Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As many speakers before me have noted, the Aged Care Bill 2024 proposes a refined means-tested user-pays system for co-contributions to everyday living and independent support. It also goes to the systemic issues within the current aged-care system that are forcing aged-care providers out of business, which reduces options for aged care. Only a few months ago, Aged and Community Care Providers Association Chief Executive Officer Tom Symondson said the aged-care system was in crisis and half of residential aged-care providers are losing money. I know that some in this House will argue that this bill should be about only quality and standards of care, but we also need to be practical and acknowledge that aged care needs to be sustainable.

As with the recent NDIS bill, I agree without reservation that we need to provide human centred services, and that the rights of the person accessing the services should be paramount, but we also need to make those services affordable enough that we can continue to provide them. This is particularly important as our population ages and more Australians start to move into aged care. I support the concept of those who cannot afford to pay making greater contributions, but the feedback from those who have contacted my office is that they don't want to pay more for services. They've made decisions based on the current situation, and this should be recognised. I'm glad to see that current users of aged care will be guaranteed to be no worse off. Those who have yet to enter the aged-care system want to limit the amount they must pay but, overall, they recognise that the system needs proper funding.

A few weeks ago I visited St Ives Retirement Living in Jolimont, during one of my regular community visits, and I was delighted to have 30 residents come to chat with me about a range of topics, including the new act. While there were concerns about having to pay more and about the amount of detail yet to be disclosed, there was general acceptance that, with an ageing population, aged-care services need to be sustainably funded from somewhere. While much of the detail remains to be seen, I'll be tracking implementation to confirm that the funding changes do not leave anyone in financial hardship, and advocating for change if they do.

I want to express support for the way in which this legislation has focused attention on ageing in place through the Support at Home package. Surveys consistently show that the vast majority of older Australians want to live in their own home as they age so that they can remain connected to their community and services with which they are familiar. A survey conducted by Anglicare Australia in 2022 found that 87 per cent of people want to remain at home. Similarly, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute recently found that between 78 and 81 per cent of older Australians aged over 55 want to live in their own home as they age, which is why this part of aged care must be addressed comprehensively. I am pleased to hear that the new act will include 30,000 new packages, but this will not guarantee support for everyone who requires it. I appreciate that the maximum annual amount of funding available for in-home clinical aged care is increasing from $61,000 to $78,000. I also support the provision of additional funding for home modification, palliative care and short-term restorative care. I worry, however, that access to short-term restorative care is not always available.

Unpaid carers—those spouses, siblings, children and other family members providing support and care to older people living in their own homes—make an enormous contribution to the lives of older people, and the act does not acknowledge this role. The act should reflect the role of carers and their importance to the older people they support while acknowledging the carers' individual needs. Having sat on the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs during its recent inquiry into the recognition of carers, I've heard plenty of evidence about the important role that carers play and the need for their appropriate recognition in our service systems.

The availability of adequate respite so carers can take a break is of particular importance to my constituents. Access to respite is required for people like 69-year-old Joyce of Doubleview, who lives with her 90-year-old mother and provides much of her care. Last year she wanted to take a holiday, but she couldn't find respite for her mother in order to do this. Joyce has provided many years of care for her mother and deserves to take a break. The act does not improve the availability of respite. It should include incentives for residential aged care to make respite beds available.

I also worry about the timeliness of decision-making for Support at Home packages. The statement of rights in the act could include an obligation to provide home-care services to those eligible within a six-week period and an obligation to undertake timely assessments. In the absence of these changes, my office will track how long these decisions are taking under the new act.

The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety shone a light on some of the neglect which has taken place in the aged-care system and showed that we need reform in the way our aged-care residences are managed. I'm hopeful that the creation of a statement of rights and a statement of principles will protect the safety of users of our system. I support a positive duty on providers to uphold these rights and I support the creation of an independent complaints commissioner of aged care.

In the bill's first iteration I was concerned about the inclusion of criminal penalties for providers who breached aged-care standards. We need providers to continue to be incentivised to provide care, and I'm glad that provision has been removed from the bill. I know that some in my community were disappointed by what they saw as a reduction in penalties for systemic neglect within aged-care facilities, but I do think we need to balance the need for appropriate care with the need for provider services. I believe the civil penalties for providers who step out of line, including fines of more than $1.5 million for serious failures, adequately recognise the seriousness of breaches while also recognising that scaring off providers would have a negative effect on the quality and provision of aged care. I would support reviewing the act in three years to determine if it's fit for purpose, as the five-year review period seems a bit long.

In conclusion, we need this updated aged-care act, and I support it generally. It has taken some time to get to this point, and whether it succeeds will be determined in its implementation. As my office continues to support constituents negotiating the system, I'll be looking out for how simple, accessible and user friendly the new system is; for how transparently people can find out how they'll be affected individually; for how funding changes affect individuals, ensuring that they do not create financial hardship; for how we protect the humanity of the new system; for the ease and availability of access to Support at Home packages and short-term restorative care; and for recognition of the role of unpaid carers and for availability of respite for people like Joyce. Any large shift can take some time to bed down. My office will be working with constituents to bring any teething issues to the attention of the government and the department so that they can be resolved. I commend the bill to the House.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been clear for a long time—indeed, perhaps since before the royal commission hearings but certainly since then and most certainly since the findings—that our nation has had to have a conversation with itself about reforming aged care. That conversation is one that will continue, but this bill, the Aged Care Bill 2024, represents a significant opportunity for those opposite to step into that conversation, and these reforms are very much about that.

From my assessment, the situation that we face in this country right now is devilishly difficult. We have aged-care providers in large capital cities, some of which are commercial operators and some of which are not-for-profit operators. We have aged-care providers in rural cities like the one I come from, Mount Gambier, South Australia's second-largest city—both commercial, for-profit operators and not-for-profit operators. We have aged care providers in the smallest of towns, some of which I represent. Some of these have as few as a handful of residents in them.

I can say none of those are commercial operators because, of course, those entities are barely viable in many cases. There is complexity in the nature of the provision of aged care—and that's before I even speak about the provision of in-home services, which are so important because at the heart of our national aged-care system is the desire to allow people to make dignified choices. There is a choice around aging at home or taking an alternative route—a choice about perhaps aging at home until a particular point in your journey and then a transitioning to an aged-care facility. In order to provide that dignity of choice, our nation has had to, over very many years, develop different systems that meet different needs, and a system, in a sense, that is as complex and diverse as our nation itself.

My view, for a long time, has been—particularly since some of the shocking revelations that came to light and gave rise to the royal commission—that the resources available en masse to the aged-care sector in our nation weren't sufficient to meet the standards that Australians expected for aged-care provision. Our nation had a choice. It was effectively no choice, but I'll set out what the choice was. We could either expect lower standards for those in aged care—this is why I say it's no choice, because of course that's completely unacceptable to every Australian, particularly given the revelations we heard in many of the places, and the stresses, financial or otherwise, on aged-care facilities—or we could find additional resources to ensure that the aged-care sector was sustainable and delivered the standard of care that Australians expect for their most vulnerable citizens.

That's the journey our nation has been on. It's not one that has necessarily been driven by one side or the other of this House. In fact, I think it's been a collective effort, and a collective understanding that we need to find those resources. When I say 'find those resources', that then leads to the challenge that presents itself here. Who pays? I've said that there needs to be additional resources, but what mix of resources? What contribution does the public make to aged care, generally, and what contribution does the individual receiving those services seek to make? Of course, that discussion is at the heart of these reforms.

