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

The question in front of the chamber is that the bill stand as printed.

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

To return to where we were before we moved to formal business—firstly, do we have an update on the number of people who are currently on the national priority list? If you've got the answer to the question on self-managed packages as well, that would be great.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are 79,000 people on the national priority list.

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

So we've got 79,000 people on the national priority list—that is, 79,000 Australians who have been assessed as needing home care who are waiting to receive home-care services. We have got 800,000 people on CHSP. Can you confirm how many Australians currently receive services through the Commonwealth Home Support Program?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it's around the same figure that you used before we moved to other business, which is around 800,000 people.

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

I'm keen to understand what the process was. One of the recommendations of the royal commission was that we move to a system where people are actually getting access to the care they need when they are identified as needing it. I think they referred to it as a demand-driven system. We had 24,100 home-care packages released in the most recent budget, in May, for the period of 2024-25, yet, on the national priority list as we're standing here today, we've got 79,000 people on the national priority list. We've got 800,000 people, as we're standing here today, that are receiving their aged-care services via the Commonwealth Home Support Program, and yet the minister has made an announcement that, from 2025, for a period of 10 years, there will be 300,000 home-care packages, which means that there'll be an additional 30,000 home packages per year over a period of 10 years.

I'm interested to understand what the government's calculations are in relation to what that is likely to do to the national priority list. What are your projections in terms of how long people will have to wait and how many people will be waiting for a period in excess of what has been established? I think everyone was seeking that people would get their packages within 30 days of being assessed. That's the goal that everyone's been trying to strive for. So I'm keen to understand: what are your projections, on the basis of determinations you've made in relation to the 24,100 packages and the 30,000 packages a year, for the wait times and waitlists for people waiting to receive home care going forward?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not sure that officials will have that information here, as it's not directly relevant. Even though it's related, it's not information that we would necessarily have brought to support debate on this bill. But, in the interests of moving quickly—or as quickly as we can—I will see if there is anything we can provide to assist you.

I will say that, across the Commonwealth Home Support Program and home-care packages, at the moment there are around 1.1 million places, and, prior to the decision to fund Support at Home, there was minimal growth funded over the next 10 years. That's obviously changed with the 300,000 over the next 10 years. Under Support at Home, places will grow to around 1.4 million by 2035. Demand projections indicate that most of this growth will be supporting home-care-level clients, rather than community CHSP. I think the bill also puts in place arrangements that, by 2027, there would be a maximum of a three-month wait for care. So that's the metric that we are working towards: essentially, the maximum wait for access to care would be three months under this arrangement.

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

Is there any documentation anywhere in which that three-month aspirational target is contained? We saw in documentation during estimates that it appears as if the intent was for it to move from being a five-month average wait time to being a six-month average wait time. So is there anywhere you can point me to for where I can find how you intend to achieve the three months?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the information that you had at estimates was under the current system. Part of this is the additional investment going into aged care, including the additional places to reach that level of a three-month maximum wait at 2027.

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

Obviously, there has been documentation in relation to the release of 24,100 packages in this financial year, which shows that at the moment the average wait time for packages of all levels is five months, but the projection is that the average wait time for packages will actually be six months by the time we get to 30 June 2025. So I'm keen to understand: what is the modelling that you have that says what your projections are if you are going to release 30,000 packages a year, when we have a backlog of nearly 80,000 as we stand here and 800,000 other people coming on? What are your projections? You can say that you're hoping for a three-month wait. I'm keen to understand: what is the modelling that you've done to establish either that you're able to achieve three months or that you're not?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously, the commitment of an average maximum wait of three months that the minister has made has been informed by data from the Department of Health and Aged Care and has to be seen in conjunction with the additional places and additional funding that is going in. Essentially, rolling out those additional packages and having certainty over those will mean that we are able to reach that average maximum wait time of three months.

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

I'll finish on this particular issue. You'll excuse me for being somewhat sceptical. You don't have to be a Rhodes scholar in mathematics to understand that if you currently have nearly 80,000 people already assessed as needing packages that don't have them, and you've got 800,000 people that will need to transition onto packages over a period of two years, then, even if you release 30,000 packages next year and 30,000 packages the year after that, there is no way in the world that any mathematical equation could mean that that would halve the wait time for packages. So I would be really interested if the department may be able to provide some additional information about how they have somehow come up with this extraordinary calculation, given the numbers and the mathematical facts before us.

One of the things I would be keen to understand is something I asked about during the committee hearings and again during estimates. There is an expectation, under the package of reforms here, that older Australians are going to be asked to make a greater contribution to their aged care, particularly as it relates to those things that are non-clinical care components. I put on the record that the decision to make all clinical care fully funded by the government is something that the opposition entirely supports. We believe that the clinical care that every Australian receives is a responsibility of the government, and it should not differ. No matter who you are or where you are, you should receive the same level of clinical care.

But older Australians will, under this new system, be asked to pay more for their non-clinical care—everyday living expenses and independent expenses et cetera. So I was wondering if the department, subsequent to questioning through estimates and through the inquiry, has done any further work to understand the scale of risk in relation to unrecoverable debts. At the moment, the burden of liability for any unrecoverable debts rests with the private sector—with the many small businesses and the like that are providers—and not with the government. I'm interested to understand if you have done any assessment around the risk associated with the quantum of the increase in the likelihood of risk of unrecoverable debts to get an understanding of the likely increased liability on the sector for the burden of unrecoverable debts.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that, essentially, the department has been engaging with providers on this and is happy to continue to collaborate. I don't know that all the information from the provider point of view has been made available to the department at the moment, but, obviously, the department wants to work with providers. This is an issue, obviously, that the providers will have to manage, but the department is very keen and willing to engage on this with them and, I think, has sought information from them about expectations around that.

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

I'm just wondering: has there been any work done around ascertaining the appropriate entity with which that liability should sit? Basically, the government—whether it be Services Australia or the Department of Health and Aged Care—is going to be requiring a number of providers to undertake the collection of funds that relate to determinations—say, for instance, from Services Australia. So what work is being done to ascertain whether the liability sits with the appropriate entity?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are happy to work with providers on this. Obviously, how providers structure those arrangements between themselves and their clients is really a matter for them, including how they would pursue moneys owed to them. I expect they have arrangements in place already, particularly in residential care. The department is ready, willing and able to work with providers on any concerns they may have about nonpayment of contributions. It is really a matter for which we will rely on providers in sharing their information or assessments of what they think will be a problem. I don't know how the government prepares for a problem that is a relationship between a provider and their client base but we are very happy to do so.

