Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Hansard source

I appreciate the government setting out transitional arrangements for grandfathering in the primary legislation, rather than waiting for the transitional bill, given the questions that have been raised by advocates and constituents showing the need for clarity. Firstly, I wonder if the minister could provide some clarity with respect to the lifetime means-test cap, proposed to increase from approximately $82,000 to $133,000, as it's my understanding that the cap covers only some but not all fees. Could the minister please confirm which of the following fees will be capped by the lifetime mean-test fee cap? Does that include the basic daily care fees, the daily extra services fees—to be called the 'higher everyday living fees', which can total thousands of dollars per year, as reported by the Older Persons Advocacy Network? Will the cap cover the daily accommodation payments for those unable to pay the refundable deposit?

I also request clarification as to whether the grandfathering will also apply to the amounts that may be charged for refundable deposits for residential aged care. Likewise, I would like to confirm the scope of the grandfathering proposed under the 'no worse off' principle. My office has been advise that this principle applies purely to the lifetime means-tested fee cap that the person may be required to pay for receiving funded aged-care services. Can the minister please advise whether the person's entitlement to services they may already be receiving under a home-care package, such as gardening, cleaning and the like, will be grandfathered into the new Support at Home system? Alternatively, will the new lower and more prescriptive Support at Home service limits apply? I ask this because I have constituents who are worried that the gardening services they currently receive are going to be significantly reduced in hours.

Secondly, the amendment refers to a class of people in the rules for the purpose of the no worse off principle, but it does not exclusively explain who those rules are meant to apply to. Therefore, I respectfully seek clarification from the minister with respect to this. Will those with a pre-existing lifetime contribution cap to be grandfathered include people who have applied for My Aged Care and sought an aged-care assessment but have not yet been assessed as at 12 September this year; people who had undergone an aged-care assessment, were on the national priority list waiting for aged care or were receiving a funded home-care package on 12 September 2024; people who had undergone an aged-care assessment or had been approved for and allocated or receiving CHSP, Commonwealth Home Support Program, services as at 12 September; and people who were experiencing hardship, which COTA argues requires definition in the act?

Further, National Seniors Australia have raised the following queries, and I share their concerns. Could the minister provide greater clarification about when the no worse off principle, the grandfathering, ends? The public communication implies the no worse off principle is ongoing but not where there are clear end dates. Could the minister please provide more information regarding what factors are to be taken into consideration when setting price caps for different Support at Home services and what methods are to be used to determine the price setting for different services? Could the minister please advise what the government is actively planning to do to clear the backlog of approximately 76,000 people who are on the waiting list? I note that aged-care providers have said there need to be an additional 55,000 packages and that they have capacity to provide those services.

I also wish to seek clarification from the minister that clause 186A excludes from means testing any payments of compensation or damages made by a provider under the act's compensation pathway for serious injury or illness caused by them in breach of their duties under the act—meaning a provider cannot claw back from the recipient any compensation payment that may have been paid out of a breach.

Question agreed to.

See this speech in context