I want to be clear. Whilst I'm saying that we as a nation we have had this conversation, this is not a bill that's been co-designed by those opposite with the coalition. In my view, it would have perhaps been preferable if there had been a genuine co-design exercise across the parliament. I think we'd be in a much better place. Instead, as a result of that failure to co-design, we remain critical, on our side of the House, of the failures to address workforce regulatory impacts and the timelines that are set out in the bill.

Last year alone, 49 aged-care homes closed, under the administration of those opposite. I don't have the number of aged-care places that amounts to, but you can imagine it would run to hundreds. That is a significant indictment on those opposite. Before I get to how the coalition has worked to improve this bill—not in a co-design phase but once it was presented to us—I think, in my time in this place, the greatest example of regulatory impacts that put pressure on particularly smaller aged-care facilities, the likes of which proliferate in my electorate, was the decision around 24/7 RNs. I don't have a difficulty with that decision at all; it was the timeline associated with it. One would think that, if that were your plan, if you wanted to ensure that that's where we were, you would say, 'We'll give aged-care facilities a number of years, perhaps four, to implement this,' and four years is important for a reason I'll talk about. And then we'll go to the university sector and say, 'Let's ramp up your capacity to educate young men and women—and middle-aged people or otherwise, who may want a change in career path—to attain their registration as a registered nurse,' so that, at a time when aged-care providers are seeking those registered nurses, to meet their regulatory obligations, there will be a pipeline ready to access.

Instead—I'll tell you what happens in my electorate, and, Deputy Speaker Archer, I'll hasten to suggest it's happening in yours too—an aged-care provider poaches registered nurses from the local hospital; the local hospital poaches registered nurses from aged care, and this cycle continues. Because, as I said earlier my contribution, for some time the sector hasn't been properly resourced in the way it should be, what ultimately happens in a fight between the aged-care facility and the local hospital is that the local hospital wins. And so the aged-care facilities in my electorate are reliant on temporary staff, who come at an incredible cost. That cost is forced upon them. Hence, we have this viability issue in the aged-care sector, and I suggest it is a significant reason why 49 facilities have closed in the last year alone—courtesy of those opposite.

But enough of that. What are the improvements that the coalition have made to this bill—but not during the co-design phase, because we were excluded from that phase, as was, by the way, the sector, who are frustrated and have expressed their frustration to me and others about having not been appropriately consulted in that phase, despite now being asked to make contributions to the Senate inquiry, the one, of course, that we referred this bill to. What are the improvements that we've been able to achieve? The member for Curtin just mentioned one at the conclusion of her contribution—the grandfathering provisions. It is only fair and proper that someone, having made a decision based on the laws of the day, entering into an aged-care journey, should be governed by those rules and not other rules or rules that have changed during the course of that journey. That grandfathering provision wasn't included in the original iteration of the bill, and I'm pleased to say that it is a measure which will give a significant deal of comfort to the older and ageing Australians who have already entered into their aged-care journey. And it will include anyone who's on a home-care waiting list and others.

We fought for a much lower taper rate because we wanted to ensure equitable contributions for Australians who have worked hard all their lives and saved for their retirement. We wanted an assurance that the Federal government will remain the majority funder of aged care, not the consumer. It is a challenge in public policy circles. We ask people to work hard and save for their retirement and, then, seemingly—and many constituents have made this point to me—we punish Australians for having done exactly what we asked them to do. Fighting for the lower taper rate is about saying to Australians who worked hard and saved for their retirement, 'We've heard you and we understand it's important that you're not treated in a way that is so inequitable as to be unfair.'

On a similar line of betting, if I can say that, we fought hard to ensure that there are caps around the total sum a consumer can pay over the lifetime of their aged-care journey. Those caps are important because, again, they give some certainty to Australians who've worked hard and saved for their retirement.

We 've removed criminal penalties, which, of course, is important. A member of my own staff volunteers her time for an organisation in the aged-care sector. She's on the board of a local aged-care facility. When she came to me and asked whether that was a course she could adopt, given her employment with me, of course I was open to that. I did point out to her, on a personal level, that I'd be concerned about the criminal penalties that hang in and around this sector. So I'm pleased to say they are a thing of the past. We don't want to dissuade, in particular, volunteer directors from doing the good work in their community that they can do for fear that perhaps something untoward might happen at their facility and that they'd face an immediate term of imprisonment.

We ruled out the workers' voice, which was really just those opposite having a lend, quite frankly. The idea was outrageous. It was an attempt to force unionism into every aged-care home. Labor wanted a workers' representative to be able to come into every single aged-care home and demand an explanation on any aspect of its operations. Now, we support aged-care providers working consultatively with their staff, but we're not going to let unions bash down the door and march into aged-care homes and tell them how to do their jobs. This is why we've successfully fought to remove this provision.

But the most important change from the proposed bill to the one that's currently being debated, from my perspective, is funding for rural and regional Australia. Having said that, I still think it's insufficient, and I expect most people who've thought deeply about this will agree with me. It's important for those listening to the contribution to understand that these things are always negotiations. It would be fantastic if we were in a position to be able to mandate particular provisions, but we can't; we have to do this by way of consultation, and the coalition has secured $300 million in additional capital funding, through the Aged Care Capital Assistance Program, for rural, regional and remote aged-care facilities. The truth is: because of the approach taken by those opposite—particularly around regulatory changes and other things, making aged-care facilities marginal, if not unsustainable, across the country—there has been an investment strike. That is, no aged-care facility is building any additional capacity anywhere in the country. That's got to change. The situation is at its worst in regional, rural and remote Australia, and that's why this $300 million is important.

I say, though, that even this provision is modest and that, in a perfect world—one perhaps governed by a coalition government—I'd hope to see additional capex in this space, because, just in relation to the last Modified Monash Model 5 to 7 grant funding round, we saw an oversubscription rate of 10 to one. Literally billions of dollars of capex are required in this sector right now. So I'm hopeful that the reforms will give the aged-care sector the ability to invest that capital, to grow and meet the demands of a baby-boomer population that will need to access aged care, but I remain a little sceptical that the $300 million—whilst I support it, and obviously it's an achievement to go from zero dollars to $300 million in this space, courtesy of our negotiations—is sufficient. I hope it is. But, in any event, I'm grateful to have made the contribution. I am pleased that, despite being excluded from the co-design phase, the coalition's interest in this matter has improved the outcome for older Australians.

Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to quote Tia Walker: 'To care for those who once cared for us is one of the highest honours.' Indeed, the way that we care for the aged in our community is important to us as a nation. There is one thing that every single Australian has in common, and that is: every single Australian has had a parent. And so whether or not it is us here as policymakers, thinking about how we care for the aged and how we legislate for effective aged care, or whether it is people of, say, my generation, who are now looking at having to assist their parents, their parents-in-law, their neighbours, their aunties or their uncles into aged care, this is an issue that will impact, at some time, every single Australian. So when we are looking at reforming the aged-care system it is, I think, testament to the importance that the coalition has put on these sorts of reforms that so many of my colleagues on my side are also speaking on this.

In the interests of clarity, we can look first of all at what is meant by aged care in this country. It's a system of funding and regulation to ensure that Australians are cared for in their old age. Currently, there's no minimum age. Under the bill that's proposed, people will be eligible for aged-care funding if aged 65 or over, or 50 years or more for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. At the moment, Commonwealth subsidies plus individual means tested contributions provide funding for aged care in Australia. Under the bill as proposed, the Department of Health and Aged Care will oversee Commonwealth funded aged care, with the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission and the complaints commissioner as the main regulatory bodies. Both the current and proposed aged-care systems differentiate between aged care provided in a person's own home or community setting and care provided in a residential aged-care facility, in terms of funding and regulatory processes.