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

I probably raised this in the sense of there is significant change in the financial relationship that exists between somebody receiving, say, a supported home package and the provider. Previously, that has been quite a minimal financial relationship. This is about to escalate significantly that financial interaction between the client and provider. The determination of what somebody is required to be contributing is a determination of the government; it is not a determination of the provider. You are actually asking the providers across the nation to be the ones who are administering that financial relationship that has been determined by Services Australia on the policy directive obviously from the Department of Health and Aged Care. We're not talking about something that is just a slight change or a slight tweak from where we're standing the moment. The change to how support at home works, particularly in financial arrangements, is significant, so I'm trying to understand what work has been done. It is well and good to say you have been talking to providers and we would expect that to be the case. This is a significant risk.

The greatest challenge before us at the moment is the fact we need an aged-care sector that is able to continue to provide the kind of care and services to older Australians they will need in the future, bearing in mind we have an increasingly ageing population and we have changing expectations around the delivery of that service, whether that be older Australians who want remain in their own home or whether it be a change in the kinds of service and the components of the delivery of aged care.

We have a significant change before us at the moment. I'm keen to understand what modelling or what work the government has done to understand the risk ratio here and the risk exposure here, because the last thing we need to do is see any of these things potentially have an impact on the sector. We don't need our homes closing. We don't need aged-care providers no longer being in a financial position to continue providing these services. So I am merely asking you, given the significance of the change what has the government done to assess the risk profile of this change? I am asking you particularly in relation to unrecoverable debts for a whole heap of reasons. The cost—the financial relationship—is determined by the government. Have you done any assessment about what the potential impact could be of this increased liability and increased risk on the sector, particularly as it relates to people potentially leaving the sector?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My answer has not changed from the one I gave earlier. The changes we are talking about here are about providing sustainability and viability for the sector. It is not about it becoming unviable or providers moving out of the sector. This is all about ensuring sustainability of the sector. Providers already have arrangements in place for these matters. We should be mindful this is now all happening at once. That these changes will all happen to a providers' client base at the same time is, as you know, not correct. As people come in, the existing arrangements providers have will continue. Yes, it may mean there will be more contributions coming in. The government, through all of the structures we have talked about this morning, sets the framework. We say, 'If you would like this, you will need to pay a contribution of that.' That is sorted out between the provider and the client, and they already have existing arrangements for that. I don't imagine you are saying the government should take on all or any of the debt that might be incurred in this instance in the future. Is that what you are arguing for—that the government should essentially become the underwriter? If that was the case, there would be no incentive for providers to pursue any money owed to them. I don't think you are arguing for that. What we're saying is that within the existing arrangements that providers have for pursuing money that's owed to them, or reaching an agreement with their clients about what services might be offered at what cost, we would expect that to continue. We would probably expect the transition taskforce, if there is a genuine concern from providers about this, would raise this through that forum. The department remains ready, willing and able to talk with providers if this is an issue about which they can share what they believe the problem is so that everyone can respond to it.

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

All I was seeking to understand was what work the department had done to understand the magnitude of risk and exposure to the sector, and the delivery of the all-important care we want for older Australians. It is an issue that was raised significantly during the inquiry, and to date I haven't received a response has to whether the department has even considered this as something that is significant enough for them to bother looking into.

To that end, you made the comment about the grandfathering and the transitioning, and that it will not happen all at once. I wonder if there are any figures to understand how many new entrants there will be into government funded aged care next year. How many people do you believe will be new to residential care, bearing in mind only a certain proportion of people that go into residential care go in having not already received some support, whether it be Commonwealth home support or home care packages? How many new entrants to residential aged care will there be in 2025-26, and how many new people do you expect to enter into the new Support at Home package in 2025-26?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're just seeing if we can get that information. It's not information that officials sitting here have at their fingertips. We'll see how we can provide that information for you. While we're doing that, I'll take the opportunity to move government amendments. Would that be okay?

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

Sure—I was about to move mine, but you go ahead.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the interest of keeping things moving—or starting to move—I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (63) and (65) to (91) on sheet RY104 together. For clarity, according to the grey, I understand it suits the Senate for amendment (64) on that sheet to be moved separately, so I will do that at that time.

Leave granted.

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to the Aged Care Bill 2024, and move:

(1) Clause 7, page 15 (line 10), omit the definition of decision-making supporter.

(2) Clause 7, page 28 (after line 16), at the end of paragraph (a) of the definition of serious injury or illness, add:

(ix) a serious wound or pressure injury; or

(3) Clause 11, page 36 (lines 18 to 20), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) A registered provider means an entity that:

(a) is registered as a registered provider (whether under paragraph 105(1)(a) or because of a renewal under paragraph 108(1)(a), or because of a determination made by the System Governor under subsection 117(1)); and

(b) the registration period has not ended; and

(c) that registration has not been revoked under a provision of Part 3 of Chapter 3.

Note: A registered provider's registration is not in effect while suspended: see section 130. This means most provisions of this Act still apply to the registered provider unless a provision expressly requires that the registered provider's registration is in effect for the provision to apply.

(4) Clause 11, page 36 (line 28), after "provider", insert "to deliver funded aged care services".

(5) Clause 11, page 37 (line 11), omit "Despite subsection (4), an", substitute "An".

(6) Clause 12, page 37 (line 33), before "any", insert "if the registered provider is not a government entity—".

(7) Clause 12, page 38 (line 1), before "any", insert "if the registered provider is not a government entity—".

(8) Clause 12, page 38 (line 4), before "if", insert "for any registered provider (including a government entity)—".

(9) Clause 12, page 38 (line 13), after "operations", insert "of an approved residential care home or service delivery branch".

(10) Clause 20, page 44 (lines 31 to 34), omit subparagraph (c)(v), substitute:

(v) supporting the improvement of the individual's wellbeing, independence, autonomy and physical and cognitive capacity through reablement approaches, where the individual chooses to, including by keeping the individual mobile and engaged if they are living in an approved residential care home;

(11) Clause 20, page 45 (line 19), omit "requested", substitute "required".

(12) Clause 20, page 45 (line 25), at the end of paragraph (c), add:

; (xiii) the delivery of high quality nursing services by sufficient numbers of qualified and experienced direct care staff members.

