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

In my speech on the Aged Care Bill 2024 last night, I got to the point where I was going to reference a few quotes from submissions that were made. I'll pick up there. This quote was from the National Older Women's Network, appearing at a hearing in the inquiry to this bill. They said:

It appears that the framers have been convinced that the aged-care sector is too big to fail, and so their demands remain a priority. The act, by not making the rights enforceable and actually spelling out the fact that they aren't enforceable, means that we know the words of rights are window dressings to offer appeasement and focus our attention.

We must not back down to for-profit providers. We must have a rights based aged-care act that is able to be enforced.

This bill has also raised concerns in relation to the legislative process. Once again this government is pushing through an enormous bill that will directly impact the lives of so many in our community with limited inquiry time and much still unknown. The inquiry was only allowed two weeks for submissions. For individuals and volunteer advocacy organisations, this is a very short period of time to give feedback on a bill that will have profound impacts on the lives of so many people. Furthermore, like we saw in the recently passed NDIS legislation, much of this bill leaves critical elements and components to rules that will come later, down the track. This means that submitters to the inquiry were giving feedback based on an unclear picture of what the legislation would mean. It also leaves the parliament in the position of voting on something that we do not have visibility of. The Greens encourage the government to give the public and the parliament the visibility of these rules so that they can be assessed and that the community can consider this type of process in its entirety—in the whole, not just in part.

I want to turn now to the issue of young people in nursing homes and the challenges and dangers created when older people do not get the disability supports that they need. This is a very concerning aspect of this bill. It is a very concerning issue that we continue to confront. This bill leaves a loophole for disabled people under the age of 65 to be eligible for aged care, regardless of what disability-specific supports they may be eligible for through other avenues. Currently, 95 per cent of people who are under the age of 65 and who reside within residential aged-care facilities are NDIS participants. The latest figures that we have available, published in the NDIA quarterly report, show that about 911 individuals are in this circumstance.

The Minister for Aged Care said in her second reading speech:

The bill continues our mission to take younger people out of aged care and into accommodation that meets their needs.

Despite her saying that, this loophole actually hasn't been addressed in the bill. We have a dynamic right now where young people continue to be placed within residential aged care. It's been a so-called priority for this parliament and for many governments for about 10 years to end this practice and to achieve the goal that no person under the age of 65 resides in residential aged care, yet this bill solidifies the process by which they may be placed in precisely that situation.

We need the government to stop the approach that is categorised accurately by so many as 'talk without action'. We need the government to get it together and to take a whole-of-government approach to once and for all put their money where their mouths are and champion the rights of young disabled people, particularly those who are below the age of 65 who end up within these settings. Younger disabled people shouldn't have to go into aged care to have their needs met from this government. Convenience, cost savings and so-called efficiencies seem, in the mind of this government, to trump the rights and aspirations of disabled people. The government needs to begin to work in good faith to ensure that younger disabled people don't continue to end up in aged care because this government has no other safety net.

Despite the NDIS participant status of many people under the age of 65 in aged care, they aren't actually provided NDIS or other disability-specific supports, particularly those with a need to exit residential aged care. Instead they are often being provided the same care as an older person without a disability. In fact, no disabled people in aged care are provided with disability-specific supports regardless of their age. Recommendation 72 of the aged-care royal commission is that disabled people in aged care should receive support that is equivalent to the NDIS, yet, under this bill, the maximum number of at-home support hours a person can receive is 18 hours a week. That is 18 hours where you can maybe have a shower, get some food, be supported to go outside and do more than just sit in a chair looking at whatever somebody else put on the TV for you or staring at the ceiling, watching the broken fan go round.

Think about what that means across a week, if you break that down. Think about how the people in the government and the opposition would feel if they were only able to have any semblance of independence for a couple of hours a day during their week. You think about that, and think about whether it is appropriate in a bill like this not to end such an absolute insult to the human rights of human beings but to codify it, to make the passive and unwritten pathway that currently exists the law of the land. It really is sickening. The only way to ensure that disability supports remain consistent into older age is to allow people aged 65 and over to apply to the NDIS. It is clear that aged care isn't a fair solution for older disabled people. The government should work to ensure that the NDIS is available to all people who need it regardless of age, because age discrimination in this situation or any other is, in fact, not okay.

One of the issues that has also been consistently raised to my office has been the guardianship laws that will be baked into aged care by this legislation. The Greens have long been calling for reform of the guardianship system, including a supportive decision-making approach that is nationally consistent and transparent, and that aims to enable the full autonomy of those subject to it to the greatest extent possible. I would like to read a quote from a constituent about these guardianship laws:

Under the Bill, there are no true checks and balances, no clear legal tests of decision-making ability or exceptional circumstances, no accessible review pathways, no enforceable obligations and no natural justice.

The Bill calls those given decision-making authority over older people 'supporters'.

In some cases, people in that situation are supporters, but in many cases those government entities, bureaucrats and appointed individuals are, in fact, the administrators of people's lives. They have great control over their lives. These are dynamics which people wish to remove themselves from. Where they must be recognised and where they must exist, transparency and accountability must also exist, and a pathway back to agency and independence. All of that is absent from this bill.

In conclusion, there are so many issues in this bill at present that will affect the lives of millions of Australians. The Greens urge the government to work in good faith with older Australians to address these issues. I foreshadow a second reading amendment that I will be moving on behalf of the Greens in relation to keeping young people out of aged care.

Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The heartbreaking losses of life in aged-care facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic were a flashing red light for the health and safety of older Australians. According to the reporting in the Sydney Morning Herald, '"Chaos", confusion and 19 deaths: how COVID-19 took hold inside Newmarch House' published on 25 July 2022, 19 residents died at the Newmarch House aged-care centre in New South Wales. Anglicare CEO Grant Millard later said 'he regretted not selling all residents to hospital'. In according to reporting from The Age on St Basil's Homes on 18 December 2022, 45 residents, as many of us are now aware, died at a Melbourne nursing home from COVID-19—another five died from neglect. These are 50 older Australians and their families who deserved better. What is incredible is that this aged-care centre, St Basil's Homes, received $2.4 million in JobKeeper payments from the Morrison government in 2022, despite slashing their staff from 40 full-time staff and 100 part-time staff before the deaths to just three full-time staff and 87 part-time staff afterwards. The conditions of care was appalling.

It was clear from these deadly outbreaks that the previous legislation didn't have enough teeth for the regulators to make sure that aged-care centres were properly staffed, were taking their obligations seriously and were keeping their residents safe. The former government was handed the final report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety in February 2021. The Liberals and the Nationals decided it was not an urgent priority to legislate the 148 recommendations. The sheer volume and breadth of recommendations is reflective of how bad things were allowed to get and it also demonstrates how urgently the reforms in this bill, the Aged Care Bill 2024, are required.

This government has been getting on with the job of enacting many of the recommendations to create a simplified, rights based framework legislation to regulate the aged-care system. The royal commission recommended that a new aged-care act be enacted focusing on protecting and promoting the rights of older people. The statement of rights within the bill will place a duty of care on providers to ensure that restrictive practices are only used as a last resort, that an individual has the right to be free from all forms of violence and degrading or inhumane treatment and that providers do not cause adverse effects to the health and safety of individuals to whom they are providing services. These are fundamental, critical pieces that are at the heart of this new bill. The government committed to putting older people back at the centre of the aged-care system, and these new rights will do just that.

The Albanese government's aged-care reforms are important, and to deliver them we need a sustainable funding system. The funding changes proposed by the bill are based on the recommendations of the Aged Care Taskforce for a system that is fair and equitable. The taskforce received feedback through 180 submissions, 11 roundtables, 12 in-person forums and targeted consultation with the department. While the Commonwealth will continue to be the main funder of aged care, the bill proposes a refined means-tested user-pays system for co-contributions to everyday living and independent support. The new means testing will be based on income and assets but with greater nuance and four new levels of thresholds, including different means-testing methods based on whether someone is in a home or community setting or in residential aged care. Aged-care users will pay no contribution to clinical care costs. These services will be fully funded by the Commonwealth. And there will be a $130,000 lifetime cap on the non-clinical care contributions or cessation of contributions after four years. Co-contributions are an important step to making the aged-care system sustainable now and for the future generations who will require aged-care services.

Chapters 3 and 4 of this bill set out the registration process, eligibility requirements and obligations on providers in order to deliver funded aged-care services. Under the bill, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission will have the power to monitor, investigate, search and seize documents that are necessary to ensure compliance with the act. The commissioner may issue a required action notice to a registered provider, and a civil penalty can be imposed if a provider is not complying with the notice. The commissioner may also issue a compliance notice for any breach of the new act, which carries a civil penalty if the provider does not comply.

In a strengthening of the previous aged-care act, a compliance notice may refer to the provider's significant failure or systematic pattern of conduct, which can lead to its managers or owners being liable for a civil penalty. In serious cases the commissioner may vary or revoke a condition of the provider's registration or impose a new condition if the commissioner believes there is an immediate and severe risk to the safety, health or wellbeing of aged-care users. Lastly the commissioner may issue a banning order which excludes an individual and organisational entities from working in the aged-care sector. Because we know there is a hesitancy to complain about the quality of care, individuals who make disclosures about contraventions will be protected from victimisation and will not be subject to criminal, civil or administrative liability. That's an important whistleblower protection.

The bill also creates the complaints commissioner and the quality and safety commissioner, who will have distinct regulatory powers consistent with those of other Commonwealth regulators. That will mean that older people, workers and others will have clear pathways to raise concerns about the quality of aged-care services.

For the first time, digital platform providers in the aged-care sector will be subject to compliance obligations. Recent reforms to the NDIS require mandatory registration for all digital platform providers, and that is a good thing. However, I'm aware of the concerns that some of these stringent requirements for others won't be required in the new Aged Care Act.

Transparency requirements for digital platforms are so important because of disgraceful businesses like Mable who have crept into the aged-care sector. Mable is owned by a multinational venture capital company and is making money hand over fist by underpaying its workforce, which it has classified as contractors. The Health and Community Services Union told the Inquiry into the Victorian On-Demand Workforce:

… Mable's minimum rate is … below the legal minimum wage in the sector which is $26.22 per hour for level one casual home care workers.

Gerard Hayes, the New South Wales secretary of the Health Services Union, was quoted in the Financial Review on 26 July 2023 as saying that 'aged care should be a direct employment relationship' and that for companies like Mable:

… there should be total responsibility and accountability for employers for delivering a service, not just for a group that introduces people and takes a cut.

Professor Paula McDonald from the Queensland University of Technology Business School told the Senate Select Committee on Job Security in 2021:

They—

Mable workers—

don't get paid for the time in which to travel between their stints of two- or three-hour work. They don't get paid to go and meet a prospective employer to find out whether that arrangement is suitable.

During the royal commission, senior counsel assisting Peter Gray QC argued—and this is important—'Without regulation, there is no compulsion for platforms like Mable to follow best practice.' Mable denies these arguments and says, 'Rather, Mable facilitates ongoing relationships of mutual choice.' Well, I find it hard to believe that older Australians are making a choice for their carers to not receive superannuation, workers compensation and training and for Mable not to be accountable for the quality of care that it provides.