Thankfully, the aged-care facilities of the 21st century and, indeed, of 2024 are significantly different to those of the past. I can still remember being a very young girl and going to see my great-grandmother in a nursing home. It was very institutional, and I still have the memory of shock when I walked in and it was eight beds to a room, with four women on each side. They had a bed, a tiny little set of drawers next to them, a curtain that could be put around them and one toilet and shower, to support eight elderly women. I think back to that model and say thank you to all of the former governments and the parliamentarians that have gone before me that have brought about significant change to this sector.

Just on that, I want to, first of all, mention the way that the coalition has attempted to work with the government in this space. The efforts of our shadow health minister, the honourable senator Anne Ruston cannot be understated. Senator Ruston has indeed brought a degree of intellectual rigour to this debate and has seen to it that there were some changes made to these reforms. So, in principle, the coalition supports broadly a much better aged-care system. We are disappointed that there was a lack of cooperation from those in Labor and those on the other side. There was a lack of willingness to work cooperatively and collaboratively with us. I think that that's disappointing because this should be above politics. This should have been a bipartisan approach. I think, quite frankly, it is a bit of a damning indictment on the Prime Minister and also the health and aged care minister that that opportunity was not available to us. We did provide a clear offer to work with the government on this. The reforms overall have come about in response to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. We on this side have remained resolute in advocating for the dignity and certainty that older Australians deserve.

I don't think any older Australian wants to give up their independence and go into residential care. I know how devastating it was in my family when my maternal grandmother had a stroke. She was unable to stay at home, paralysed on one side of her body, and unable to use the toilet or feed herself. We had to make that very difficult decision to find a place for her. It is, I think, one of the most awful choices that you have to make. It is a terrible choice, and I think that you feel the lingering guilt even though you know that it is the right thing to do and there is actually no other choice. It is therefore very important for the Australians who are going into these facilities and for their families to know that they are going to be well looked after physically and in terms of mental health—that they will be adequately simulated, for example, and, if they are able, will be able to partake in social activities. Loneliness is one of the biggest issues affecting older Australians. We need to ensure that they have those social interactions and that they have activities available to them. That is why, again, this sector is so important and it is important that any reform is done well.

One of the main issues for this sector—and it's disappointing that the reforms don't really address this—are the chronic workforce shortages within aged care. I know that I've been out to many aged-care facilities within the electorate of Hughes during the campaign. I originally went out to HammondCare, which is at Hammondville and provides significant support for elderly Australians, particularly those with dementia. HammondCare is probably a national leader, if not a world leader, in the way that they care for their residents with dementia. When I spoke to their CEO at the time, I said, 'What is your biggest challenge?' And he said to me, 'It is the workforce.' A lot of the workforce is casualised. An example of one of the issues is that, because of the low rates of pay, aged-care workers cannot afford to live close to where they work. They do shift work, so often they have to do significant travel on public transport across Sydney at midnight or one o'clock in the morning. Clearly, that's a safety issue, particularly for the many women who work in aged care.

The workforce shortages have not been addressed in this reform, and I think that is a real concern. If we do not have the requisite number of Australians who are able or willing to work in aged care, we need to look at how to do better within this sector to ensure, for example, that we have housing for aged-care workers close to where they work. We also need to ensure that our immigration system is properly set up so that we are targeting that sector and bringing those skills in from overseas aged-care workers. That is, again, where we are seeing a failing on the part of the Albanese Labor government in the immigration sector in dealing with our skills shortage and in dealing with aged care.

I started by saying that how we look after our older and most vulnerable Australians is a matter of national interest. I particularly note that I recently met with two different Probus groups in my electorate: Bangor Probus and Sutherland combined Probus. These people would certainly not call themselves elderly! They are very active and engaged, but they have all said to me that they are looking at downsizing and moving into residential care at some stage in the next five to 15 years, and they are very worried at the moment. They have no clear understanding of what the reforms will mean in terms of how much they will pay, what they will be paying for and what level of care will be provided by the Commonwealth. As they move into aged care, of course they will need the medical assistance. But they also want to continue to live the sorts of lives that they have lived independently. And they should be able to. If the women who are moving into these facilities want to have their hair and nails done every week, that should be available to them, but they need clarity as to whether that's being paid for by them or by the Commonwealth.

The people who I met with are not necessarily saying they expect the federal government to pay for this, because most people who are in Probus are self-funded retirees. They are the backbone of Australia and they have done everything we've asked them to do: work hard and pay your taxes but save and provide for yourself into the future. This group of Australians, particularly, need to be respected for the way in which they have saved for themselves and have aimed to look after themselves. So, particularly for that group of Australians, what is happening in aged-care reform, particularly with financial implications, is very important.

I have met recently with not just HammondCare but a number of aged-care facilities in my electorate. I want to give a shout-out to them because they are absolutely outstanding organisations. They provide high levels of care and great, fun events. I've played Olympic bollards. I've been to a hat parade and a Mad Hatter's tea party. I've been at open days. We've had a great deal of fun in the Hughes electorate with a lot of the aged-care facilities, so I just want to quickly make reference to them. There is the BaptistCare Warena Centre at Sutherland, where I presented a nuclear test medal to Mr Rayner. Mr Rayner had been involved in working on the nuclear testing in the Pacific region in the 1950s. The federal government now provides a medal to those people as recognition of their service to their country when they were working at those facilities, often without any protective clothing.

There is also Bupa Sutherland, where I met many of the workers for Aged Care Employee Day. It was great. We had a big, beautiful cake; I certainly remember the cake. Anglicare Donald Robinson Village at Kirrawee needed new Australian flags, and they were presented with that. I also went to BaptistCare Warena at Bangor, where the District Singers performed. This is a great bunch of local residents who have joined together and go around and perform at various places, including some of the aged-care facilities. I've also been to 3Bridges at Menai. It is not an aged-care facility, but from Monday to Friday there is a different seniors group there. On Wednesdays, for example, they have a special event for people with dementia who are living independently but need some extra support and extra socialisation.

I've also been out and met with the Moorebank Happy Seniors group, and they were extremely happy. We had coffee and cake, again, and a really good chat about the things that are affecting them. I've also been out to St Vincent's aged-care services at Heathcote a number of times to provide chocolates, flowers or a plant to residents there who have made the 100-year birthday mark. That is also a fantastic service. To conclude, broadly these reforms are supported, but this could have been done better and we must ensure that aged-care reform is done well for our country going forward.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to thank the member for Hughes. I was listening out of the corner of my ear as she spoke. People around me kept annoying me, but I was listening to you and the story about how you went into the aged-care facility with your great-grandmother and there were four beds either side. It's powerful imagery. If it talks about one thing, it talks about how we have a duty to people. My view is you have a duty to people before they're born, after they're born and definitely when they're vulnerable before they die, to be quite frank.

When I was much younger I did a bit of charity work. There were two areas I really struggled in. I struggled when I worked in the Gladesville psychiatric home. I just couldn't do it. I wasn't up to it, because it was a problem I couldn't fix. The other one I really struggled with was when I worked in an aged-care facility. I was not getting paid; it was just charity work. I won't give its name away, but I remember it was so brutal. There was one poor lady there and she obviously hadn't paid her account. She was lying there with a sheet over her and there was nothing in the room and the windows were open so the cold air was blowing in. They were obviously wanting her to die. That's what the objective was on that one. I was 16 years old, so there was nothing much I could do about it, and I probably didn't know what was going on till I reflected on it later. That was no way to treat a human being, especially someone who was so vulnerable.

