﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2024-11-21</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>Senate</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Thursday, 21 November 2024</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The PRESIDENT (Senator </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">the Hon. </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Sue Lines</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span> took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Meeting</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If there are no objections, the meetings are authorised.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tabling</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the consideration of private senators' bills not proceed today.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to amend notice of motion No. 1, to add 'for the purposes of the Aged Care Bill 2024' to clause (c) 'divisions may take place after 4.30 pm'.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the motion as amended:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That on Thursday, 21 November 2024—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the hours of meeting be 9 am till adjournment;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the routine of business be as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) government business only,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) at 11.15 am, petitions,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) notices of motion,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) postponement and rearrangement of business,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) formal motions,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vi) at not later than 12.15 pm, government business only,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vii) at 1.30 pm, statements pursuant to standing order 57(4),</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(viii) at 2 pm, questions,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ix) motions to take note of answers, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(x) at 3.30 pm, government business only;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm for the purposes of the Aged Care Bill 2024;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) if consideration of the Aged Care Bill 2024 concludes before 6 pm—the Senate return to the routine of business; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) if consideration of the Aged Care Bill 2024 concludes after 6 pm—the Senate adjourn without debate.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>2</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care Bill 2024, Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>2</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7238" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Aged Care Bill 2024</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7215" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>2</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the second reading amendment as moved by Senator Kovacic be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [09:07]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>30</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Birmingham, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>31</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>6</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the second reading amendment as foreshadowed and circulated in my name:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety recommended that no person with disability under the age of 65 should remain living in residential aged care from 2025,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) while the Government accepted this recommendation, this Bill works in direct opposition to the recommendation by formalising a pathway to place people under 65 in aged care,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) there are 911 people aged under 65 in residential aged care who are NDIS participants who should be receiving the disability-specific supports they need to exit residential aged care; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Government to implement the recommendation of the Royal Commission and ensure no disabled person under the age of 65 remains living in residential aged care".</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Steele-John be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [09:12]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>12</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>32</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to ensure that all recipients of aged care assistance, whether in a facility or in home care, are provided on a daily basis with adequate meals, in terms of quantity as well as quality, as determined by a qualified nutritionist".</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator VAN</name>
    <name.id>283601</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) there is a regulatory gap between traditional registered providers and platform providers,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) currently, platform providers operate with far fewer obligations, creating significant risks to service quality and the safeguarding of older Australians,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the need to ensure platform providers operate with the same transparency and safety as traditional registered providers; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Government to ensure platform providers must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) demonstrate to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission that they meet all of the strengthened Aged Care Quality Standards that apply to the service types they deliver and adhere directly to the Aged Care Code of Conduct,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) be subject to regular and ongoing audits or compliance monitoring by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) directly comply with the Serious Incident Response Scheme (SIRS) and report directly to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission in line with the SIRS requirements".</para></quote>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
<para>Original question, as amended, agreed to.</para>
<para>Bills read a second time.</para>