On 26 August this year, the government's laws to allow the Fair Work Commission to make minimum standards orders for a range of gig workers came into effect. We haven't yet seen an application to cover workers on Mable, but we saw that there is an inherent problem with bargaining power in the gig sector, and we acted. What did the Liberals and Nationals do in response to the threat posed by Mable? They gave $7.2 million to provide surge workforce in aged-care homes during the pandemic—in itself, logical. But they provided it to services like Mable's service, whose quality was so subpar that Anglicare, which owned a facility in Penrith where Mable provided workers, told the royal commission, 'It quickly became apparent that the staff Mable could provide did not have the skills and qualifications that were needed.' So, under the watch of those opposite, Australian taxpayers paid Mable $7.2 million to prop up a workforce that was underpaid and exploited and didn't meet minimum training standards.

I strongly support this bill and congratulate the minister, Anika Wells, on the incredible amount of work that has been done in this portfolio over this term. The minister has said that the legislation 'will allow us all to take the next steps with confidence and to venture into a new age of excellence' and that 'there is more to do with aged care and our mission continues.' I support the ambition for future tranches of reform in aged care. I would like to see a strengthening of the transparency requirements that are placed on digital platform operators, particularly in the home-care sector. More work should be done to hold digital platforms to the same standard as registered providers, including requirements to demonstrate to the commission that they are compliant with the strengthened Aged Care Quality Standards and Code of Conduct for Aged Care; to be subject to regular ongoing audits or compliance monitoring by the commission; and to comply with the Serious Incident Response Scheme and report directly to the commission in line with requirements under the scheme.

I've heard concerns that the Support at Home program, encouraged by the bill, could mean that unscrupulous providers will rush to take advantage of the additional $4.3 billion investment and increased availability of services. It is important that registered providers be required to ensure that their workers have minimum qualifications, but the fact the digital platforms do not need to meet those minimum qualifications could result in a race to the bottom on service quality.

As part of the next stage of reforms, we should continue to consider recommendation 87 of the royal commission, which calls for the preferencing of direct employment of workers as a requirement for ongoing approval to deliver services. These are the sorts of reforms that unions and industry will be pushing for, and I'll continue to be part of that conversation.

One of the hallmarks of the Albanese government's approach has been to recognise the value of all aged-care workers, which is clear with our $15 billion investment in pay rises, and to make sure we maintain and uphold people within this industry. Personal care workers will be eligible for an additional 13 per cent wage rise, on top of the 15 per cent awarded in 2023, which has amounted to wage increases of up to 28.5 per cent over the past 12 months for some workers.

Jocelyn Hofman, a registered nurse in an aged-care home in Western Sydney, welcomed the wage increases and said that she has never received a pay rise like this during her 37 years in the profession. Linda Hardman, who has been an assistant in nursing in an aged-care home for over 20 years, said:

I's a very complex job. It's very physical and it can be very mentally straining at times, because you have to really be adaptable. Every shift is different, because sometimes someone might have a stroke or they could have a fall.

Linda also said:

Because of the cost of living at the moment, when I do get the [wage] increase, it is going to improve my quality of life.

Aged-care residents getting a better deal is also a priority for this government, and we can see that there's now a registered nurse on site in aged care 99 per cent of the time across Australia. Under this government, older Australians are already receiving an additional 3.9 million minutes of care every day, which has contributed to a statistically significant decrease in the proportion of residents who experience polypharmacy, antipsychotic medication use, falls that result in major injury, use of physical restraints and unplanned weight loss. The addition of the Dollars to Care program to the star-rating profiles holds providers accountable for how they spend their budget, including how much they spend on care, cleaning, accommodation and food.

Our vision is for an aged-care system that upholds the rights of older Australians and helps them to live active, self-determined and very meaningful lives. We went to the 2022 election promising to lift the standards of aged care in Australia, and we're delivering it through this bill.

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

Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Aged Care Bill 2024. First up, I will say that there are parts of this bill that still need to be tweaked but it is a step in the right direction. I've spoken with many who have lived experience in the aged-care industry and I've spoken with stakeholders about the bill's pros and cons. We know the bill has been watered down from its original draft. Criminal penalties have been removed in favour of civil penalties. I can understand the reasoning behind this when it comes to the individual carers but I still feel we need a bigger stick for aged-care providers. Older Tasmanians have given distressing evidence about facilities not meeting quality standards and I have asked about this previously. I will be watching how this compromise plays out very carefully, because we all know it is our most vulnerable who suffer when standards are not met.

Another area I still think needs more work is how registered aged-care providers will have to monitor and manage unregistered providers, pushing a level of oversight onto parts of the sector that should really sit with the aged-care commission. I'm talking about platforms where independent contractors offer their services task by task. We have seen similar issues in the NDIS, where unregistered providers have ignored quality standards. Nobody wants these issues to impact aged care too. These platforms and their contractors or employees should be meeting the strengthened aged-care standards at a minimum and should complete the same audits and reporting requirements as other providers. Employee based platform Hireup have spoken with me about how other platforms are using complex corporate structures to bypass registration requirements within our aged-care industry. This is not right. All providers should be meeting in the same care standards and we need better transparency around this.

The regulatory scheme in the bill needs more work because accountability is important. We need to know who is monitoring providers, which providers are meeting regulations and which ones aren't, and we need to know whether the aged-care commissioner actually has the power to do something when standards are not met. I've been told the commissioner has no teeth when it comes to enforcing the standards, which makes me wonder: 'Why do we go to all this effort to create rules and regulations in the first place?' And then there are the rules. These are the pointers for the aged-care industry, spelling out how the bill will actually work and what we need to do to meet the regulations. But many rules are still in consultation and haven't been released publicly or are still being written. Even with flaws, I can see this bill is a step forward for the aged-care sector and that its intention is to better protect the rights of older Australians.

