Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It happened on your watch.

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

Where's your care, dignity and respect for people who are receiving aged care? There isn't any. When Labor's report came out and they said, 'The wealthy will pay more,' we thought: 'Yes, fair enough. Those that can afford to pay more should pay more. That's a reasonable thing to say.' But what they didn't tell you was that everyone's paying more. The rhetoric was, 'The wealthy will pay more.' We heard that every time the report was talked about. What's happened at the end of the day is that everyone will be paying more, particularly those of low means, and they'll wait longer for their home-care package. With the design of this system, instead of the 30 days that the coalition got the waiting time to, the ambition in the aged-care legislation is 90 days. It's three months to wait for a home-care package under Labor's proposed reforms. It's simply not acceptable.

Mr Albanese promised that he'd put the care back into aged care. That's what he promised a number of times before the election. What he has put back are the waiting lists and he's put up the price. Labor should be ashamed of their efforts to date on this legislation instead of talking a big game. The fact is that they are two years behind with this reform. They're all running out there as though this is a great achievement for them.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You wouldn't negotiate.

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

They're two years behind. They don't have all the regulations on the table. They don't have the new quality standards on the table so people can properly understand the way the systems work, and they should be ashamed of themselves instead of running around triumphantly like they are the moment.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've got to be kidding me; no shame.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not going to get all the way through this before we adjourn for this evening, so I'll begin with a bit of context for our position on this bill. The Aged Care Bill 2024 will be the subject of my contribution this evening. This bill is a response to the Royal Commission into Aged Care, Quality and Safety's recommendation for a new aged-care act. The recommendation from the royal commission was an act to:

… enshrine the rights of older people who are seeking or receiving aged—

with a—

rights-based approach must guarantee universal access to the supports and services that an older person is assessed as needing.

The Greens have consistently called for universal access to be the foundation of all health and aged-care policy. If you think about this recommendation, it is the kind of basic that we should be aspiring to. It shouldn't be radical that we would seek to enshrine the rights of older people who are seeking or receiving aged care to ensure that they receive a human rights based and person centred approach. The government needs to be responsible for funding an accessible system for all Australians who need it.

The royal commission heard from people with lived experience: older people, aged-care workers and family members. Their experiences were vital in shaping the recommendation of universal support. Following the Senate inquiry into this bill, I have some serious doubts as to whether universal access to aged care will be achieved through this legislation.

The first concern which I and the Greens hold is that this bill opens the door to an expanded user-pays model. This risks only increasing the profits of private providers. Such private providers are already making massive profits off the backs of older Australians.

Secondly, between the exposure draft and the introduction into parliament the criminal penalties for providers who do the wrong thing were removed and replaced with watered down civil penalties. The Greens see this move as a clear concession to providers, putting their agenda above the needs and rights of older people.

Additionally, many submitters to the inquiry raised the concern that this act does not go far enough. It will not result in the effective enforcement of the rights of older people. This is a quote from the National Older Women's Network, appearing at the hearing on this bill: 'It appears that the framers have—

Debate interrupted.