<para>Ordered that consideration of the Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>4</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, I'm keen to get a bit of a clearer understanding about the transition that is going to be undertaken over the six months between when this bill is passed, we assume, and when it needs to come into effect. I was wondering if you could guarantee that all of the departments that are required to be involved in the implementation of this reform and the changes will be ready in sufficient time to not only be able to implement the changes by 1 July but also be able to implement the changes within the necessary government departments that will enable the sector to be ready to implement in full the proposed changes by 1 July 2025.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Ruston for the question. I also acknowledge the work that has gone on between her office and the minister's on this bill. Yes, I can give you that commitment. These changes have been developed over a period of time, as you are aware. There has been a lot of work put into not only supporting this legislation but also consultation with the sector and obviously across governments and agencies with the passage of this bill, and that's why it is important to get this bill dealt with today. We will be giving the certainty they need to implement the changes so that they are able to commence in full on 1 July 2025.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm interested to understand what other departments or agencies in addition to the Department of Health and Aged Care will be involved or be required to be involved in the transitional reform?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Obviously, there would be Services Australia. There will also be, I would expect, some central departments involved. This is a significant reform and they have been to date, so I would expect that would continue. The Aged Care Commission and the Department of Veterans' Affairs as well have all of been involved to date and that will continue.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Is there a costing allocated against the changes that will be required for each of these agencies? And where is that funding coming from?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's been some funding allocated for investment in the ICT in the department of health, as I recall. I'm trying to go back, so if I can find you more information on that, I will. I might come back to you to see whether we've made any other provision but, as far as central coordination and things like that would go, we would expect that to happen within existing resources, but there has been allocation, as I recall, for the IT support that's required.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the last budget there was $1.2 billion allocated to ICT. What proportion of that ICT funding is allocated to the implementation of the reforms contained in this package?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I was checking some detail there. All of that $1.2 billion is allocated for the implementation of the aged-care reform.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So of that $1.2 billion allocated to the reform, how much is allocated to internal government ICT changes? And is any of the $1.2 billion available for external activities?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am just checking the detail there. The $1.2 billion is for internal to government systems. Also, eligible providers will be able to apply for up to $10,000 to assist with the costs of any IT changes needed to prepare for 1 July. The department is currently finalising the arrangements for that grant opportunity, so providers will get that information in coming weeks. I'm checking if we can provide you with a global figure for that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm taking from that answer we don't have a specific amount of money allocated to that grant program?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm trying to get that information for you. There would be.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So do I read into that the maximum amount of the grant will be $10,000 per provider?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When is the expectation that this grant program is likely to be finalised sufficiently for the sector to be aware of it?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I mentioned, I don't have a specific date for you, but the advice I have is that the department is progressing arrangements for that, with further information expected to be published in the coming weeks. I would expect that that would mean this calendar year—that's the information I have—and the global figure is $10 million.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm sorry; it's just that my brain is trying to work out how many ten thousands go into $10 million, and one would think it would be a thousand. Will there be eligibility criteria that will be allocated against that grant program? Can you give us an idea about who would be eligible for that $10,000 grant program, or is it anybody who applies?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That will be all clear, through the grant opportunity guidelines, which would need to be finalised, but eligible providers would be Support at Home providers.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm keen to understand whether the department has any information around what they are expecting the likely cost to all providers—whether they be home-care or residential-care providers—of the ICT changes that each and every one of those are going to be required to undertake.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't think there is a specific figure. Providers will vary, I would imagine, in their existing capability and systems. This would be something that the transition taskforce would monitor. That has been set up. It's headed by Anne Burgess and it's having its first meeting next week, as a way of troubleshooting and responding to concerns that providers might have, at the earliest opportunity.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I just confirm: you said that it was only for Support at Home or the transition from home care to Support at Home providers, but somebody who is a residential aged-care provider is not eligible for this grant?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The grant program is designed to support the Support at Home providers. I think the rationale behind that would be that they are the ones facing the most significant changes, and that's why the government has provided $10 million to support providers to apply for those grants, up to $10,000.