Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

When we left this legislation before lunch, I was making the point that government senators are talking a very big game on this piece of legislation, and I would suggest they go back and look at some of the facts so that they don't mislead the parliament. In a previous contribution, the chair of the Community Affairs Committee, Senator Marielle Smith, said that the royal commission said that aged-care legislation should be passed by this parliament. What the royal commission's No. 1 recommendation said was:

The Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth) should be replaced with a new Act to come into force by no later than 1 July 2023.

That's over one year ago, so this legislation should have been passed two years ago. This is how far behind this government is with this legislation. They talk about how they care. They talk a big game. Then they misrepresent the royal commission. They have no respect for the royal commission, just like they have no respect for this parliament.

In the coalition's response to the royal commission, which was tabled in 2021, part of the work that we said we would do was to commence a new aged-care act in 2023. That was in the published government response, which was published only a few months after the royal commission's final report, along with the budget in 2021. So there has been a lot of big talk from Labor in respect of this but they should check their talking points because they are being misled by their talking points and are subsequently misleading this parliament.

The problem with this legislation, as has been said by my colleagues, is that we haven't seen most of the regulation. We haven't seen the new quality standard. The new quality standard, in particular, is the thing that will drive performance in the sector. That's what will drive performance. We haven't seen the new IT system that will support it—and can I tell you, the new aged-care system will not work without the new IT system that supports it and provides all of the data, because a lot of the work that gets done in the system is driven by that process. I will give the government credit. They have put in the additional funding required for the IT system. That was a really important move that they made, and they did make that early in this term. So I'm not all negative in respect of this, but this has taken way too long. It should have been legislated last year. The industry, particularly those who are receiving care, should have had the opportunity to properly scrutinise the regulations that support this legislation—and there will be a lot of them. It's complex; it's complicated. We should've seen the new quality standard because, as I said, that will drive a lot of the things that make the system work. The system, as has been said a number of times, needs to work as a system. It is a complex beast and it has many parts. The reality is that what we have seen from the government in getting us to where we are now—is it good governance? Clearly, it's not.

I want to go back and refer to some representations that were made to me by some constituents in the lead up to the debate on the bill that go to cost. As I indicated earlier in my presentation, if somebody takes out a returnable accommodation deposit, a RAD, that's protected under the legislation. But if they don't have the money for a RAD and they have to pay a DAP, a daily accommodation payment, that is not protected under the lifetime cap. So someone of low means can be milked dry by this system—the cap does not apply. I know people in that circumstance and it is not good enough.

We have a number of things that have occurred and are occurring under this government. As I said, they've talked a big game. The waiting time for a home-care package has blown out shamefully and unacceptably. It is absurd that all of the hard work was done to get the waiting time for a home-care package down to 30 from 90 days, and it's now 15 months.

You can shake your head but that is the fact and it is published on the department's website. It is your neglect of the aged-care system and this reform process that has got you two years behind. You even misrepresent the royal commission's final report that talked about care, dignity and respect.