Building on that, I remember being out at Boulia. I did a little bit of work out at Boulia, and then, when I was in politics, I got to go back out there again. It's in the far west of Queensland. If you go to Longreach and you think that's far west, go further west and there's Winton. If you think that's far west, go even further west and you'll get to a T intersection where south is Birdsville and north is Mount Isa. That's called Boulia—well, actually, there's Bedourie and a couple of other places. At Boulia, this tiny town or big village with a pub—that's about it—the Australian Hotel, owned by John Tully and Tania Burns, when you talk to people and ask, 'What you want?' they say, 'Aged care.' That's because the people who have grown up in Boulia and have lived in Boulia do not want to go to what they think of as the big town, which was Longreach, which is not that big. They've lived their lives in Boulia and they want to die in Boulia.

Later on, I did a lot of work—I'm not trying to blow wind up my own backside—for St Vincent de Paul, and a big part of that was to go to aged-care facilities. What people wanted to do was have that connection to their lives. They didn't want to be isolated. I used to make an excuse to see them by selling them the newspaper and if they didn't have the money I just gave it to them. They just wanted to talk about what the season was like, what the cattle prices were like—they wanted to talk about their life. It's called humanity, and this bill, which the coalition will be supporting, although we'll be putting up amendments to it, builds on allowing people's humanity. It builds on making sure that we treat people with dignity. That's what life is all about—treating people with dignity, respecting life and treating life with dignity.

The bill allows us to have greater oversight of what's going on, especially of things like the transfer of people into better rooms, which we listened to the member for Hughes talk about. I bet you those ladies—four beds on either side—would have liked a better room had it been offered to them. That's what issues such as this speak to. Being in aged-care facilities is such a vulnerable time for people. They're looking at their money. They're looking at how they're going to pay for it. The family is working out how they're going to pay for it.

In our family we were blessed. We were lucky. Dad was a pretty handy businessman and he had a bit of coin, so, with the support of nurses, we looked after both mum and dad in the house until the day they died, and that was so important. What resonated with me was that my dad lived to be 98½ years old. Why do people live longer? It's because they have an attachment to their family and they have an attachment to what's going on around them. But it's not only about living longer; it's about living with a quality that they enjoy. Even now in politics, I know all of us, as politicians, go into aged-care facilities—or we should—and we see the people who are just dying to speak to us. They want that connection. They just want to have another human being to talk to, and that is what is vitally important.

With the Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, it's working together. People talk about this place and say, 'Oh, you always fight each other.' We don't really. Overwhelmingly, things in here go through in a bipartisan way. This is yet another intersection in trying to work for the common good. In making sure we look after people, we are suggesting changes that we think will make the bill better while making sure that our ultimate objective is the dignity of human life and the capacity for people not only to be born with dignity but to be treated with dignity. We must understand that we don't own people's lives. We have a duty of care over their lives, but we do not own people's lives and, because it's not our property, we must respect it. It is the property of the person whose life it is, not ours.

Another issue we have to touch on, though, is a big concern in regional areas. I know you, Madam Deputy Speaker Payne, would be very aware of this, coming from a regional area. So many of the aged-care facilities are not for profit; they're community based. They've got community boards. People work on those boards for free. The concern they have is this: 'Please do not regulate us to such a point, because the alternative to us is nothing. There is no alternative aged-care facility if we close down.' I think of the problems and the pressures on places such as Quirindi, which is a classic example, but there are other towns in New England as well.

We may have well-intentioned regulations here, but the effect on the ground is people going from an aged-care facility in their area to no aged-care facility. I don't mean another because the others are booked out—none. The only place they can go is palliative care, and even they don't have the beds. That's a terrible thing to do to a human being—to take them from an aged-care facility in their local town, where local people come in and maybe present them with the papers on the weekend, saying: ' Do you want to buy the Daily Tele? You haven't got three bucks? Don't worry, you can pay me next week. Here you go. Blah, blah, blah.'

To kick them out—this is where we have to be careful with the 24/7 registered nurse. It sounds great. The trouble is, if they can't get it, what are you going to do—shut them down? That is not the better alternative. There's got to be a capacity in this building—with its free air conditioning, free lights and, basically, free everything—to understand that other people don't have those sort of liberties. They are constrained by their cash flow. You have to make the suit fit the wearer, and that means you have to make sure that you say, 'Can I get an aged-care facility? Can I assist that community body to bring an aged-care facility into their town? Can I make sure that I'm aware of the facilities that are under stress? Have I got an active program on the ground to make sure that we touch base with these ones, even in Western Australia, and that none of these aged-care facilities are going to close down?'

It's a statement of the competency of government, isn't it? Law and order—that's a statement of competency of a government. If people feel scared, a fundamental aspect of government has failed. Medical care—I'm thinking of the things that get brought up with me—if a lady cannot have a baby in a local hospital, that is a fail. If a lady is on a bypass past Tamworth Base Hospital, having to be sent to Newcastle, that is a fail. If you cannot have a child in Muswellbrook because they don't have obstetrics, that is a fail. If you cannot defend the country, well, nothing else matters. You just don't have a country anymore; it's all over. So that's a massive fail. If you don't keep dignity for people in their later life, that is a fail.

These are fundamental things. They're not the exciting, glamorous things. 'Rah, rah, rah, we're going to talk about the weather,' or something like that. 'It's all marvellous.' But that is not what people out there are listening to. They want to say, 'Are you going to look after me when I can't look after myself? If I break my leg, is there going to be a doctor there? If someone attacks my nation, can you defend it? Later on, if I'm short of a quid, am I going to get a pension?' These are the things that people connect to.

This is why a bill like this is in the Federation Chamber, for all those watching—both of you!—because it is non-contro. It means it's going to go through. But I bet so many of you watching—both of you—are thinking, 'Hang on, what do I take out of this so that my parents and my grandparents are going to be looked after?'

In summary, we've got a couple of schedules, and schedule 1 is really about the conduct of residential care and assurances that the information the government gets helps them do a better job in managing aged care and finds problems early and deals with them, which makes abundant sense. The second schedule really is a sort of a backup of the first. It's how that information is used. Also there's a thing called section 83 that deals with breaches within that. It deals with typical things, like bedsores. There's nothing worse than when you go into an aged-care facility and you get that smell of boiled vegetables, faeces and urine. You know straightaway that there's something going wrong there. It worries you because you see the people there and you think, 'Are they being looked after?' Are these mums and dads and grandparents being looked after? So you've got to have close oversight of that. There are a couple of amendments to sections 332 and 337.

What we are also seeing is an attempt to deliver more aged care. It's a big issue. We have an ageing demographic. To be frank, we're not breeding our own. We're importing other people's babies. Therefore, with an ageing demographic, it means that a lot of people don't have the kids and the grandkids to financially support them when they go into aged care. My parents—may their souls rest in peace—had 18 grandkids. They had six children. My brother passed away, so they had five children. We were very lucky. There's my sister. My brothers are doctors and solicitors and there's me. We had the capacity to support our parents. There was a whole range of us, so we had the resources to support our parents.

Some people going into aged care now won't have had any kids. Some of them might have had one kid or two kids. If they've had one or two, those families are struggling to support themselves, they're struggling to pay their own bills and they've got no money to pay for mum and dad. That means that it falls to the state to pay for them. But, even so, it doesn't mean they should live the final part of their life like Oliver Twist. There's got to be a sense of dignity in how they live.