(13) Clause 24, page 50 (after line 18), at the end of the clause, add:

Note: However, it is a condition of registration for certain registered providers that a registered provider must demonstrate understanding of the Statement of Rights and have in place practices to ensure that the provider acts compatiblywith the Statement of Rights: see subsection 144(1). A person may make a complaint to the Complaints Commissioner about a registered provider acting in a way that is incompatible with the Statement of Rights: see section 358.

(14) Clause 25, page 51 (line 22), after "decision-making", insert ", or be supported (if necessary) to make or communicate decisions,".

(15) Clause 25, page 51 (line 23), after "accesses", insert "to ensure the individual's will and preferences are respected".

(16) Clause 27, page 56 (line 3) to page 57 (line 17), omit the clause, substitute:

27 Actions of supporters

A supporter of an individual may, with the consent of the individual, do any of the following to support the individual to do a thing under, or for the purposes of, this Act (other than Part 5 of Chapter 4 of this Act):

(a) request, access or receive information or documents;

(b) communicate information, including the will, preferences and decisions of the individual;

(c) a thing, other than making a decision on behalf of the individual, prescribed by the rules.

Note 1: If there is more than one supporter of an individual, the supporters may do a thing jointly and severally: see subsection 37(3).

Note 2: For the provisions about how supporters are registered, see Division 3.

(17) Clause 28, page 57 (lines 19 to 25), omit subclause (1), substitute:

(1) A person must not do any thing on behalf of an individual that may or must be done by the individual under, or for the purposes of, this Act unless the person is a person covered by subsection (2) who is, by reason of being such a person, authorised to do the thing on behalf of the individual.

(18) Clause 29, page 58 (lines 9 to 12), omit paragraph (1)(b), substitute:

(b) regardless of whether the individual has consented—to a supporter of the individual if the supporter is a person covered by subsection 28(2).

(19) Clause 29, page 58 (lines 13 to 15), omit subclause (2).

(20) Clause 30, page 59 (lines 1 and 2), omit paragraph (1)(d).

(21) Heading to subclause 30(2), page 59 (line 4), omit the heading.

(22) Clause 30, page 59 (line 15) to page 60 (line 27), omit subclauses (3) to (5).

(23) Clause 37, page 64 (lines 6 to 15), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) The registration may be made on the request of a person (including the individual) or body.

(24) Clause 37, page 65 (line 11), at the end of subparagraph (6)(b)(ii), add "and".

(25) Clause 37, page 65 (lines 12 to 14), omit subparagraph (6)(b)(iii).

(26) Clause 39, page 66 (lines 3 to 11), omit subclause (1), substitute:

(1) If the System Governor registers a person under subsection 37(1) to be a supporter of an individual in the circumstance set out in subparagraph 37(6)(b)(i), the System Governor must give written notice of the registration to the following:

(a) the supporter;

(b) the individual.

Note: An individual is not required to consent to the registration of a person as a supporter of the individual in the circumstances set out in subparagraph 37(6)(b)(i).

(27) Division 4, clauses 43 to 48, page 68 (line 1) to page 71 (line 19), to be opposed.

(28) Clause 49, page 73 (line 8), omit "referred to in", substitute "covered by".

(29) Clause 49, page 73 (lines 13 to 19), omit subclause (4), substitute:

(4) While a person's registration as a supporter of an individual is suspended, the registration has no effect for the purposes of this Act.

(30) Clause 52, page 74 (line 31), after "written", insert "or verbal".

(31) Clause 53, page 75 (line 8), omit "if the supporter is not a decision-making supporter", substitute "if the supporter is not a person covered by subsection 28(2)".

(32) Clause 53, page 75 (line 10), omit "if the supporter is a decision-making supporter", substitute "if the supporter is a person covered by subsection 28(2)".

(33) Clause 53, page 75 (lines 12 to 21), omit subclauses (2) and (3), substitute:

(2) Before the System Governor decides whether to cancel the registration of a person as a supporter of an individual under paragraph (1)(b), the System Governor must give written notice of the individual's request to the supporter.

(3) The notice under subsection (2) must:

(a) be given as soon as practicable after the request is received by the System Governor; and

(b) provide that the supporter may give the System Governor, within 28 days after the day the notice is given, a statement setting out the reasons why the person's registration as a supporter of the individual should not be cancelled.

(3A) The System Governor must make the decision within:

(a) if the supporter is given a notice under subsection (2) and gives the System Governor a statement referred to in paragraph (3)(b) within the 28-day period—14 days after receiving the statement; or

(b) if the supporter is given a notice under subsection (2) but does not give the System Governor a statement referred to in paragraph (3)(b) within the 28-day period—14 days after the end of that 28-day period; or

(c) otherwise—28 days after receiving the request.

(34) Clause 62, page 82 (after line 10), at the end of the clause, add:

(3) When undertaking the aged care needs assessment, the approved needs assessor must:

(a) consider the individual's rights mentioned in subsection 23(1) (independence, autonomy, empowerment and freedom of choice); and

(b) to the extent possible, make the individual aware of, support them to understand, and empower them to exercise, the individual's rights under the Statement of Rights; and

(c) involve the individual's carer, family member, advocate or other person in the discussions mentioned in subsection (2), if that is the individual's will and preference.

(35) Clause 93, page 111 (line 8), omit "may prescribe", substitute "must prescribe, if relevant,".

(36) Clause 130, page 143 (lines 26 to 30), omit the clause, substitute:

130 Effect of registration while suspended

If an entity's registration as a registered provider is suspended for a period under section 129, the entity's registration is taken not to be in effect for that period.

Note: This means the registered provider will not be eligible for funding under Chapter 4.

(37) Clause 144, page 158 (lines 9 to 12), omit paragraph (1)(b), substitute:

(b) have in place practices to ensure that the provider acts compatibly with the Statement of Rights, in accordance with subsection 24(2) (acting compatibly with the Statement of Rights).

(38) Clause 163, page 171 (line 31), after "if", insert ", before 1 December 2026".

(39) Clause 169, page 177 (line 30), omit "individual", substitute "person".

(40) Clause 180, page 187 (line 28), omit "(other than a person referred to in subparagraph 12(1)(c)(ii))", substitute "under paragraph 12(1)(a) or (b)".

