Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Hansard source

Today I'd also like to rise to speak about the government's Aged Care Bill 2024 and Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, which does begin the crucial task of reforming Australia's aged-care system in the face of an ageing population. So the coalition does actually welcome moves by this government to recognise the need to develop a strong, sustainable system that gives older Australians the dignity and clarity that they deserve.

But, once again, Senator Sheldon is in here belling the cat. He really doesn't like workers' choice, the provision of services that people want to opt for or how people want to work. Again we hear from Senator Sheldon an attack on Mable and that it's all about not only how workers want to structure their work but also how people that require support workers choose to employ them. We know that, for this government, unfortunately, so much of this is driven by HSU membership and not by the provision of effective, quality care, whether it's for those in the disability sector or for those in aged care. Once again, here we are, dealing more with boosting union numbers, rather than supporting older Australians.

This legislation, though, does attempt to deliver on the first recommendation of the royal commission, the royal commission that was appointed by the coalition government to implement a new rights based aged-care act. So, in response to the commission, the former government, the coalition government, provided more than $18 billion in funding to support the immediate needs of the sector, because we acknowledge that aged care is more than a sector. It's a reflection or a measure on how we value and care for those in our society who so helped it to flourish. We know that they deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labour.

So the issue before our aged-care system is undeniable: with more than half of aged-care homes across the country operating at a loss, with our population and with the desire for people to age at home, the way that aged care is delivered and supported needs to change. We valued the opportunity to have an open conversation with older Australians in the aged-care sector about the government's proposed reforms through this open and transparent Senate inquiry process and thank the Australians and organisations who made submissions and appeared before the community affairs committee to share their views, expertise and experience about the best way forward.

However, what has struck me throughout this process and in speaking with my colleagues has been how very on-brand the conduct of the government has been in its handling of this legislation. It has been rather reminiscent of the same problems, roadblocks and issues that I experienced in attempting to work with the government in good faith on the NDIS legislation, to make opaque and half-baked legislation workable for the millions of Australians who require it to work for them.

This bill is a significant package of reforms, which is why we referred the bill immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry. This was so we could scrutinise in more detail legislation that lacked legislative instruments or rules that would govern the new system, had absences on details around financial frameworks and, most disappointingly, showed a lack of consultation. This could have honestly been pulled out, verbatim, from the playbook on the NDIS legislation and inquiry process. This is a government that, time and time again, has failed to produce details on significant legislation, hoping it will be pushed through on 'the vibe' of it simply because there might be some goodwill; that hasn't sought meaningful consultation; that doesn't invite any scrutiny and won't front up and be honest with the Australian people.

So, after considering all the information submitted during the Senate inquiry, and having looked at the legislation that was offered by the government, it was very clear to us that the government's bill required substantial amendments to ensure that older Australians would not be impacted adversely by rushing through this bill, as the government seems eager to do. Whilst the coalition made no fewer than 32 recommendations in our additional comments to the majority report, following the inquiry into the bill, we now note that the government has brought in excess of 90 amendments to its own legislation—yet another reflection of how the NDIS bill was handled. Senator Shorten hired billboards to suggest that the inquiry to look into the NDIS legislation was not needed. It produced in excess of 50 amendments to the legislation when it was brought to the Senate. Now we see, in aged care, an exact replica—except this is worse, because there's actually a new bill, a transition bill and over 90 amendments.

Now, let's hope that there is some abiding by agreements—that there will not be an attempt to guillotine this legislation that faces significant changes. But, as we know, that's this government's favourite move. We've had 69 guillotines for around 90 pieces of legislation. That's the way they rock in this place, because they are in chaos.

I'll come back now to our amendments, of which there are 32 in the recommendations. This is because we firstly sought to genuinely and meaningfully engage with older Australians, to listen to submissions and hear from witnesses their concerns, and because, as I've said, there are significant shortfalls in the legislation itself that could have unintended consequences. They don't have to be intended consequences; they could be unintended consequences, but it is through this process that we learn what they could be and how we could best address them now. The recommendations range from seeking to bolster administrative transparency as to departmental reporting to flexible transitional arrangements to ensure we're bringing Australians with us in this nationally significant reform. As coalition senators noted in our response to the inquiry, there remain concerns that this bill contains several shortcomings that should be remedied in order for it to deliver on its promised outcomes.