This is another thing. It's a strange thing, but it's part of what we've got to look at. Australians have got to have more children. We've got to try and work out why they're not having children and work out how they can, because it filters right through to how you support everybody.

You've got to ask yourself the question right now: when something happens to you, and it will—it absolutely will; even if you die, it's going to happen to you—who's going to support you? How does that work? Who is actually going to look after you? I think, for a lot of people, if they have a realistic view, the answer might be nobody. 'Nobody will be looking after me because I don't have children and I don't have grandchildren,' or 'I've got one son,' or daughter, 'and they're up to the gunnels in debt. They've got no money to look after me. So who's looking after me? I've got my super.' Okay. I'm an accountant. A very rough rule of thumb is that you're going to live on a tenth of that super a year. If you've got $300,000 in super, see if you can live on $30,000 a year. Good luck with that. A lot of people say, 'I'm doing well—600 grand.' Okay, that's 60. You'll get by, but it's not going to be flash. It's not going to be flash at all. Once you go into an aged-care facility, a big paw comes down onto some of that, and it becomes their super and their resource, and you've got to deal with that.

So we have to continue to work on this in a bipartisan way. We have to make sure, to the best of our abilities, that dignity in a person's life in the evening and the autumn of their times is as present as it was at the age of 35, and therefore aged care is crucial.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Aged Care Bill 2024 and the Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. There are generally only two times in our lives—we hope—when we're fragile, we're vulnerable and we may require long-term physical support from others. The first is, of course, when we're young—when we're born and we must rely on our parents to raise us, to feed us and to care for us. The second is when we enter our older years. Once again, we may need to rely on others for physical support. So, as we take measures as a society to ensure the proper treatment of our youngest citizens, we must work to guarantee high-quality care for our elderly.

I'm sure all of us in this place can agree—and we don't always agree on much, but I think this is something we can agree on—that older Australians should be able to enter that phase of their lives with dignity and security, to have their needs met and to feel safe. I think everyone in this place would agree with that. Unfortunately, the aged-care sector has been plagued with a range of problems for quite some time. In 2018, when the coalition was in government, we recognised the need to have an independent review of aged care in Australia, and we took that important step of establishing the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. In response to the royal commission, we're providing more than $18 billion in funding to support the immediate needs of the sector, and we remain resolute in advocating for the dignity and security that our older Australians deserve. We are currently seeing more than half of Australia's aged-care homes operating at a loss. This is occurring at the same time as our population continues to age, with an increasing desire to remain at home. These are just some of the issues that mean reform of the sector is necessary, and I'm really proud that the coalition has engaged in good-faith negotiations with the government to work towards a bipartisan solution.

I won't pretend that this legislation before us today is perfect, because it's not. The bills before us, for instance, leave much of the heavy lifting and substantive detail to be formulated by the executive in the form of delegated legislation. Nor will I pretend that the Albanese government have covered themselves in glory by once again failing to implement a proper and transparent consultation process on key changes. In saying all that, on this side of the chamber we do know that we are at a crossroads for the aged-care sector, with some 49 aged-care homes having closed since Labor took office in May 2022. This, of course, needs to stop, and I'm certainly hoping that the introduction of these bills will reverse this trend and result in the commencement of critical new builds across the country. It is with that goal in mind that we have worked collaboratively with the government to improve this legislation.

I'd just like to pause for a minute to make a special mention of Senator Ruston, the shadow minister for health and aged care, who has led the coalition's good-faith negotiations with the government. I can tell you that Senator Ruston deeply cares and understands the challenges facing the aged-care sector. She knows just how important her portfolio is. Well done, Senator Ruston. I give credit to her for this negotiation, which has led to some very important elements being included in the bill, which I would like to now make comment on.

One of the measures I'm particularly pleased about—although, as a regional member of parliament, I'd say that we could always go further—is the inclusion of funding for aged-care providers in regional, rural and remote Australia. Unfortunately, the government originally did not think that it was necessary or wise to include a targeted plan to support these providers, despite the disparities we know exist in regional Australia. Our specific focus has meant that $300 million in additional capital funding through the Aged Care Capital Assistance Program has been included, allowing providers to upgrade their facilities. I'm hoping that this will allow for more seniors to remain in the regions that they love as they age instead of being forced, predominantly, to move into urban centres away from friends and family.

This is a phenomenon that happens far too often. People living in my electorate of Durack—1.5 million square kilometres, so that's a lot of towns and a lot of seniors, a lot of people ageing—feel like they have no choice but to leave their communities to receive care. I'm seeing that particularly in areas like the Pilbara and the Kimberley. Imagine what it must be like to have lived in a place your whole life, just to be forced to leave at a time when you're probably at your most vulnerable. We do need to think of the mental health consequences as well as the physical.

Last month I travelled with my state Liberal colleague Mem Beard MLA to have lunch with Sylvia Kelly and the wonderful members of the Gingin Care Group. In the shire of Gingin, which is in the peri-urban area of Durack, there are 900 people aged over 70. This is their dream:

A permanent daytime place in where older people who have care in home but who find the days very long and can't really cook any more, can come together for as many days as they want, to get quality fresh food, play games, share coffee, have some gentle exercise with others, get a nurse to check the scrapes and cuts that happen with older skin—

it's happening to me now, Madam Deputy Speaker—

sit in a garden with others and chat and watch birds in a bird bath, have a computer person (with a computer) to help with all those computer things that are too hard—all in one place.

Such a beautiful aspiration! What they're talking about, really, is a halfway place. They're already getting care in their home, they don't want to go into an aged-care facility, and this would be like a halfway place to make sure they could stay in their own home for as long as they wanted to. But, sadly, once these Gingin residents get to the point where they need extra help, where they need to go into an aged-care facility, there is very little available locally and they are forced to leave. I heard from many people, especially women, the day we had lunch that they were really worried about the future. That's why there was the idea of this halfway home, which maybe would allow them to stay for another couple of years.

All of this, of course, makes you think about your own parents. Certainly, meeting that group of wonderful Gingin residents made me think about my own mother, who lives in Kalgoorlie. I don't think she'll mind me saying she is over the age of 80, although she doesn't look it. She still cooks up a storm and still looks after her beautiful garden, but she's starting to need help with the odd job, and I think she would say that those few jobs will eventually grow into many jobs that she needs help with. Now, she would say, 'Melissa, I don't ever need to go into an aged-care facility,' but we don't know the future. The reality is that for my mum, Lyn Dellar, to stay in Kalgoorlie, where she wants to live—she loves and is passionate about the Goldfields area—the aged-care facility options for her are very few. Who knows what the future will be for her. Hopefully, she will never get to that point. She's an incredibly capable woman, and of course I'm immensely proud of her. This is just a personal example of what life is like in the regions.

Another important provision was that the changes initiated by this legislation would be grandfathered in. This is good news. We advocated for this because we on this side of the House believed it was incredibly important that those who were already in the system wouldn't be impacted by the changes in the two bills we're discussing today. This means all older Australians currently in the system, including those on a home-care waiting list will not pay one cent more for their aged-care journey. I think that's incredibly important. This is, of course, a commonsense provision and shows respect to our senior citizens. As a general principle, government should not move the goalposts for those who have already entered the system—any system. I think we would all agree that that's a very good principle for any government. Of course, people in aged care will already have calculated exactly how much they can afford and are making decisions based on that, so I'm sure this will be a very welcome inclusion.

We also worked to ensure a fairer deal for hardworking Australians. We did this by fighting for the inclusion of a much lower taper rate, to ensure equitable contributions for Australians who have worked hard all their lives to save for their retirement. We also gained an assurance from Labor that the federal government—not the consumer—would remain the majority funder of aged care.