(41) Clause 197, page 207 (after line 15), at the end of the clause, add:

(4) Without limiting subsection (2), the circumstances prescribed by the rules as circumstances in which the fee reduction supplement will apply to an individual for a day must include circumstances that involve financial hardship.

(42) Clause 211, page 217 (after line 11), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), rules made for the purposes of that subsection may provide that the System Governor may determine the account period for the individual in accordance with the rules.

(43) Clause 211, page 217 (after line 29), after subclause (4A), insert:

(4B) Without limiting subsection (4A), rules made for the purposes of that subsection may provide that the System Governor may determine the amount for the individual in accordance with the rules.

(44) Clause 214, page 220 (after line 15), at the end of the clause, add:

(4) Without limiting subsection (2), the circumstances prescribed by the rules as circumstances in which the fee reduction supplement will apply to an individual for a day must include circumstances that involve financial hardship.

(45) Clause 220, page 225 (after line 10), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), rules made for the purposes of that subsection may provide that the System Governor may determine the account period for the individual in accordance with the rules.

(46) Clause 223, page 228 (after line 3), at the end of the clause, add:

(4) Without limiting subsection (2), the circumstances prescribed by the rules as circumstances in which the fee reduction supplement will apply to an individual for a day must include circumstances that involve financial hardship.

(47) Clause 231, page 241 (after line 3), at the end of the clause, add:

(4) Without limiting subsection (2), the circumstances prescribed by the rules as circumstances in which the fee reduction supplement will apply to an individual for a day must include circumstances that involve financial hardship.

(48) Clause 268, page 267 (lines 22 to 24), omit subclause (1), substitute:

(1) The rules may make provision for, or in relation to, a code of conduct that applies to persons or bodies:

(a) to whom money may be payable under an arrangement made under subsection 265(1); or

(b) who receive a grant of financial assistance made under subsection 265(1).

(49) Clause 314, page 310 (line 12), omit "decision", substitute "determination".

(50) Heading to clause 343, page 353 (line 5), after "persons", insert "or bodies".

(51) Clause 343, page 353 (line 6), after "person", insert "or body".

(52) Clause 343, page 353 (line 8), after "person", insert "or body".

(53) Clause 343, page 353 (line 11), after "person", insert "or body".

(54) Clause 375, page 374 (line 16), after "Minister", insert ", the Complaints Commissioner".

(55) Clause 405, page 398 (lines 1 to 9), to be opposed.

(56) Heading to Part 5, page 420 (line 1), omit "monitoring and".

(57) Clause 435, page 420 (lines 6 to 7), omit "sections 405 and", substitute "section".

(58) Clause 436, page 420 (after line 10), before subclause (1), insert:

(1A) This section applies if an authorised person exercises investigation powers under Part 3 of the Regulatory Powers Act in relation to premises entered under an investigation warrant for the purposes of this Act.

(59) Clause 437, page 422 (after line 5), before subclause (1), insert:

(1A) This section applies if an authorised person exercises investigation powers under Part 3 of the Regulatory Powers Act in relation to premises for the purposes of this Act.

(60) Clause 438, page 423 (after line 7), before subclause (1), insert:

(1A) This section applies if an authorised person exercises investigation powers under Part 3 of the Regulatory Powers Act in relation to premises for the purposes of this Act.

(61) Page 429 (after line 11), at the end of Division 2, add:

445A Amount of penalty for serious failures to comply with registered provider duty

Despite subsection 82(5) of the Regulatory Powers Act:

(a) the pecuniary penalty for a contravention of subsection 179(3) of this Act must not be more than the applicable pecuniary penalty specified in that subsection; and

(b) the pecuniary penalty for a contravention of subsection 179(5) of this Act must not be more than the applicable pecuniary penalty specified in that subsection.

(62) Clause 537, page 496 (line 6), omit "If", substitute "Subject to subsection (9A), if".

(63) Clause 537, page 496 (after line 8), after subclause (9), insert:

(9A) The relevant information used or disclosed by the person must be de-identified if:

(a) it is appropriate in the circumstances to de-identify the relevant information; and

(b) de-identifying the relevant information does not prevent the person from fulfilling the purpose for which the information was disclosed to the person.

(65) Clause 555, page 514 (lines 10 to 11), omit paragraph (c).

(66) Clause 557, page 519 (table items 3 and 4), omit the table items.

(67) Clause 569, page 533 (line 19), omit "Subdivision B of Division 2 of Part 5 of Chapter 4", substitute "Part 5 of Chapter 4 (means testing)".

(68) Clause 569, page 533 (line 22), omit "Subdivision B of Division 2 of".

(69) Clause 569, page 533 (lines 23 to 25), omit the note.

(70) Clause 570, page 534 (line 13), omit "Subdivisions B and C of Division 2 of Part 5 of Chapter 4", substitute "Part 5 of Chapter 4 (means testing)".

(71) Clause 570, page 534 (line 16), omit "Subdivisions B and C of Division 2 of".

(72) Clause 570, page 534 (lines 17 to 20), omit the note.

(73) Clause 571, page 535 (before line 7), before paragraph (1)(a), insert:

(aa) the System Governor's powers and functions under Division 1 of Part 5 of Chapter 4 (means testing in a home or community setting); or

(74) Clause 571, page 535 (line 8), after "Chapter 4", insert "(value of an individual's assets)".

(75) Clause 571, page 535 (lines 9 to 11), omit paragraph (1)(b), substitute:

(b) the System Governor's powers and functions under Part 2 of this Chapter relating to reconsidering decisions under:

(i) Division 1 of Part 5 of Chapter 4; or

(ii) Subdivision C of Division 2 of Part 5 of Chapter 4.

(76) Clause 571, page 535 (lines 12 to 14), omit the note.

(77) Clause 572, page 535 (before line 31), before paragraph (1)(a), insert:

(aa) the System Governor's powers and functions under Division 1 of Part 5 of Chapter 4 (means testing in a home or community setting); or

(78) Clause 572, page 535 (line 32), after "Chapter 4", insert "(individual's total assessable income)".

(79) Clause 572, page 536 (lines 1 to 3), omit paragraph (1)(b), substitute:

(b) the System Governor's powers and functions under Part 2 of this Chapter relating to reconsidering decisions under:

(i) Division 1 of Part 5 of Chapter 4; or

(ii) Subdivision B of Division 2 of Part 5 of Chapter 4.