Whilst there have been significant achievements made by the coalition during negotiations with the government, it's important to remember that this is Labor's package of reforms. The government owns them. Do not make the mistake of thinking that this bill has been co-designed.

In this bill, this government has failed to address critical issues such as workforce, regulatory impacts and implementation timelines. If these issues continue to go unaddressed there will be serious consequences. We know that last year, under this Albanese government's watch, 49 aged-care homes shut down. We must ensure that there are no more further closures as a result of the introduction of this bill. Instead, it's actually hoped that this legislation will lead to the commencement of critical new builds.

It would also be remiss of me not to acknowledge the notable frustration of older Australians throughout this process—and rightly so—at the lack of consultation by the government and the lack of detail within the bill itself due to forthcoming delegated legislation that is both unseen and unknown. We've called on the government to be transparent. Remember how they were going to be so transparent? Every time they're asked to be transparent that black curtain comes down again. But we want them to come to the table. We want them to publicly release all the rules associated with the bill prior to the final debate—something, of course, we wanted also with the NDIS; a couple of months on, we are still to see that—but they haven't, so the assumption must be, like the NDIS, that these rules are either non-existent or unfinished, or that the government is just being sneaky and doesn't want to share them.

Whichever way you cut it, the Australian people—particularly older Australians—have the right to be upset. Again, it might be forgivable if this were the first time they'd behaved in such a disappointing manner. But, as I said, this is NDIS 2.0: obfuscation, failure to come clean on details, the rushing of legislation, and the 90-plus amendments brought forward at the eleventh hour which, it can only be assumed, is because they've realised the legislation they had drafted was not workable or ready, which is probably worse.

So, well done for at least putting some work into it to make sure that it is, hopefully, actually workable legislation. But this is aged care. This is, as I say, a reflection of how we provide dignity, independence and a meaningful life for older Australians. We are, as a coalition, committed to that. It's not a question of intention. This government hasn't seemed to have learnt any lessons about developing crucial legislation; they need to negotiate and engage with the coalition and the Australian people in meaningful and robust ways. There needs to be robust discussion, of course. Whilst we're not always going to entirely agree on the way forward, we at least hoped that this would have been a smoother process than it has been, especially in light of the NDIS legislation. I do note there have been no billboards this time.

The coalition, though, has worked tirelessly to ensure the government's reforms are fairer, particularly for Australians who have worked hard all of their lives to save for retirement. That is precisely why we pushed the government to include grandfathering arrangements, lifetime caps for non-clinical care contributions, a much lower taper rate and an assurance that the federal government will remain the majority funder of aged care, not the consumer. These arrangements guarantee that Australians who are already in residential care, who are on a home-care package or who have been assessed as waiting for their allocated home-care package will not see any changes to their existing arrangements. In effect, it means that all Australians currently engaged in the aged-care system will not pay one cent more for their aged care.

We've also advocated for a lower taper rate towards care contributions to ensure that those who have worked hard and saved for their retirement are given a fairer deal. Furthermore, we sought an absolute assurance from the government that they, not the consumer, would remain the majority funder of 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 Albanese government. We have also successfully eliminated provisions that would have forced unionism into every aged-care home. Don't give up, Senator Sheldon; we know that's what you would love to see. We are taking the focus away from quality care and instead are increasing mandates felt the hardest by small providers. This is what would have been seen under this HSE membership push. We want to make sure that the focus is always on providing quality care, that the focus is always on supporting the small providers—rural, regional and remote providers—to ensure that all Australians have access.

We will move a number of amendments to this legislation to make sure that it is workable, that it won't adversely impact older Australians and that it will not have unintended consequences. But it is the government that must ultimately wear the pain of any shortcomings or failures of this legislation. The coalition believes that reform is necessary and we do not wish to be obstructionist for the sake of it but we will also not simply roll over and give this government carte blanche to do as it pleases, especially on significant legislation that it is once again failing to develop in an honest, meaningful and open way.