Another priority of the coalition was the maintenance of lifetime contribution caps on care contributions across residential care and home care. I believe this inclusion will provide much-needed certainty for families who may have loved ones in care for many years. The reality is we don't know how long the journey is, and this will ensure that older Australians and their families will be required to contribute to care cost for only four years.

The government's original proposal sought no cap on home care and a $184,000 on residential aged care only. We were able to gain the concession that no older Australians will ever pay more than $130,000 for home care and for nonclinical care and residential care combined. This addition will save many older Australians and their families tens of thousands of dollars. We strongly pushed for the removal of criminal penalties from the bill following serious concerns that their inclusion would force the exit of highly capable staff from the sector out of fear of being criminally punished to a level not seen in any other industry.

The Albanese government wanted aged-care workers—at a time when we're struggling to get highly qualified aged-care workers—and even volunteers to be criminally liable under the new act—madness! We squashed Labor's outrageous attempt to force unionism into every aged-care home. Labor wanted a worker's representative to be able to come into every single aged-care home and demand an explanation on any aspect of its operations. We support aged-care providers working consultatively with their staff. That's what we expect. That's what the residents in aged-care facilities would expect. But we will not let the unions march into aged-care homes and tell them how to do their jobs. That is why we successfully fought to remove this provision.

Once again, I give a big pat on the back to Senator Ruston for all of her efforts to improve these bills. We are an ageing population and our senior citizens are precious. They deserve respect and understanding as they enter their latter years. They want to be treated with dignity and we should be proud of the care they are given at a most vulnerable time of their lives. Sadly, the care in aged care often falls short of the necessary standard. This bill goes some way to improving the aged-care system, which in its current form is not sustainable. But it's a good start—let's be positive. It's a good start, but we should be watching the aged-care sector like a hawk to ensure that the cost of care is reasonable, that care is of a high standard, and that the aged-care providers are financially viable and believe they have a bright future. Quite frankly, without aged-care providers there is no aged care.

Pat Conaghan (Cowper, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think much of the public think that we down here in Canberra are partisan and don't get along. I think it is quite the opposite. We try our very best to work together, and I'm sure the member for Corangamite sitting across the table would agree. This bill is one of those times that we have tried to work together and have done. Labor have taken on many of our amendments in the best interests of older people—those people in aged care. We do work well together down here, despite what you see in question time—and I quite often question that question time gives the wrong impression to people, because we work well in communities, we work well together and we are all here for the benefit of Australians and to make Australia a better place. We've certainly taken a huge step forward in terms of this bill and what we're providing for older people.

During my maiden speech—and, Deputy Speaker Sharkie, we came in at the same time, and my maiden speech feels like 10 years ago, not five years ago—I spoke about aged care. I spoke about aged care being little more than a balance sheet, a ledger with profit and loss. I think we have come some way since then, in terms of the royal commission into aged care, but we have a lot of work to do.

I think back to when I was a boy. My father was a GP in a small country town, and, on a Sunday, after church, we would go and do the rounds with him, and that included going to the nursing homes. I distinctly remember the smell of the nursing home, and it was sterile. It wasn't a home. It was like a hospital where people went to die. It was almost like palliative care. And we would walk around with dad and speak to the older people, and quite often we'd be the only people, outside the nursing staff, they would've seen all week. To be perfectly honest, I hated it because it was so sad. You would go around and speak to these older people, sitting in their chairs or lying in their beds, who had nothing and saw no-one apart from the nursing staff. I've spoken about my father; he said we needed to do better for those people who'd built our country, who were at the end of their lives, and he was exactly right.

I know we have come a long way since then—a very long way. On that point: I recently went to the 50th anniversary for Nambucca Valley Care, or NVC, who have nursing homes in Nambucca, Coffs Harbour, Kempsey and Macksville. They were set up as a not-for-profit and remain not-for-profit, and the services they provide for our community are absolutely wonderful. I cannot imagine our community without them. It was a great night, a wonderful evening. I give a shout-out to the Pacific islander nurses and nurses' aides, who put on a wonderful performance that night. It shows the importance of the PALM scheme and our immigration scheme with our Pacific neighbours.

Those services that are provided by NVC are second to none. And they are part of our community. When you look at not-for-profits, as opposed to for-profits—and getting back to that statement, that ledger or balance sheet—their clients aren't treated like a number. They're not treated as profit and loss. They're treated as people—people who have built our country; decent human beings.

In recent times—speaking of a high level of quality of nursing homes—the coalition, when we were in government, were fortunate enough, in St Agnes' parish in Port Macquarie, to secure over $11 million in both state and federal funding, to go towards a dementia village based on a project and a design from the Netherlands. I'm sure, Deputy Speaker, you've been to dementia wards. They are not nice places to go to. But this facility—and I use that word loosely—or this place is eight homes, which are open. I would be proud to live in one of these homes. The 94 residents are free to walk around. It doesn't feel like a hospital or an aged-care home, and it is absolutely first class. If today were the last day I stood in this place, that would be one of my major achievements. In Cowper, we have over 30 per cent of the population who are over the age of 65, but we also have one of the highest dementia rates in the country. So to have a place where people can go and truly call it home, where they can go outside and garden or go and collect the eggs from the chicken coop—it is actually like being at your home. It provides that relief and comfort for the families as well. You're not walking into one of those cold, sterile homes or hospitals; you're actually going into a home to see your mum, your dad, your grandma or your grandpa, and they are happy in there. That's one of my greatest achievements, and that is what we need to be working towards. This bill goes a long way towards that.

While I'm talking about aged care and home hospice, only last week I met with the home hospice ladies in Port Macquarie. They raise funds for people who can't afford the equipment they need when they are at home in palliative care. I experienced palliative care very early because my father died when I was still a teenager. He was at home, and we were able to give him home hospice because we could afford it. But many can't. I had an afternoon tea with these wonderful ladies from home hospice, and they raise money so people can stay at home in palliative care. So thank you to the home hospice ladies for the work that you do and the fabulous tea and sandwiches that you put on.

This bill was a bipartisan effort, but I do commend the coalition on the changes that they put forward and I thank the government for accepting those changes. I will just run through those. This bill aims to ensure that the Commonwealth aged-care services remain accessible to those who require them now and into the future. We'll continue to consult with older Australians because that's the only way to keep up to date with what is required. One of the major things that we suggested and that was accepted by the government was the grandfathering clause. The coalition actually fought to include the grandfathering arrangements to ensure that every Australian who had already commenced their journey in aged care would not be impacted by these changes. That means that, if you're in aged care now, these won't affect you, so you don't need to be worried. There will be no changes. You'll continue to stay where you are and enjoy, hopefully, the services and the care that you're being provided.

There are contribution caps, which are extremely important. The original proposal saw no cap on home care and a cap of $184,000 on residential aged care only. We gained a concession that no older Australia will ever pay more than $130,000 for home care and the non-clinical care in residential care combined. We secured $300 million in additional capital funding through the Aged Care Capital Assistance Program for regional, rural and remote aged-care providers to upgrade their facilities as well as additional aged-care funding, particularly for regional, rural and remote aged-care homes.