(80) Clause 572, page 536 (lines 4 to 6), omit the note.

(81) Clause 573, page 536 (before line 30), before paragraph (1)(a), insert:

(aa) the System Governor's powers and functions under Division 1 of Part 5 of Chapter 4 (means testing in a home or community setting); or

(82) Clause 573, page 536 (line 31), after "Chapter 4", insert "(individual's total assessable income)".

(83) Clause 573, page 537 (line 2), after "Chapter 4", insert "(grants)".

(84) Clause 573, page 537 (line 3), omit "sections".

(85) Clause 573, page 537 (before line 6), before subparagraph (1)(c)(i), insert:

(ia) Division 1 of Part 5 of Chapter 4;

(86) Clause 573, page 537 (lines 8 to 11), omit the notes.

(87) Heading to subclause 575(2), page 539 (line 6), at the end of the heading, add "to staff of the Commission".

(88) Clause 575, page 539 (after line 10), at the end of the clause, add:

Subdelegation to holders of specified non-SES offices or positions

(3) Before subdelegating a function or power under subsection (2) to an APS employee holding, occupying, or performing the duties of a specified office or position that is not an SES office or position, the Complaints Commissioner must have regard to whether the office or position is sufficiently senior for the employee to perform the function or exercise the power.

Subdelegation to consultants

(4) If, under subsection (1), the Commissioner delegates a power or function to the Complaints Commissioner, the Complaints Commissioner may, in writing, subdelegate the power or function to a consultant engaged under section 371.

(5) Before subdelegating a function or power under subsection (4) to a person, the Complaints Commissioner must have regard to whether the person has appropriate qualifications or expertise to perform the function or exercise the power.

(89) Clause 599, page 558 (after line 9), after paragraph (2)(a), insert:

(aa) the extent of funded aged care services accessed by individuals from different locations and with different backgrounds and life experience;

(90) Page 558 (after line 29), after clause 600, insert:

600A Review of accommodation pricing

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review of accommodation pricing under this Act to be conducted.

(2) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament no later than 1 July 2026.

(91) Clause 602, page 562 (after line 14), after paragraph (b), insert:

(ba) specifying that the amount or period may be set by a determination made by the System Governor in accordance with the rules;

The government amendments are designed to address key concerns that were raised by the aged-care sector, older people and unions during the community affairs inquiry. I take this opportunity to acknowledge Senator Ruston and her colleagues. I also acknowledge, importantly, committee chair Senator Marielle Smith and members Senator Pratt and Senator Urquhart, in addition to everyone who took the time to make a written or verbal submission. Government committee members travelled—actually, all committee members travelled—to nine public hearings across every single state and territory. They heard from more than 150 people, including 28 witnesses who shared their lived experience of aged care. The inquiry received more than 180 submissions from people affected by aged care, and from their advocates and representatives, as well as from service providers and other stakeholders across the aged-care sector.

The purpose of the amendments tabled by the government are to: amend a number of key definitions and concepts in response to stakeholder feedback, including 'serious injury or illness', 'aged-care worker', 'high-quality care' and 'responsible person'; remove ambiguity relating to the responsible person duty; make key changes to the enforceability of the statement of rights and the corresponding condition of registration; implement the recommendation that a review of accommodation pricing be brought forward to report on 1 July 2026 and included in the bill; mandate financial hardship as a circumstance for the fee-reduction supplement; remove decision-making supporters and streamline and strengthen the safeguards in place for the supported decision-making framework; sunset the immunity provision for restrictive practices; and make minor and technical corrections to address errors in the bill. I commend those amendments to the Senate.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to the minister for putting one of those items separately, but I will flag that the Greens would like item 88 to be put separately as well, as we intend to vote differently on that one.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to 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?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, we do, that's why they are in the amendments. Obviously, the rules will have more to say on that.

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

Another area that was raised throughout the committee hearing was around the decision-making supporter requirements. Subsequently, we've seen that they've been removed from this bill. The overwhelming evidence was that they had not been properly consulted and that the consideration had not been adequate in relation to the potential conflict between provisions in relation to decision-making supporters as they relate to guardianship or power of attorney as exists under current state and territory legislation. I'm keen to understand, in the removal of these particular provisions, what further work the government is intending to undertake in order to make sure that decision-making supporter provisions are not overly burdensome for the person and are actually delivering the support in relation to decision-making powers of older Australians in care who are unable to make decisions themselves.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can see that, obviously, the position of the government is reflected in the amendment. We do think it's an important area. We're going to have to continue to work with states and territories around various interactions with their regulatory arrangements, and we will. Obviously, the point of this legislation is to have the individuals at the centre of decision-making, so we don't want to create a system which makes it onerous or difficult. It's all about making sure it's easier and more focused on the individual. That's the overarching principle of the legislation, and we will continue. This amendment hopefully will pass, and we will continue to work with all stakeholders to ensure those arrangements are appropriate.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to our voting position on provision 88, I'm happy with the bulk of this particular amendment, but the complaints process for participants is already deeply frustrating. On behalf of Senator Penny Allman-Payne, who has carriage of this matter for us and who participated so capably in and ran those hearings, we heard from many older constituents that they feel they can't rely on the government regulator to protect them from dodgy aged-care providers. So we have concerns about permitting the commission to delegate their powers to consultants. Consultants are already deeply enmeshed in the sector, and participants have told us time and time again that they don't feel like they're being listened to in the complaints process. The idea of complaints being resolved by a consultant with possible ties to providers would make that worse, not better. The government needs to properly resource the regulator to hire the staff that it needs, not outsource the work to consultants. It's a very easy fix, and we urge the government to do exactly that.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Waters for making that point. I'm not sure there was really a question in there, but to respond to it: this simply allows for consultants to be used. It doesn't mandate their use. It essentially says they can be used, and I would say, with my other responsibilities on, we have invested heavily in to the commission to ensure that it is resourced properly to do its job.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I have questions about wait times and aged-care assessments, and I apologise to those sitting behind you who are probably sick of these questions! Through the inquiry and estimates, I found that the ACT has the longest wait times for an aged-care assessment in the country. In some cases, people have been left waiting for re-assessment for up to a year. In cases where they've been reassessed as needing a level 4 package, then they've been left waiting for around two years for the support that they need. I've heard from emergency doctors who tell me that Canberra Hospital can often find itself choked with the senior Canberrans who would not need to be there if they had support at home.