One thing I am celebrating about this bill is the requirement for all aged-care workers to complete competency-based training. This training includes delivering care that has the person at its heart, care that is based on the rights of older Australians and care that considers cultural factors, trauma and healing. But the training I am most pleased has been included in the new rules is for dementia care. One woman told me about her husband's experience in residential aged care. He lived with dementia and was diabetic but the facility did not give him the right food, which caused ongoing issues for him. The same facility shut down the wing he was in when a patient contracted COVID and he was not allowed outside for fresh air or sunlight for weeks, which impacted his routines and sent him into a spin.

Another woman told me about her grandmother, who also lived in a residential aged-care facility and who had dementia. We've all heard about the number of minutes of care each person is supposed to receive in residential facilities each day, but that was clearly not the case for this woman's grandmother. She was frequently left for hours in her room without anyone checking on her, to the point where she fell asleep standing up in her bathroom when she was caught between her mobility walker and the wall. It was hours before someone found her. None of this is right.

I've been speaking with the minister's office about the importance of good-quality dementia care and why it's necessary within the aged-care sector. Dementia can affect anyone but is most common in people aged over 65 years. Dementia Australia estimates there are more than 421,000 Australians living with this disease, and as our population ages this figure is only going to grow. The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety recognised this fact and recommended, in recommendation 80:

… that all workers engaged by providers who are involved in direct contact with people seeking or receiving services in the aged care system undertake regular training about dementia care and palliative care.

The recruitment for ongoing dementia care training is a start, but I want the government to go a step further and make dementia care training mandatory for all people working in the aged-care sector, both at residential facilities and for at-home care support. This means that anyone caring for older Australian would be educated to a level where they have a deep understanding of dementia and the intricacies of care needed for people living with this condition. Dementia Australia agrees. This organisation's response to the royal commission recommendations included a section about the adequacy and quality of dementia care training in aged care. Eighty per cent of people who responded to Dementia Australia's question said aged care staff were not adequately educated about dementia and best-practice dementia care in order to meet the needs of persons living with dementia in the community or residential aged care settings. We have recommendation 80 from the royal commission and evidence from within the aged-care system that better and more dementia care training is needed.

There is some amazing dementia care training already out there, and it's free, but it's not being used by enough aged-care providers. The Department of Health and Aged Care, Dementia Australia, Dementia Training Australia and the Wiking Dementia Centre all have accredited training programs for dementia care, but if people want to go further they can take up a Cert III program that includes dementia care, or enrol in the University of Tasmania's Diploma of Dementia Care. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. The training programs are already there.

I'm calling on the government to do more than just require ongoing training. We need to set the minimum standard for dementia care at Cert III level. As it stands, people training to work in aged care do a Cert III in aged care or individual support in ageing. There is a unit on dementia care in these programs, but it's elective. I think dementia care should be essential, and I know it could be incorporated into the existing Cert III programs. I've told the health minister and her advisers this, and they agree. They have told me they are working towards a mandatory minimum level of dementia training for the aged-care sector. I'll be watching that with interest, because I know how important this care is for older Australians and their families.

We need ongoing training that reflects the impact dementia has on a person's health, personality and general wellbeing, plus the implications of this condition in an aged-care setting. But it's not just about providing the ongoing training; aged care workers must be supported to complete dementia care training the same way they are supported to do other professional development. That means paid time to complete the course. If we really want aged care that actually supports people living with dementia then we owe it to them to have well-trained people providing the services that they need. We owe it to the aged-care workers to support them as they train to provide the best-quality care they can.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Aged Care Bill 2024. This bill, once enacted, will replace the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Act. It represents a once-in-a-lifetime reform that will reshape government supports people to live independently and with dignity throughout their later years.

Aged care is something that almost everyone has been touched by in some way, whether they are receiving aged-care services themselves, they have a family member or loved one in aged care or they are thinking of their own aged-care future and what choices they have. It is therefore an integral part of our community and an essential service for looking after some of Australia's most vulnerable people. Sadly, though, our aged-care industry is in desperate need of reform. This was made painfully obvious by the shocking failures uncovered during the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. We can get a sense of just how bad the situation was under the previous government from the title of the interim report, which was simply Neglect. Likewise, the first chapter of the report was titled 'A shocking tale of neglect', as it painted a grim and shameful picture of an aged-care system in deep crisis. Left isolated, powerless and hidden from view in this system are our older Australians, their families and their loved ones.

This bill responds directly to recommendations 1 to 3 of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and addresses or partially addresses 58 royal commission recommendations in total. It puts in place measures to ensure that we see an end to a system that is fragmented and poorly managed and has been unsupported and underfunded. The bill also responds to the Aged Care Taskforce, which was established in 2023 to consider how to sustainably fund aged care now and into future. It has been informed through extensive public consultation on an exposure draft, which took place between December 2023 and March 2024. It will establish a strong new regulatory framework for the aged-care sector.

This bill represents a $5.6 billion package that, at its heart, places the rights of older people front and centre. It does this by including a statement of rights for older people and a positive duty for providers to uphold these rights, meaning aged-care providers and workers will have explicit guidance on how to behave and make decisions. These are key protections in guaranteeing the quality of care not only for older people but for the workers who care for them as well.

