do we fund aged care so that it is sustainable, and how do we do that so that the costs are borne out fairly across our community in a way that we can feel confident—look each other, as Australians in the eye—to ensure that we are both caring for each other but also providing the right level of responsibility for each other as well? The member for Hinkler made some very good observations on the funding viability of aged care. I won’t repeat those, but I’ll point to them as an important contribution in this debate.
I want to relay a story that I think speaks to why it’s important we continue to work together. I hope in telling this story, you, Deputy Speaker, will see the good nature and the good faith in which we are entering into this debate. John Currie was a very good man. John Currie was a firefighter in our region for 23 years. He put himself in harm’s way. When he had to carry pain in the course of his duties, he did so manfully. He is someone whose name, I would hope, would be remembered for the way he lived his life. Sadly, he passed away in extraordinary circumstances, which are entirely relevant to the intention of this bill. I want to recount them, because I think it’s important, and it’s been very important to his daughter, Kim, that John’s story is heard and that lessons can be learnt from his story and taken into account, particularly in this bill. When we talk about a statement of rights, this could not be more important.
John was diagnosed at the age of 86 with pancreatic cancer. He spent 15 weeks in the Warwick Hospital. Pancreatic cancer hurts. Anyone who knows anything about it will tell you that the pain that is experienced by the patient is at the unbearable level. John was discharged from the hospital to an aged-care facility in my region, in Toowoomba. When he was discharged, the recommendation was that he would be given a powerful painkiller called TARGIN. It’s an opioid. In conversations with the doctors at that point, John’s family were advised that the likely outcome would be that he would go into palliative care and probably would not last long.
What happened has been throughout the media and reported on widely, particularly in A current affair. John was left to deal with pancreatic cancer and the pain of it with only paracetamol for three weeks. He was a tough man, and for most of those three weeks, he could bear that pain. I hate to think—and I go back to the word ‘dignity’. It is absolutely right that we are hear talking about aged care and improving aged care in a bipartisan manner. What John Currie went through was extraordinary. Sadly, it gets much worse. He was at times deprived of additional pain relief, even paracetamol, whilst he was there. He was mocked for faking it by nursing staff. He deteriorated significantly, as you can expect, during those three weeks. It got so bad that his last three days were spent screaming and writhing in pain. He was bruised in the process of trying to restrain him. Mercifully, upon being transferred to the Toowoomba Hospital, he was administered morphine and died shortly after. He was a man who served his community as a firefighter, who was there when we needed him, when multiple citizens needed him, to come out and save either their life or their property. He was a man who was willing to put himself in harm’s way for the greater good. He died a death without dignity. I find it hard to accept that this is the Australia we work for, that we come here and fight for. I, with open arms, look across the bench and I accept that there is a bipartisan effort to make this better. This is what we are here for and Australia should see that.
I have worked with John’s daughter, Kim, for a prolonged period of time. It was very important to both Kim and I that we would never politicise this situation, that we would never be opportunistic or point the finger. We simply wanted the learnings from John’s passing to be heard to make sure, as Kim has said multiple times, that no-one should die a death like that in an Australian aged-care facility ever again. This is beyond what we can accept as Australians. This should never ever happen again.
I have met with Kim many times. I am blown away by her dignity. She could give this speech without pausing, as I have. She has an incredible strength and a desire to make sure her father is remembered for his contributions. I thank her for all of her efforts in raising these issues with me and I am committed to standing beside her to ensure that when I leave this place I can look back and say that I did everything I could to make sure that no-one ever suffered John’s fate.
I would ask humbly for the minister to reconsider her decision not to meet with Kim. When we look at the intent of this bill, what it is hoping to achieve, its objectives, which are important, which we all agree on, how we get there is an important discussion of politics, and that is the debate we must have. But we all agree in our hearts that things must improve; they must get better. And surely a case like John’s Curry’s must be heard at the highest level to ensure that whatever we can find from that, that whatever changes we can make legislatively or within regulation are made.
I brought Kim down to Canberra. We met with the shadow minister. As I pointed out, we have never sought to politicise this. We advised Kim to reach out to the minister to make sure that the government were fully aware of the story as well and were as informed as they could be. Kim has met with an advisor to the minister; she was promised a meeting. It would not just be for the benefit of Kim, not just for John Curry’s memory, but I think it would be in the national benefit for John’s story to be heard by the minister of the day. I really do. I would hate to think that after John’s passing we can’t offer him dignity in death. But we can give some dignity to his memory and make sure that his story is heard. Minister, please meet with Kim Sutton. It is an important meeting. Do this and work together with us, please.