To put a bit of colour around this, here is some feedback I received from a person at the ACT Seniors and Better Ageing Expo, and I will quote it for the Senate: 'There needs to be an urgency option available for home-care assessments, especially when cancer is involved. Both my parents died of cancer in late 2022. They were self-funded retirees and very independent, but when my father passed suddenly, nine weeks after his diagnosis, my mum declined rapidly. Her cancer was already advanced. I became her full-time, live-in carer. We needed urgent assistance, but I was unable to get help, and Mum died before we were able to have an assessment. It's extremely distressing, and I would like to see this rectified for people who might not have family to assist them. I would hope that more funds could be used for additional assessment staff to reduce wait times and allow for urgent appointments.'

Minister, as you would have seen at estimates, the department has advised that the Commonwealth gives money to the ACT government, and they haven't been employing enough staff to keep up with demand. But the ACT government and the minister have said that they're not receiving enough funding. So I'm not sure who is correct, but I was interested to ask whether enough funding has been allocated to employ the correct number of assessors for senior Canberrans to receive timely assessments. If that is the case, how many assessors does the government estimate the ACT government needs and how many does it have?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Pocock for the question. This has been an area of long interest for me, particularly when I was Minister for Health in the ACT and looked at the utilisation of hospital beds and exit points into aged care. The wait times in the ACT certainly have been too long. We are working with the ACT government, which is, as you said, the only comprehensive assessment provider in the ACT to fix this problem.

There has been some progress made to date. The number of outstanding assessment referrals older than 75 days in the ACT in March this year was 651. That has come down, as at 1 November, to 303. It has been more than halved, so that has been good progress. You are right about the ACT government being the only provider. This, of course, will change with the single assessment system being introduced next year. Also—I think this is important—in recognition of the large backlog in the ACT, the Commonwealth made a funding offer to the ACT government which would move the ACT to a fee-for-service model where total payments would reflect the number of assessments completed, including additional funding to support surge resourcing to clear the existing backlog. That would represent a significant increase in funding for the year 2024-25. The ACT is still considering this offer. I imagine some of that may have been delayed by caretaker and the rest.

I think the point that the Commonwealth is making—I don't know that older Australians are very interested in which level of government is not paying their way or whether they want to pay more. It's more about providing the resourcing to get on and get this job done. I think the Commonwealth is meeting that challenge, and I am hopeful that the ACT government will come back and take this offer up.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Minister. I appreciate that. That's good to know. In terms of the single assessment providers, have any contracts been issued for that?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised they're in the final stages of that procurement process, Senator Pocock.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To turn to amendment 88 on the government's sheet, which Senator Waters was just asking you about: in subsection 4, it gives the complaints commissioner the power to delegate their powers and functions to a consultant. I was hoping to understand why this delegation is necessary. Is it expected to be routine that consultants will be engaged by the complaints commissioner to manage complaints, or is this about surge capacity? Can you confirm how much is set aside for the complaints commission to spend on consultants in this financial year and the following financial year?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On that last bit of your question, we might have to take that on notice. I'm not sure officials would have that information here with them today, but I'm happy to do that. We did have the commission before us at estimates, and I'm not sure we touched exactly on their consultant allocation, but this has been an agency that has been heavily reliant on labour hire and consultants in the past. We're trying to rebalance that and make sure that there is adequate resourcing. But I think there's always an acknowledgement that, in this area of work, consultants may need to be brought in to do particular aspects of the work. So I don't think it changes anything or encourages any type of behaviour. Certainly while there's a Labor government, we will resource the public sector properly and in a way that it is able to do its job, which wasn't the case under the former government. We would definitely do that, but there is and is going to be, I think, the need for the legislation to reflect the opportunity to use consultants in particular circumstances. I'll see if there's anything else we can provide, Senator Pocock, about levels of resourcing or anything, but we might have to take that on notice.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maybe you could take this on notice, unless you have it. How many staff will the complaints commissioner have working on complaints by 1 July? Do you have the FTE?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, we'll take that on notice.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Just staying on complaints for a minute, I recently held a town hall meeting at the Hughes Community Centre, and I would like to thank COTA ACT for helping organise that. One of the things that came up too often was how concerned people were about their loved ones making complaints and then having potential reprisals. I've heard stories from others where the complaints process in a facility is basically to put QR codes up on the walls for people to scan. We know that, for many people in that cohort, QR codes are maybe not the most appropriate way for them to do that. The bill provides some pretty muscular complaints mechanisms, but I'm interested in understanding how the government intends to have these mechanisms communicated to senior Australians in residential aged care in an ongoing way. What responsibility do providers have to let seniors know that they can make a complaint? How does the commission or the department ensure that this is happening? And how can seniors make a complaint if they don't feel comfortable making a complaint online?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill certainly includes, as you say, a number of protections around making complaints, including protections for whistleblowers. The complaints arrangements will also allow for anonymous complaints. In terms of the responsibility for educating individuals about the act in an ongoing way, we would certainly see that as part of our and providers' ongoing responsibilities. We are talking about and have talked this morning about a range of materials that will be provided as well as toolkits, information and national public information campaigns around the bill that would be done as part of these new arrangements. But I think, if you visit an aged-care facility or many public facilities, they will be required to have made available to clients, to residents and to people visiting all of the rights and responsibilities that exist under the aged-care arrangements. That would continue and would clearly have to be refreshed for this new reform. We also fund COTA and other non-government organisations to promote that kind of information. So it's not just government; it is other stakeholders in the aged-care sector which are funded for advocacy and education. But, if senators have some other ideas about how to strengthen those arrangements under this reform, I'm sure the minister would be happy to consider them.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To go back to wait times for packages, we've heard Minister Wells talk about lowering the wait times for packages to three months, which is very welcome and will no doubt be a lot of work. I think it's a really ambitious and good target to have. Could you clarify if those three months account for the time taken to have an assessment and for the services to commence. If not, realistically, from start to finish—the entire process—how long will it take someone to apply for and to receive their package in 2027 when the three-month commitment comes into play?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We covered a bit of this earlier. When the single assessment system comes into play, that will certainly make it more efficient. The three months is from the time following assessment. Once you've been assessed it's an average wait of three months. That includes assessment of the extra investment that we're putting in. That's how we believe that we can get it from where it is now—which is around five months, I think from estimates—with the extra investments to where it will be in 1 July 2027.