Eligibility has also been simplified and streamlined as a result of this bill, making it easier for Australians to access and enter aged care. This is achieved by bringing together the different assessment services into a single entry point to the aged-care system. Effectively, the single entry point assessment process means not having to retell your circumstances or the story of your life over and over to multiple people. Once the assessment is made it can be progressively reviewed to ensure that supports and services are tailored to meet circumstances as they change throughout a person's aged-care journey. The single entry point assessment will therefore provide clear eligibility requirements for a fair and culturally safe assessment process.

It should be obvious to everyone that we can no longer afford to take a one-size-fits-all approach to aged care. I welcome this bill ensuring culturally sensitive services are provided to all of our Australians, regardless of their cultural background. The new framework also allows for the delivery of a range of aged-care services, including a $4.3 billion investment in a new home-care system known as the Support at Home package. We know that people would prefer to stay in the comfort and familiarity of their own homes for as long as they can. My own mum was a classic example. If my mum hadn't had a home-care package, she would have been in an aged-care facility for at least the last five years of her life. She lived to the ripe old age of 93, and, thanks to the home-care package that was available, she was able to enjoy staying in her own home and feeling that sense of security.

As well as making sure that people's clinical needs are met from home, the Support at Home program allows for greater access to assistive technology and financial assistance to make homes safer and more accessible. The Support at Home package is set to benefit around 1.4 million older Australians by 2035 and is yet another key reform to the aged-care sector. The bill provides more choice and greater agency over the way aged care is delivered for all Australians, whether that is within their own home or in residential care.

Another critical aspect of the bill is the new approach to the regulatory framework, with the introduction of a stronger, more powerful regulator. I remind people that the royal commission was particularly critical of the current weak and ineffective regulatory arrangements, so these new regulatory powers are essential in making our aged-care system the best it can be. As well as delivering stronger powers to protect people from harm, the new regulatory framework will also provide clear incentives for providers to make continuous improvements to their quality of care through new quality standards.

To monitor and respond to complaints within the sector, a new independent statutory complaints commissioner will also be established, as well as new and strict whistleblower protections. We all witnessed the horrors in the aged-care system that led to the royal commission. These horrors were particularly acute during the pandemic. Sadly, we lost a lot of older Australians during the pandemic, many of them living in aged-care facilities. Without an independent complaints commissioner, nor the necessary whistleblower protections to make a complaint, their situations were made more helpless, as they suffered in excruciating sorrow, pain and silence. This should never have been allowed to happen. The passage of this bill will go a long way in making sure this never ever happens again.

The bill also implements a number of commitments that the Albanese government took to the last election. Our government is laser focused on improving the quality of aged care, and this bill is a clear example of our commitment to achieving this goal.

At this point I'd also like to acknowledge the enormous contribution made by aged-care workers, especially during the COVID pandemic. The efforts made by this workforce to care for our older Australians during this incredibly difficult period is nothing short of heroic, and we cannot thank them enough.

These reforms are of particular importance to my home state of Tasmania. The latest census data indicates that Tasmania has a higher proportion of people over 55, at 35 per cent, compared to the rest of Australia at 29 per cent. It's now more important than ever for Tasmanians that this legislation be passed by the Senate, so I urge my fellow Tasmanian senators from across the chamber to vote in favour of this bill.

In summary, high-quality services, safe and compassionate care and fairer contributions are the centre of our reforms to aged care. After nearly a decade of neglect, funding cuts and general dysfunction under the previous government, the Albanese government is once again picking up the pieces in rebuilding this critical sector. This once-in-a-generation bill is not just about giving Australians a world-class safety net in their old age; it's about dignity, it's about respect and it's about giving our older Australians and those who care for them a voice.

In concluding, I'd really like to thank Minister Wells for the incredible work she has done in preparing this legislation, as well as members of the taskforce for their work in reshaping the way we look at aged care in Australia. As I said earlier, this is a landmark piece of legislation that this country both needs and deserves. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Aged Care Bill 2024 and the Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. Older Australians deserve to receive the best quality care as well as the best quality of life that fits their own lifestyles and their own interests. The reality is that our country is now getting older, and getting older faster. It's important to recognise that aged care is not merely just a sector in our community; it reflects how we as a society value and care for all older Australians. By 2026 it's estimated that 22 per cent of Australians will be aged over 65, which is up from 16 per cent just four years ago.

At a critical time, when our aged-care system is subject to very significant reforms, it's absolutely essential that we engage with and listen to older Australians, as well as the industry that supports them, to hear their experiences, their views and their wishes in how we go about reforming this sector. Unlike Labor, the coalition really understands the importance of listening to the sector and also to older Australians—not just to listen but also to act on what they want, how eventually all of us in this place want to live our lives and how we want to be respected and be able to realise our individual aspirations for our future lives.

It was a pleasure, along with Jan Norberger, who is the Liberal candidate for Pearce, to host shadow minister for health and aged care, my wonderful colleague Senator Anne Ruston, for an aged-care leaders roundtable recently at the Perth RAAFA Merriwa Estate. There, senior representatives from across the aged-care sector provided absolutely invaluable insights, which were listened to and are now being acted upon in amendments that will be before this chamber shortly. The responsibility and the need to consult is exactly why those on this side of the chamber fought so hard to have public hearings around this nation on the bill which, as all of us in here recall, the Albanese Labor government was so not in support of. We fought them every step of the way to get that transparency and to get that scrutiny, which has proved so important with the sheer number of amendments to the original bill and now the amendments that will be coming forward in this place.