I make the point on regional and rural aged-care homes that what we don't want to do is overburden them with regulation. While I agree with the implementation of 24/7 nurses, the timing for that made it very, very difficult in regional and rural areas. We saw the closure of over 40 aged-care homes across Australia because of that. So, if you overburden regional and rural providers, you might not have the services in some of the smaller towns. We've actually seen that in Cowper. We need to have that really delicate balance between having rules for service providers and making it so hard that you're concentrating on box-ticking rather than looking after your clients and your residents. Again, I did agree with the implementation of 24/7 nurses. There are some exceptions there, but we don't want to close down our residential aged-care facilities because of a box-ticking exercise.

It was pleasing to see the removal of the criminal penalties that were proposed under the original bill. On criminal penalties, as a former police officer and a lawyer, you do need a specific and general deterrence in certain circumstances. But, in aged care, do we really want to penalise or make it a criminal offence for some of our volunteers—people who go in there and work with the right intentions? Here we are saying, 'If you do the wrong thing, whether that be accidentally, then you're open to criminal penalties.' I think that's the last thing that we wanted. Again, that was taken on board by the government, and those criminal penalties have been removed, which is very pleasing to see.

But there are other facets of this bill that I could go through. At the end of the day, we are, as I've said, all here to improve the lives of our older Australians, to improve aged care, and we have come a long way, but we do have to take further steps. At the end of the day, it is pleasing to see that all sides of government have worked well to see this bill pass. I commend it to the House.

Michelle Landry (Capricornia, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I rise to speak on an issue of profound importance: the aged-care sector in our nation and the Aged Care Bill 2024. This sector is not just about another part of our healthcare system; it embodies the respect and care we should show to those who built our nation. I just wanted to talk about my own experience with this first. My father was in an aged-care facility in Rockhampton several years ago. It was probably very traumatic for everyone. The staff there worked so hard to look after people in care, but I just had people coming to see me all the time asking if I could help them with regard to doctors, more staffing and all the rest of it. I have to say that the staff worked very, very hard, but I think sometimes the system actually lets them down.

But there has been some good news in Rockhampton. Bethany, which is owned by the Catholics, has received significant funds from the federal government and is building a state-of-the-art facility in Rocky. Also, Benevolent Living, which is a privately run organisation, has done major expansion on their facilities in Rockhampton. I was very lucky recently to go to Alexandra Gardens and meet some of the residents there. I joined them for happy hour, when they have a lovely time. It's a place where they live, so we really need to make sure that they're respected when they live there.

The opposition has been clear in our offer to work with the government on sensible aged-care policies because we need a system that is not only robust but sustainable to support future generations. Ensuring a strong and well-funded aged-care system today means that future generations will have the security and confidence to age with dignity, knowing that they will be cared for as they deserve. This forward-thinking approach also alleviates the emotional and financial burdens on families, fostering a society that values its elders and plans responsibly for the future.

Since the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which was called for and responded to by the coalition, we have remained resolute in advocating for the dignity and clarity that older Australians deserve. The legislation before us is a direct response to the first recommendation of the royal commission to implement a new rights based Aged Care Act. This is an essential step, one that the coalition supports in principle. It is important that we recognise that aged care is not merely a sector; it reflects how we value and care for our elders as a society. The way we treat our seniors sets a benchmark for future generations, instilling in them a sense of security and trust that their own needs will be met with respect and compassion. Supporting a strong aged-care system ensures that our society continues to honour its past while building a foundation of dignity and care for the years to come. In response to the royal commission's findings, the former coalition government took swift and decisive action, providing more than $18 billion in funding to address the immediate needs of the sector.

But it's not just about funding; it's about recognising that aged care reflects how we as a society value and care for our elders. Throughout good-faith negotiations, the coalition has consistently worked to ensure that reforms in aged care provide the dignity and clarity that older Australians deserve. We have held the government accountable and pushed for the introduction of this reform package, ensuring that it sparks a nationwide conversation about aged care.

The challenges before the sector are undeniable, with more than half of aged-care homes across the country operating at a loss, coupled with an ageing population and the increasing preference for ageing at home. It is clear that the way aged care is delivered needs to change. That is why the coalition urge that this bill be immediately referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry. We look forward to an open and transparent process engaging older Australians and the aged-care sector in this critical conversation.

While we support the spirit of this bill, we reserve our final position until the committee's report is delivered. I'm proud to say that, through negotiations, the coalition has achieved significant amendments to the government's proposed legislation that will safeguard the interests of older Australians. We have worked tirelessly to ensure fairness for Australians who have spent their lives working hard and saving for retirement. We pushed for and secured grandfathering arrangements, lifetime caps, a more balanced, tapered rate and a guarantee that the federal government remain the majority funder of aged care.

Grandfathering arrangements are one of our critical achievements. They mean that Australians currently receiving residential aged care, on a home-care package or on a waitlist for home care, will not face changes to their existing financial arrangements. In simple terms, this ensures that those already within the system will not pay more for their care.

We have also fought for a fairer taper rate, advocating for contributions that increase at a much slower rate than the government's initial proposal. This protects those who have worked hard and saved diligently for their retirement. Additionally, we secured a commitment that the government, not the consumer, will remain the majority funder of aged care. One of the most significant outcomes we secured is the maintenance of a lifetime cap on care contributions. This cap provides peace of mind for families in knowing there is a maximum limit to what they will need to contribute.

We also introduced a time-limited contribution cap for residential aged care, ensuring families will only contribute for a set period of four years. Furthermore, we championed an additional $300 million investment in capital funding for regional, rural and remote aged-care providers. This funding is vital for facilities struggling under financial constraints, allowing them to upgrade and meet necessary standards. It ensures that all Australians, no matter their location, have access to quality aged care.

The coalition have always recognised unique challenges faced by rural and regional aged-care homes, and we remain committed to supporting them. Supporting these areas is crucial because they often face significant barriers, such as geographical isolation, limited healthcare resources and challenges in attracting and retaining skilled staff. Ensuring equitable access to aged-care services in these communities upholds the fundamental principle that all Australians deserve the same level of care and respect, irrespective of their postcode. This commitment helps bridge the divide between urban and rural care, fostering a more inclusive and just society.

We also successfully advocated for the removal of criminal penalties from the bill. Let me be clear: this does not mean providers in the wrong are given a free pass. Existing work health and safety laws, banning orders and criminal codes already provided the regulatory framework to hold individuals accountable. The introduction of new criminal penalties, as proposed by the government, was not a recommendation of the royal commission and would have unintended consequences, potentially driving capable workers away from the sector.

Our efforts have also stopped the imposition of forced union representation in every aged-care home. We believe in collaboration between providers and their staff but will not support measures that prioritise union mandates over quality care, particularly when small providers bear the heaviest burden. Despite achievements, we must remember that this bill remains the government's package of reforms. It was not co-designed with the coalition, and there are critical issues that remain unaddressed. The government has failed to adequately consider workforce impacts, regulatory challenges and realistic implementation timelines.

This oversight is not without consequences. Just last year, 49 aged-care homes closed under this government's watch. This is a stark reminder that words alone are not enough. Action and foresight are paramount. We must ensure that this bill does not lead to further closures, but rather that it fosters an environment conducive to the development of new facilities and essential investments that sustain and improve the sector.

Transparency has been another area of deep disappointment. The government's process has been shrouded in secrecy, with crucial details embedded in delegated legislation yet to be disclosed. This lack of openness and clarity frustrates not only older Australians and their families but also the dedicated providers and workers who strive to maintain high standards despite mounting pressures. We have repeatedly called on the government to release all associated rules and documents for the bill's final debate. Only with full disclosure can Australians understand, prepare for and respond effectively to the impending changes.