On the other question, which was around what is it from seeking assessment to receiving care, that is a harder number to give. I'm not sure if that's collected because of the different arrangements in place. I'm not sure whether the department capture that information. I'll check and see if we can provide you with anything.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've heard about the three-month goal to get a package. Is there a goal around average waiting times for assessments?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The response is to improve efficiency in accessing assessments, which is what this single assessment stream—I'll just see if there's anything else—and implementing that will do to drive efficiency in the assessment process. The goal of that would be to reduce time. Is there anything else I can add? I can give you some information, which you may be aware of, in terms of the service standard, which is 10 days for assessment for high priority and 40 days for low-priority assessment. You could take from that the end-to-end period you were after.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, as you'd know, we have several Canberrans who are very passionate about the role of pets in aged care. There are a lot of studies that show having a pet in aged care can improve mental health and physical health. There's an interesting stat, according to Seniors Australia, that a quarter of seniors spend more on their pet than on their grandkids, so you clearly can't put a price on our best friends. But we know that there are a lot of barriers to keeping their pets when they age. It gets harder to walk them. As finances dwindle for senior Australians, it can be harder to provide for them. Of course, not all facilities accept them.

It was very welcome to see in the statement of rights that senior Australians now have a right to remain connected to their pets in the aged-care system. We of course recognise that these rights are not absolute and need to be balanced with the rights of others. Concerns have been raised with me that, despite these new rights and despite this being on the actual statement of rights, there are actually no supports provided through the services list to help people maintain connection with their pets. On behalf of the people who've raised these concerns, I was hoping you could help us understand why there aren't any services covered on the list to help people stay connected with their pets, which is actually a right in your legislation.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're talking to one of those mad animal lovers here right now, so I completely understand individual's love for their pets and desire to remain connected to them as they age. Part of the whole reform piece here is about acknowledging that more older Australians are wanting to stay at home and have care and support at home. One of the reasons for this, though not the only reason, would be to remain connected to their animals. The decision around the service list has really been about, within the resources available, concentrating that support on the older person themselves. But we would hope, with the extra investment going in and people hopefully getting access to those supports earlier, that that may free up capacity within their home should they need to get a dog walker in or someone to do some of those other jobs and that would create space for that to happen. We totally recognise that that's a key priority for many older Australians.

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

In your amendment, clauses 6 and 7—sorry, Nos 6 and 7, clause 12. How would you like me to describe what I'm looking at in the bill?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm just trying to get them.

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

If you want to just grab the amendment, it's actually Nos 6 and 7 on the first page.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Keep going.

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

It says here:

insert "if the registered provider is not a government entity—".

This is in reference to the meaning of a responsible person. What does that actually mean? In removing a responsible person from clause 12, who is the responsible person who holds the responsibility, I suppose, if the aged-care home is run by the state?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, I was getting some verbal advice and have—

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

Aren't you fully briefed on absolutely everything?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I try to be; I'm a very nosy person! But this is getting right down into the detail, as I knew you would. The proposed amendments to the responsible person definition for government entities reflect the different levels of responsibility in government organisations, especially where the registered provider is a state or territory as a body politic. They also bring the definition of responsible person back into line with the current definition of key personnel from section 8B of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Act 2018, which exempts government providers from the equivalent paragraphs.

These amendments are important, as the definition of responsible person is used throughout the Aged Care Bill 2024, not just in the context of new statutory duties on aged-care providers. Without them, the definition of responsible persons in clauses 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(b) of the bill would potentially apply to a large number of individuals, including ministers and executives of departments of state, who have limited oversight of the aged care services delivered by one part of the entity. Such a large list of responsible persons would make it difficult to identify with precision who is accountable for aged-care regulatory matters and impede the effective enforcement action. It would also involve significant administrative effort in reporting these responsible persons and assessing their suitability, and take the regulator away from focusing on matters that could directly impact quality and safe care being delivered to older people. The proposed amendments will ensure the definition of a responsible person is consistent with the risk-proportionate approach to regulation intended by the bill. Does that answer your question?

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

No.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was worried that it didn't as I was going through it! So, repechage. Might have helped you, though.

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

I might actually get you to table it. In the situation where you have a state operated aged-care home, who then ultimately becomes the responsible person if it doesn't end up going up the chain to where the minister sits? For the reasons that you've just outlined in your explanation, it can't be the minister or the government. Who ultimately is the responsible person? Where does that chain of command end?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that the state engages to provide the service in that scenario.

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

So, effectively, what this change does—and I understand from your previous explanation that there was a legal need for this to occur—is that we have a situation where a minister or a government, on a state run facility, has a mechanism, through this exclusion that's contained in these two amendments, to remove themselves from the liability in relation to the operation of an aged-care home, and yet, at the very same time, all of those responsibilities and liabilities can actually be put on a voluntary board member of a home, and somehow the minister has, through this mechanism, been exempted from this?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think this was a matter that was examined by the royal commission, and I am advised that the royal commission found that directors of boards, voluntary or not voluntary, had a direct impact on decisions and services provided and that that should mean that they take responsibility, which is as outlined.

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

Can I just ask about the proportionate allocation of responsibility based on the reasonable expectation that somebody would have known? There was also concern raised, even after the removal of criminal penalties through the civil penalty provisions contained in the act, that a responsible person, because of the broadness of the definition of 'responsible person', might be somebody who would not reasonably have had any oversight or knowledge of or any direction over an action. The definition of 'responsible person' went so far into the organisation. How on earth could—as in many of these decision-making instances—a voluntary director of a small board of a country nursing home possibly be held to account while, for some reason, we're saying that somebody who has all the resources in the world—somebody who is a minister or in a government—is actually legally exempt from this? Are the 'responsible person' provisions that are contained in this act sufficient to meet your own definition of 'risk proportionate' that you gave in relation to this particular provision?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. I think the difference that you draw out there is that in the direct line of decision-making in operational decisions in the instance that you outline, involving a small board of a small provider, you would think that there would be a very close link between the decisions the board takes and the care provided, which I don't think can be assessed as being the same as for a minister who has the broad responsibilities that have been set out in this act.