The issues confronting our aged-care system are undeniable. With more than half of aged-care homes across our country now operating at a loss, it is not sustainable for the sector. We have an aging population, as I've said. So many Australians now aspire and want to live at home for as long as possible. We not only need to listen to what people want in how we deliver aged care but have to then make sure that we have the right legislative changes in place and we give the sector time to deliberatively implement those reforms. We on this side of the chamber understand the significance and the importance of an aged-care system that is strong and sustainable and that not only supports those who currently need to access the system but supports those who will be aging over the next many decades.

I am very proud that it was the coalition who called for and actually initiated and responded to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. The coalition has remained absolutely resolute in advocating for the dignity and clarity that older Australians deserve and in the findings of the royal commission. In response to the royal commission, the former Liberal-National government provided more than $18 billion in terms of funding to support the immediate needs of the sector at that time. This legislation delivers on the first recommendation of the royal commission—the royal commission that those on this side of the chamber initiated—to implement a new rights based aged-care act. When you think about it, it is something that is so important. It's almost unbelievable that until now we haven't actually had a rights based aged-care act. Through significant negotiations with the government, the coalition has sought to bring in amendments to ensure that any reforms provide the dignity and clarity that older Australians now need.

In relation to the inquiry that those opposite fought so hard not to have—which, given the amount of flaws that were discovered and reported on during the course of that inquiry, thank goodness we fought so hard to have that inquiry—this bill does represent a significant package of reforms. The inquiry gave us the opportunity to put older Australians and the aged-care sector at the forefront of these proposed reforms through an open and transparent Senate inquiry process that the Labor Party was so desperate not to have. The inquiry had over 200 stakeholder groups provide submissions, and, again, the message from them was very clear.

When we had the inquiry, it became so clear from the feedback why the government didn't want to have any scrutiny on this bill, because it was demonstrated to be yet another poor, rushed piece of essential legislation served up by those opposite that required significant amendments to make it workable and to achieve the intent. Having considered all the information submitted to the Senate inquiry, it is very clear, as I've said, that this bill requires significant amendments, which, again, the coalition has drafted and will be putting forward in the committee stage of this bill. As the coalition senators noted in our response to the inquiry, there remains concerns that the bill still contains shortcomings that must be remedied in order for it to deliver on the promise that those opposite are making to older Australians.

The government must be transparent and release all subordinate legislation associated with the Aged Care Bill before it passes. I am Deputy Chair of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation and it is very clear just how much the government have said: 'Trust us. Let's rush through this bill. We won't worry about sharing the regulations or any of the delegated legislation at the same time, but just trust us. We haven't written this really essential information yet, or, worse, we have written it but we don't want to share it with you because we know it's not going to pass muster.' For that reason, I, like other colleagues, call on the government to release all of those regulations to provide the certainty on the timeline and also to allow all in this place and the sector to work out whether this bill is achievable for the sector.

Like in so many other areas, this government, by withholding this critical information, prevents stakeholders from being able to understand and prepare in full for the changes contained in this bill. It's been extraordinary how many confidentiality agreements that this government has had across so many pieces of legislation so that the select few who do get an opportunity to participate in the proposed changes are subject to confidentiality agreements so they can't discuss it with anybody else. This happened for the Pharmacy Guild amendments and the NDIS, and it goes on and on. Not only does it prevent stakeholders from understanding the detail of the bill and the detail of what they will need to do in the very short timeframe those opposite have given them but it prevents all of us in this place from being able to sufficiently scrutinise the impacts of this bill on behalf of all Australians.

The coalition does remain supportive of introducing a rights based framework to guarantee a world-class aged-care system for older Australians, but the government must play fair and recognise that the quantum of change they are asking the parliament to accept without knowing any of the detail on the transition arrangements is improper, inappropriate and, again, preventing this place from fully discharging its duties in relation to this legislation on behalf of all Australians. The coalition have already made very significant changes to this bill, and we've got many more amendments coming in the committee stage. Through these negotiations, we have achieved very significant changes to the proposed legislation—we've achieved scores of them, in fact—and the government, I understand, only has one or two amendments to this legislation. So I would like to heartily congratulate the coalition team and, in particular, my colleague Senator Anne Ruston, who have worked tirelessly for months, effectively doing the government's job for them to improve this bill and make it workable for the sector. Congratulations to you all.

That's why we, on this side of parliament, have pushed the government to include grandfathering arrangements, lifetime caps for non-clinical care contributions and a much lower taper rate. But we've also sought from the government an assurance that they will remain the majority funder of aged care and not the consumer—that is, older Australians. These grandfathering arrangements guarantee that Australians who are already in residential care, on a homecare package or are assessed as to be waiting for their allocated homecare package will not see any change to their arrangements. It beggars belief that the government didn't introduce a grandfathering provision to start with, but we have advocated and been successful in getting that put in. That is just basic fairness for older Australians who are already in receipt of packages or have been approved.

On this side of the chamber, we also advocated for a lower taper rate towards care contributions to ensure that those who have worked hard and saved for their retirement are dealt a fairer deal. It's something that those opposite are not ideologically supportive of, but that those on this side of the chamber know just how fair that is for older Australians who have worked so hard to contribute to their own retirement. The taper rates we demanded mean that funding contributions increase at a much slower rate than this government had wanted to achieve. Furthermore, we also sought an absolute assurance from the government that they would remain the majority funder, not the people who have worked so hard for their retirement. We also fought for the maintenance of a lifetime cap on non-clinical care contributions across both home care and also residential aged care.

The annual lifetime caps that we demanded and achieved mean that Australians will always know the maximum they could ever be required to contribute to the cost of care, and as you age, and as you've exited the workforce, that is a particularly important assurance, guarantee and comfort for those who have access to aged care. But not only do we fight for a lifetime cap we also introduced a time-limited contribution cap for four years for residential aged care.