While this bill seeks to ensure Commonwealth aged-care services remain accessible, promote dignity and support independence, much work remains. The coalition remains committed to consulting with older Australians and the sector, through the ongoing inquiry process, to achieve the best outcomes. We will continue to work towards a system that prioritises the dignity and care of older Australians, ensuring they receive the support they deserve.

Colin Boyce (Flynn, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Aged Care Bill 2024. It is important that we recognise that aged care is not merely a sector; it reflects on how we value and care for our elders, as a society.

Aged care across this country and especially in Central Queensland is, quite frankly, at breaking point. Whether it's getting a loved one such as a mother or father or a grandmother or grandfather into an aged-care facility or trying to get through the mountains of bureaucracy when applying for a home-care package, it's really a nightmare for many Australians. Data has shown us that some of the most vulnerable older Australians are waiting as long as an entire year to get a home-care package. Wait times for level 3 packages have blown out from nine to 12 months, while the wait times for level 4 packages have risen from six months to nine month.

Last year, Carinity Summit Cottages, an aged-care facility in Mount Morgan in my electorate of Flynn, closed. They advised that the ongoing nationwide shortage of aged-care staff, combined with Mount Morgan's regional location, made staffing the facility incredibly difficult. Given the national care workforce shortage and the increased difficulty of recruiting staff, the only viable option for Carinity cottages was to close.

It is clear that the current aged-care model is not working and significant changes need to be made that will not affect communities in rural and regional Australia. The coalition provided a clear offer to work with the government on sensible aged-care policies, because we need a system that is strong and sustainable to support future generations.

Since calling for and responding to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, the coalition has remained resolute in advocating for the dignity and clarity that older Australians deserve. This legislation delivers on the first recommendation of the royal commission, appointed by the coalition, to implement a new rights based aged-care act.

In response to the royal commission, the former coalition government provided more than $18 billion in funding to support the immediate sector needs. Through good faith negotiations, the coalition has sought to ensure that many reforms provide dignity and clarity for older Australians, and we have held the government to account to finally introduce their package of reform and bring all Australians into this important conversation.

The issue before our aged-care system is undeniable. With more than half of aged care homes across the country operating at a loss, an aging population and a desire for people to age at home, the way that aged care is delivered and supported needs to change.

This bill represents a significant package of reforms, which is why we pushed to have the bill immediately referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry. We have valued the opportunity, through this open and transparent Senate inquiry process, to finally have an open conversation with older Australians and the aged-care sector about the government's proposed reforms. Now that the committee has delivered its final report, we are considering its findings and recommendations.

Following the inquiry, the coalition remains supportive of introducing a rights based framework to guarantee a world-class aged-care system for older Australians into the future. However, as coalition senators noted in the report, there are concerns that the bill contains several shortcomings that should be remedied for it to deliver on its promised outcomes.

We have been critical of the government for their lack of consultation on this significant package of reforms, and this was a concern that was reflected by stakeholders throughout the inquiry. That is why the government must be transparent and release the subordinate legislation associated with the Aged Care Bill before it passes parliament. Withholding this critical information prevents all stakeholders from being able to understand and prepare for the full impact of the changes contained in this bill.

Through good-faith negotiations with the government, the coalition has achieved significant changes to the proposed legislation that will protect the interests of older Australians and future generations. The coalition has worked tirelessly to ensure that the government's reforms are fairer, particularly for Australians who have worked hard all their lives and saved for their retirement. That is why we pushed the government to include grandfathering arrangements, lifetime caps, a much lower taper rate and an assurance that the government will remain the future funder of aged care—not the consumer.

One of the most critical outcomes of our efforts was the introduction of grandfathering arrangements. These arrangements guarantee that Australians who are already in residential aged care, on a home-care package or assessed and waiting for their allocated home-care package will not see any changes to their existing arrangements. In effect, it will mean that all Australians currently in the aged-care system will not pay one cent more for their aged-care packages.

We also advocated a lower taper rate towards aged-care contributions to ensure that those who have worked hard and saved for their retirement receive a fairer deal. The taper rates we demand mean that funding contributions increase at a much slower rate than the government has proposed.

Furthermore, we sought an absolute assurance from the government that they would remain the majority funder of aged care—not the consumer.

We also fought for the maintenance of a lifetime cap on care contributions. These caps we demanded mean that Australians will always know that the maximum they could ever be required to contribute is fixed. Importantly, the maintenance of the lifetime cap will provide families with peace of mind when it comes to the costs associated with caring for their loved ones. Not only did we fight for a lifetime cap but we also introduced a time limited contribution cap of four years for residential aged care.

In addition to these financial safeguards, the coalition secured an additional investment of $300 million in capital funding for regional, rural and remote aged-care providers, who are struggling to remain open under the current government. This funding is critical for upgrading facilities that often struggle to meet the necessary standards due to financial constraints. It is vital that all Australians, regardless of their geographic location, have access to a quality aged-care service. The coalition has always recognised that rural and regional aged-care homes face unique challenges and need more support from this government. We understand that rural, regional and remote homes will also get significantly increased funding for the services they provide to people in their care.

We also fought for the removal of criminal penalties from the act . Our position on criminal penalties has always been clear, and so has the position of both royal commissioners. The introduction of criminal penalties was not a recommendation of the royal commission. Instead, it was an ill-considered and not-consulted-on election promise from this Labor government that would have had dangerous consequences. And let's be clear. By removing criminal penalties from the bill, the coalition has not given a free ticket to providers who are in the wrong. Existing WHS laws, banning orders and criminal codes provide the necessary regulatory framework to hold these people to account. The introduction of stand-alone criminal penalties was simply yet another example of the government's heavy-handedness when it comes to the regulations. We support the need for older Australians to be safe and supported in our aged-care system, but, in order for them to be safe and cared for, we need the workforce to exist in the first place. We have also successfully eliminated provisions that would have forced unionism into every aged-care home, taking the focus away from quality care and instead increasing mandates felt the hardest by small providers.

Whilst there have been significant achievements made by the coalition during our negotiations with the government, it is important to remember that this is Labor's package of reforms. This bill has not been co-designed alongside the coalition.

This government has failed to address critical issues, such as workforce, regulatory impacts and implementation timelines, in the bill. These issues continue to go unaddressed by the government and are causing some serious consequences. Last year alone, 49 aged-care homes closed under the government. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, one of those aged-care homes was in my electorate of Flynn, at Mount Morgan. The coalition is seeking to ensure that the introduction of this bill will not force the closure of more homes and, instead, result in the commitment of critical new builds across the sector—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11:41 to 12:26

We remain disappointed by the lack of transparency the government has shown to the Australian public throughout the entire process of reform, with conversations forced to occur behind closed doors. It is clear from the two inquiry hearings held thus far that there is notable frustration among older Australians and in the sector: frustration that many of the changes proposed by the government were not consulted upon, frustration that much of the detail of the new act is held in delegated legislation which is yet to be seen, and frustration that without this delegated legislation Australians cannot adequately respond and prepare for the changes to come. The coalition has called on the government to finally be transparent and publicly release all of the rules associated with the bill prior to its final debate so that we can fully understand the effect of this bill on the sector, on older Australians and on the wider community.

However, it remains clear that this bill aims to ensure Commonwealth aged-care services remain accessible to those who require them today and into the future. It aims to promote dignity, independence and a meaningful life for older Australians, which the coalition remains committed to. We will continue to consult with older Australians in this sector throughout the ongoing inquiry and work through the issues that are raised as we seek to achieve dignity and clarity for all Australians. As the federal member for Flynn, I will continue to fight for our aged-care sector, as we all will have to rely on it at some point in time in our life.

Debate adjourned.