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

I'm just interested in this: one of the things that we sought to have brought forward was a review into accommodation, and I note that, in your amendment that you've put forward, you've agreed to bring forward the review of the supported accommodation supplement, the SAS. So I would just be keen to understand. We've sought to bring it forward for a report in July 2026, so I would be keen for you to give me a brief update about what the process is in relation to that review being undertaken and whether there is any role in terms of consultation or input from others around the terms of reference into that review, given that it is an issue that was raised time and time again during the inquiry—a quick answer, and we can move on.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Great. I'm a bit intrigued about what's going on.

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

I'll let you know later.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. I've always got eyes on those two moving in!

The short answer is yes. The only thing that's been decided has been the timeframe for that, but we're very much open to further discussions and consultations with people about how that occurs.

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

Thank you very much, Minister. The opposition will be supporting all of the amendments that have been put forward, with the exception of the one that has not been moved, (64), which is going to be voted on separately and is subject to an amendment that has been moved by Senator Pocock.

Can I just highlight the fact that these amendments have been brought forward as a result of the fantastic committee process that was in place, and it just highlights the absolute value of consultation and transparency. I think it points to the fact that, if we had actually had the kind of consultation and transparency that we've had through this committee process through the entire journey of developing this reform package, we probably would not be sitting here, at the eleventh hour, concerned about the timeframes in which we were able to implement these reforms, because we would have been able to iron out all of these issues along the way. It was absolutely inconceivable, as to things like the powers that should have been delegated, for the system's governor to delegate powers to ensure that other agencies were able to put in place the necessary changes for these reforms to be put in place. It took somebody from my office to actually dig through the legislation to realise they'd been completely omitted.

But it's fantastic that we've now seen that there is greater definition around the hardship provisions. I thank COTA particularly for their huge amount of advocacy, on behalf of more vulnerable Australians, to make sure these provisions have been contained in this bill. It is great to see that the government has eventually listened to the concerns of all of the stakeholders that have such a stake in this particular reform package, and, for that reason, the opposition will be supporting the amendments moved by the government.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Chair, can I just check that, as I asked for before, item 88 will be put separately?

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. As Senator Waters has asked for amendment (88) to be put separately, the first question that is before the chamber is that amendments (1) to (26), (28) to (54), (56) to (63), (66) to (87) and (89) to (91) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The next question is that amendment (88) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the indulgence that you record the opposition of the Australian Greens to item (88).

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Yes, that can certainly happen. I am in the hands of the chamber now. The next question is that division 4 of part 4 of chapter 1, and clause 405, stand as printed.

Question negatived.

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

I move the amendment on sheet 3056:

(1) Clause 602, page 564 (after line 8), at the end of the clause, add:

Review by Senate Committee

(12) The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, or such other committee constituted under a resolution of the Senate, must:

(a) begin a review of any rules made for the purposes of a provision specified in subsection (13) within 3 months after the day the rules are tabled in the Senate; and

(b) report the Committee's findings to the Senate as soon as practicable after completing each review.

(13) The following provisions are specified:

(a) section 14 (Aged Care Code of Conduct);

(b) section 15 (Aged Care Quality Standards);

(c) section 16 (meaning of reportable incident);

(d) section 17 (restrictive practice in relation to an individual);

(e) section 141 (Provider Register);

(f) section 154 (personal information and record keeping);

(g) section 162 (restrictive practices);

(h) section 163 (immunity from civil or criminal liability in relation to the use of a restrictive practice in certain circumstances);

(i) Chapter 4 (funding of aged care services);

(j) section 379 (aged care worker screening database);

(k) section 507 (register of banning orders).

This amendment in effect seeks to make sure that the government continues to allow that we have scrutiny and oversight more broadly around all of the rules and subordinated legislation and regulations that are yet to be seen not just by this parliament but, more broadly, by all of the stakeholders that are involved in this really important piece of reform.

We have been trying for a number of months to get some line of sight over the massive amount of subordinate legislation—or rules, as they are commonly referred to. In the original version of the bill, there were actually more references to the rules than there were pages of legislation. We have managed to get some oversight or some idea in relation to chapter 4, which is the financial framework component of this bill, but we are yet to see all of the other subordinate legislation. We believe that it is really important that the Australian public, but most particularly this Senate, be allowed to apply the processes that the Senate has at its disposal to have a look at this additional delegated legislation.

As we saw with the recent changes to this bill, we now have a bill that addresses and remedies many, many concerns that would not otherwise have been identified until after the bill came into effect if we had just agreed to shove the bill through when the government first wanted us to pass it some months ago. The inquiry process allowed us the opportunity to make significant changes, and that's why we're standing here today. By the government's own admission, the 92 or 91 amendments that they put forward to their own bill were a result of them seeing the value in addressing concerns that were raised through the process of scrutiny. And we believe that that process of scrutiny needs to be extended to all of the information that is yet to be seen.

In moving this amendment, we are very concerned about the fact that we are being asked today to pass, in good faith, a piece of legislation that does not have much information that one would normally expect to be available during the debate—information that should be available to us so that we can see the real consequences of much of the decision-making process at a much lower level. So we move this amendment in the hope that the government will support us by, first of all, informing us as soon as possible—preferably, we would have been informed by now—about the timeframes in which the schedules of rules and instruments will be released. But we also want to make sure that there is adequate time allowed for the scrutiny of those rules and subordinate legislation so that we are in a position to, hopefully, make some changes.

The problem, though, with subordinated legislation always is that, because it comes in by way of an instrument, it is only disallowable. So I make a great plea to those that are preparing these rules: make sure the rules see the light of day before they turn up in here for us to allow or disallow. It would be a pretty sad state of affairs if you actually failed to consult and we ended up with the same sort of debacle that we had with the original bill and exposure draft that we saw late last year, where an instrument had to be disallowed simply because of the unintended consequences of what it contained. A lack of consultation meant that this place made the determination that, on the balance of the benefit and risk that was associated with that instrument, we would vote it down and disallow the instrument. So I make that big plea. There is a need for greater scrutiny. We have evidenced that—quite clearly, I think—by the process that we're going through today. If we could make sure that we have a greater level of scrutiny going forward, everybody would be much better served from that, we'd have less frustration in this place and older Australians, who deserve to understand what's going on, would have greater oversight of what is going on.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government supports this amendment. We've committed to public consultation on each tranche of the rules. The timeline for consultation was published on the website on 15 November and the government plans to conduct a four-week consultation period for each tranche. I hope that we're able to pass this amendment unanimously.

Question agreed to.

Progress reported.

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

We will now move to senators' statements.