In addition to these financial safeguards, the coalition has also secured an additional investment of $300 million in capital funding for regional, rural and remote aged-care providers who are struggling in record numbers to even keep their doors open under the Albanese government. So this funding has been critical for the upgrading of its facilities that often struggle to meet the needs and also the necessary standards that are set before them.

Time doesn't permit for me to go through all of the other reforms that the coalition has fought for and achieved. But while there have been significant achievements during these negotiations, it is important to remember that this is Labor's package of reforms which we have worked very hard to get to a point where we can support what started off as incredibly poor legislation. This government has still failed to address critical issues such as workforce, regulatory impacts and implementation times contained in this bill. So while we have improved it significantly, after 2½ years this government is still letting aged Australians down.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to speak in support of the Aged Care Bill 2024, which will deliver historic reforms to our aged-care systems—historic reforms that only a Labor government would deliver in office. This legislation is about ensuring that every older Australian receives the dignity, respect and care that they deserve. It's about valuing the generations of Australians that helped build our country, who worked so hard and who have contributed so much to our communities. It's about putting the care back into aged care.

Australians are living longer and healthier lives, and that's a great thing. And as they age, they want more control over how and where they live. That's why we have listened to older Australians, and they've told us one thing loud and clear: they want to spend more time living at home, connected to their families, to their friends and to their communities. A key feature of this bill is the Support at Home program, which will ensure that older Australians can remain independent and connected to their communities for longer, with tailored support that meets their individual needs and helps them live with dignity.

For so many older Australians, whether that's someone living in Melbourne, an elderly parent in Mornington or a grandparent in Warragul, this bill is about choice. These reforms are about choice—choice to remain in their own home, to stay connected to their community and to receive care that is respectful, compassionate and high quality. This bill also delivers a rights based aged-care system, a new regulatory framework and a stronger regulator, new quality standards and also fair co-contributions to make sure that our Australian aged-care system remains sustainable into the future.

This legislation is part of our broader agenda to put the 'care' back into aged care. Absolutely critical to that is valuing our essential aged-care workers. We see our aged-care workers and we value them. These workers, mostly women, are the absolute backbone of our aged-care system, providing not just essential care but also compassion and connection. For too long they've been undervalued and underpaid, and that's why we supported a 15 per cent pay rise for aged-care workers, with more to come next year. Our government is committed to ensuring aged-care workers are supported to stay in the jobs that they love and the jobs that we as a community need them to perform.

Reform like this is once-in-a-generation change, delivering the largest improvements to aged care in more than 30 years. Again, this is an agenda that only a Labor government would deliver. This bill is a culmination of years of advocacy and inquiry. It builds on the findings of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which exposed the heartbreaking failures in the system but also provided a clear roadmap for reform, and our government listened. We consulted and we acted.

In conclusion, this reform is about the kind of nation that we want to be—one that respects our elders, one that values their carers and one that ensures dignity for all Australians. This legislation will make a difference for every family member who wants the best for their loved ones, for every aged-care worker who has dedicated their life to caring for others and, most importantly, for every older Australian, whether they are in their own home or in aged care.

Wendy Askew (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Aged Care Bill 2024 and the related Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. If you were to describe Australia's aged-care sector over the past few years, you'd probably think of words like 'frustrating', 'disappointing' or 'challenging'. As confronting as that is, we must all acknowledge that it has not been smooth sailing for our aged-care sector, particularly for those older Australians seeking support or for the nurses, carers, chefs and cleaners who work in the industry.

For too many years the aged-care sector has been forced to deliver care to our elderly in an environment of high costs and high staff turnover, which has led in some instances to chronic underresourcing and occasionally substandard levels of care. Across Australia, more than 50 per cent of aged-care homes are operating at a loss, and reform is desperately needed. I have no doubt that everyone in this place wants to see improvements to our aged-care sector, because we all want our older Australians to be treated with dignity in a caring environment. We want them to feel safe and secure.

In May 2023, the Leader of the Opposition undertook 'to work with government to ensure that our aged-care system remains sustainable'. In honouring that commitment, the coalition has agreed not to amend the financial framework of the bill without bipartisan support—but only after gaining agreement on quite a number of significant changes to the original exposure draft and draft bill. These changes included grandfathering arrangements for older Australians, lifetime caps for non-clinical care contributions, a much lower taper rate and an assurance that the federal government, not the consumer, will remain the majority aged-care funder. These arrangements guarantee that Australians who are already in residential aged care or on a home-care package, or who have been assessed and are waiting for their allocated home-care package, will not see changes to their existing arrangements. In effect, it means that all Australians currently in the aged-care system will not pay one cent more for their aged care.

I want to acknowledge the work done by my colleague the shadow health minister, Senator Ruston, in securing these critical amendments to the early draft of the bill. I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge my colleagues on the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Senators Kovacic and Hughes, for their efforts in interrogating the impacts of this bill as they heard from a wide range of witnesses as part of the recent Senate inquiry process. The coalition senators' additional comments in the inquiry's final report detail a number of recommendations which would provide significant improvements to the proposed legislation, and I anticipate that the amendments submitted by the coalition will reflect those recommendations.

While the coalition will ultimately support this bill, it is important to remember: this is Labor's package of reforms. It was not co-designed with the coalition. As mentioned in response to the advocacy of witnesses to the inquiry, further amendments will be proposed by the coalition. These proposed amendments will address concerns raised and will look to ensure the bill is fit for purpose, provides dignity, respect and security to our older Australians and does not penalise hardworking people in the sector who are just doing their jobs.

