Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

I listened closely there to Senator Rice, and I think what is apparent looking around the chamber—and certainly I'm in exactly the same boat as Senator Rice, with elderly parents—is that lots of us are struggling with this in our daily lives, in that we are dealing with it remotely. I have a mother who has been in high-needs aged care for over three years after eight years of dementia, and a father that, unfortunately, is following, and to navigate and negotiate your way through this is difficult. It is devastating and fraught at the best of times, even with the best of intentions and a supportive family. So I am pleased that we are seeing as much reform as we can to the aged-care sector coming through, and that we're making it easier for families, who quite often have to deal with this, as at times it is the elderly parents that aren't really that attuned to what is actually happening around them and it is the adult children that are left, then, to negotiate this system for them.

I guess, in one way, it's good that Labor's first aged-care bill is almost a mirror image of what was put forward under the former government in the last parliament and does directly relate to our response to the royal commission. But, again, what's incredibly devastating for families like ours that are going through this is that Mr Albanese was prepared to play politics on this issue. He was prepared to sit on his hands, he was prepared to block this legislation being implemented and he was prepared to look at the amendment of former Senator Patrick that was requiring 24/7 nurses with an exemption for rural and regional centres. For those of us that have an interest in rural and regional Australia, what was being proposed would have seen nurses leave aged-care facilities in rural and regional areas because they would have been required to be staffing metropolitan facilities. Now, on this side of the chamber, we actually respect rural and regional Australians and believe that they have equal rights to those that live in metropolitan areas. But we know that those opposite, who are now the government, do not see rural and regional Australia in the same light.

There are two things, though, that were recommended by the royal commission but will no longer be part of this reform. One is workers-screening regulations. We actually believe that people that go to work in these facilities should be working them correctly. They should go with the right intent, they should be qualified and they should be able to deliver the services that elderly Australians require. The other thing that's going to be missing is a legislated star-rating system. As we've talked about, for those of us that are facing the challenges—looking for facilities, looking at options for our parents—being able to see how a facility performs in a very simple way would actually be of benefit for a lot of families.

But, again, this isn't about making it easier for families looking at aged-care options. This is about appeasing union mates and making sure that the unions are all up to speed, all happy, and that the paymasters are being served. So we will be keeping a very, very close eye on what sorts of reforms this government is now looking to put in place, because it should always be about the people going into these facilities and not about the politics, not about the unions and not about appeasing those that demand the most from you because they pay for you.

What we've seen is a delay to this significant legislation. It's disrespectful. It's disrespectful to all Australians. It's disrespectful to older Australians. It is absolutely disgraceful that you sat on your hands, that you refused to support this bill in opposition, but now your first bill almost directly mirrors our legislation. The funny thing is, though—and we saw it yesterday in question time—the complete lack of ability to be across a brief, the complete lack of understanding. Government is hard, people. You actually have to do things now. Lucky for you there was legislation drafted. You've just made a couple of changes here and there and watered it down a bit where it suited you. But, thankfully, someone had written something.

What's going to happen, I think, and what we'll continue to see as time goes on—and we saw it from Senator Watt's performance yesterday in question time: absolutely no comprehension; he couldn't even give a number—is a reaching back to the coalition government, with the Labor Party looking at legislation and saying: 'How did they do it? We don't know what we're doing. We're not across our brief. We don't understand how to actually govern.' It's a little bit interesting when you see those who were very, very good when they sat on this side of the chamber—they had lots of things to say, lots of interjections, lots of commentary—go to the other side of the chamber, where they're actually supposed to do work; they're actually supposed to govern for all Australians, including elderly Australians, including farmers. Those opposite now in government are supposed to actually work for Australians, to make sure that this country is running and to keep Australians safe, whether it's from foot-and-mouth disease, whether it's elderly Australians in aged care. You actually have to make decisions. You actually have to be across your brief. You actually have to understand the detail. You have to understand that there are impacts on everyday Australians when you go and legislate emissions reduction targets, create a lawyers' picnic, remove any responsibility from yourselves and tie Australia's economy up in more and more red tape, green tape and any other padlock you can manage to find, to ensure that Australia is put at an economic disadvantage internationally because, you know, it makes you feel good shutting down every coal-fired power station in this country.

We've got the Greens here. They need to ring their mates in Germany. They understand how things work. They understand that people in their country want to see the lights on. They want to put their dishwashers on. They want to make sure their fridge is still running. But those opposite are more interested in virtue signalling, in shrouding themselves in wokeness, which is really just an opportunity to be mean, to be rude. I think we saw that last night after the outstanding speech by Senator Price, when those opposite—those who deemed it worth even attending the chamber—couldn't bring themselves to even stand up. If they'd noticed the courtesy prior to that, those of us on this side of the chamber gave Senator Stewart's speech the recognition it deserved—not those opposite.