Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Hansard source

Can I also add my remarks to those of the minister in relation to the committee hearing that has resulted in not only the amendments that have been put forward by the government, that the minister has just moved, but also amendments that occurred in the other place that are also the subject of the amendments I moved. I see Senator David Pocock has just entered the chamber. I believe the amendments he's seeking to move will be a reflection of the huge amount of evidence that we received in that committee hearing process.

I would also like to thank the other members of the committee who travelled around Australia. We visited every state and territory; we went to rural and regional areas. We spoke to people who represented a broad range of stakeholders, from big providers to small providers, from people who supported Indigenous aged care to people with lived experience like Hannah, who we were referring to this morning. I thought the committee process, the inquiry into this bill, was something that has provided us with a huge amount of insight into some of the changes that we'd need to make to this bill so that it is more fit for purpose for what it was originally designed to do—that is, to put older Australians at the very centre, give them choice and control but make sure they are at the very centre of the aged-care decision-making process in relation to their care.

I'd also like to thank Senator Marielle Smith, who chaired the inquiry; Senator Allman-Payne, from the Greens, who spent most of the time without her voice during the inquiry but still managed to turn up to just about every hearing; Senator Kovacic, who also attended most hearings; and the other senators who participated in the inquiry. I think it was a very valuable process, and, right now, we are about to vote on amendments that have been put forward from the government as a result of that inquiry process.

One of the things that did come out of the inquiry—subsequently, we have seen there are amendments in this particular package of amendments that the government has just moved—was in relation to the definition and determination of' hardship provisions. There was significant concern raised during the inquiry over the lack of clarity about the definition of 'hardship', with particular reference to the risk that presented to more vulnerable, older Australians. Does the government agree with the explicit need for a definition of 'hardship', and the obligations of providers in such cases? Do you believe that the amendments that you've put forward here sufficiently address those concerns around the clarity that's needed around hardship to make sure that those particularly vulnerable Australians who find themselves in significant financial hardship are being protected by the amendments you have made in this package of amendments?