The coalition wants older Australians to feel safe and supported in our aged-care system. But, for them to be safe and cared for, there first needs to be a workforce. That has been just one of the frustrating challenges for the coalition during these negotiations. We remain disappointed that this bill has failed to address critical issues such as workforce, regulatory impacts and implementation timelines.

In 2018, the sector participated in the aged-care royal commission initiated by the coalition government, a necessary but difficult process for many working in the sector. Two years later, while looking towards implementation of the recommendations of the aged-care royal commission, the sector was again heavily impacted, with staff forced onto the frontline of the COVID-19 pandemic. Wearing full personal protection equipment throughout their long shifts, staff were also required by law to enforce strict visitor rules with family members, often frustrating residents and their loved ones.

The last few years have not been an easy road for the aged-care workforce. As a result, many people have left the profession to work in other areas of the health sector or left the industry altogether. Staff are the backbone of this sector, and we must support them to ensure continued growth of the aged-care industry to accommodate our ageing population, particularly at a time when there have been significant political, legislative and economic changes.

This is one reason the coalition did not support Labor's proposal to introduce standalone criminal penalties—yet another example of the government's heavy-handed approach to regulation. The introduction of standalone criminal penalties would only make it harder for the sector to attract staff. Our position on criminal penalties has always been clear. We do not support their introduction, and neither does the royal commission—although, for clarification, I'll say: by removing criminal penalties from this bill, the coalition has not given a free ticket to providers for doing the wrong thing. Existing workplace health and safety laws, banning orders and criminal codes provide the necessary regulatory framework to hold people to account.

The coalition has always recognised that rural and regional aged-care facilities face unique challenges and need more support from this government. I come from a regional state. Tasmania is totally regional, and it was pleasing to note that Senator Ruston was able to negotiate extra funding for regional and remote aged-care facilities—something the Labor government had failed to address in its original bill.

It is vital that all Australians, regardless of their geographic location, have access to quality aged-care services. It should not be a postcode lottery, where access to services is determined by where you live. This is why the coalition fought to secure an additional investment of $300 million in capital funding for regional, rural and remote aged-care providers struggling to remain open under the Albanese Labor government. We need to invest in and support our regional and remote aged-care providers, to ensure they can continue to do their important work and provide the care needed by their communities.

I regularly visit aged-care properties across Tasmania, and it is obvious that many of them are struggling under the regulatory burden placed on them, and, as a result, their services and resources are often stretched. I have seen aged-care providers struggling to recruit staff, often forced to rely on agency nurses, at significant cost, or foreign workers, such as those here under the government's PALM scheme.

But I've also seen great providers, including not-for-profit organisations who are community-led and community-driven to provide services to their local region—providers like Longford's Toosey aged care, which was created from philanthropic donations and is run by a dedicated community board. They provide home-like facilities, with separate wings grouped like family homes, and have been entrepreneurial in their pursuit of new revenue streams, such as the Meals on Wheels service they provide to their local community. Toosey is not heavily reliant on locums or agency workers; in fact, during a visit to their facility earlier this year, they told us that they often have a waiting list of people who want to work at their facility—not a common story anywhere. They are a blueprint on how to run a successful grassroots, community-led aged-care service, yet they, too, struggle with the regulatory burden placed on them by the aged-care royal commission and other changes.

While this bill aims to ensure Commonwealth aged-care services remain accessible to those who require them, now and into the future, it is important that the government acknowledges the impact the changes in this bill will have on providers. There is frustration within the aged-care community. Sector providers and older Australians are looking for clarity and surety in relation to their future plans, yet the government has withheld vital information in relation to the bill and the associated rules. Labor has chosen not to share their proposals and has not consulted more widely with the sector or the coalition about what they are and how they will impact the industry.

Then, just this week, the government dropped an additional bill, as well as about 80 changes for consideration, none of which had been sighted previously, yet they expect the coalition and the crossbench to consult with stakeholders, to form a position on each of them and vote on them here this week. With that kind of disrespectful behaviour from the minister and the Albanese government, how can the industry be expected to adequately prepare, respond and implement these changes in a timely manner?

Despite these concerns, I'm grateful for the negotiations of, and amendments secured by, Senator Ruston to date, and to everyone who participated in the Senate inquiry to add strength and rigour to this proposed legislation. It is testament to the reason we, as senators, are here: to ensure the bill is improved through the consultation and inquiry process, to ensure the legislation is as strong as it can be and to ensure no unintended consequences occur.

Older Australians in our communities deserve dignity, respect and a secure quality of life, and that is the ultimate intention of this bill. I hope the government and the crossbench senators carefully consider each amendment as we progress the bill, to deliver security and confidence in the future for our older Australians.

David Van (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Every month, over a hundred thousand hours of care are delivered to older Australians through digital platforms. But what if I told you that these services operate under far weaker regulations than traditional providers? Registered aged-care providers must adhere to over 40 pages of compliance obligations. In stark contrast, the digital platforms are subject to just three pages of requirements. This gap in regulation creates a two-tiered system, and the consequences could be serious. That's why I intend to move an amendment to the bill, the Aged Care Bill 2024, to close this gap.

At a minimum, platforms should meet the strengthened aged-care standards, undergo regular audits and comply with the Serious Incident Response Scheme. Older Australians deserve better. Whether care is delivered by a traditional provider or a platform, the standards must be the same, because their safety, dignity and wellbeing are not negotiable. My amendment, as circulated, on sheet 3152, intends to fix that. Shall I move the amendment now?

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. Is this a second reading amendment?

David Van (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We already have a second reading amendment that has been moved, so that, when we come to the second reading and the first one moved is put to the chamber, then—thank you for foreshadowing it—the person who is in the chair will look to you to move yours.

Debate interrupted.