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>During the inquiry process we heard from a number of providers, and probably the biggest issues—outside of the fact that they didn't have the information they needed to put in place the changes that they are going to be required to, under this new reform package—was not just the timing, in terms of the implementation, but also the costs that were associated with it. We heard from a number of providers—not just home-care providers but also residential aged-care providers—that they saw this as going to be a very significant burden, in terms of their ICT upgrades. In fact, during the inquiry we heard from one provider—and not necessarily the biggest provider in Australia, I might say—that they thought the cost of the ICT changes was likely to be around $4 million for their organisation alone. As to the $1.2 billion that was put aside in the last budget for the ICT changes, you've confirmed that is entirely for the implementation of the ICT changes required within government agencies for this reform. So the government's set aside $1.2 billion for that, but they've set aside $10 million to support only Support at Home providers with an amount up to $10,000. I'm very keen to understand the process that went behind the decision-making of the requirement for the government to need $1.2 billion for ICT changes. Does the government have any idea of what the quantum of the cost of ICT changes is going to be across the entire aged-care sector—home care and residential care and any other providers, stakeholders or the like—that are likely to be impacted from an ICT perspective? What is the total cost of the sector's ICT changes going to be on the basis that you believe that we need $1.2 billion to do yours?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government will be building an entirely new system and new regulatory model and dealing with legacy IT systems to reflect the changes that are being brought in through these reforms. You're talking to the Minister for Finance. I certainly wished it wasn't a $1.2 billion ICT spend, but there had been some pretty detailed work done on the cost of that, including some assurance testing. That is what it is.</para>
<para>In terms of costs of providers, it is hard to give what it will mean per provider. I think the expectation is that the Support at Home providers will be the ones facing the most significant change. I understand that there will be uncertainty from providers as these reforms come in, but that's exactly why this transition taskforce has been established. As I said, it will be led by Ms Burgess and will meet for the first time next Thursday. This is exactly why the Minister for Aged Care has established this: to make sure that there's some real early stress testing and opportunity for people to provide feedback about the implementation of the reforms.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Am I to take from the response that I've just received from you that the department doesn't have any real idea of what the cost of ICT changes is likely to be on the sector? I note you made the comments about building an entirely new system and them being expensive and about the government being required to build an entirely new system. Aged-care providers are going to be required to build entirely new systems in order to make the changes that are coming. It's not just the government that's going to have to build these entirely new systems.</para>
<para>I want to be clear that the government does not know what the cost of ICT changes are going to be on the sector. I once again put that alongside $1.2 billion that has been allocated to government ICT and the clear recognition by the government of the massive change in ICT that's required to implement these reforms. That's going to cost them $1.2 billion. I'm interested to understand what the process was that the government or the agency have undertaken to determine that the support to the sector is only going to be $10 million against $1.2 billion. It's going to be restricted only to those people in the sector that provide one part of aged-care services—home care. To be really clear: the government does not know or have any idea what the cost of ICT changes is going to be on the sector?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've just asked if there's any further information we can provide you on this. I think one of your earlier questions was: what is the cost per provider? I'm seeing if there's some more detail that we can get from the department in answer to some sort of expectation of costs. It is hard—based on the difference of capability, capacity, size and scope of eligible providers or aged-care providers—to give you a per provider figure.</para>
<para>I'm advised that in residential aged care the system works with providers reporting into the government system. That's why there isn't an expectation that there would be significant ICT costs for residential providers, because it's a reporting in program rather than them having to have a specific program. But, as I said, we would expect the taskforce to be responsive to concerns that are raised around this. If there is a further figure I can provide you that's of particular use for your information, we might need to come back to it. But I have sought that information.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Has the department, the minister or the government consulted with aged-care providers to get some sort of idea about the cost? Bearing in mind, and I take your point very clearly, that there is a huge range of different sizes and shapes and types of providers out there, I'm not expecting you to say, 'It's going to cost X for every provider.' Has the government consulted more broadly with providers to try to get an understanding of the scope of the quantum of the cost? I'm certainly not asking you to give me a cost per provider.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There has been extensive consultation between the IT side of the department of health and providers, and they are continuing. I think the phrase is 'tech talks'. There has been regular and ongoing consultation around this specific matter.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I can dig through the inquiry where there was an extensive number of submissions provided where people were really concerned about the cost of ICT changes to their organisation, particularly as every cent that's spent on ICT is not a cent being spent on frontline services. I'm keen to understand, on that basis, how we can have a situation where you've consulted widely with the sector—we know at least one that said $4 million and you've come back and said, 'Up to $10,000.' If you're doing consultation with the sector, or 'tech talks' as you refer to them, then how on earth is that consultation actually flowing through into the decisions of government reflecting those consultations if you're providing $10,000 to a limited number of providers and providers are saying up to $4 million is what it's going to cost them for ICT? There seems to be a disconnect between the consultation and the decisions of the government in response to that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In further response to this, all I can say is the government is consulting. We do want to assist the sector with this transition. The transition taskforce no doubt will be dealing with this if providers come forward with this as a significant concern.</para>
<para>We think the grant program that has been established will help and assist providers who are facing the most significant change with the Support at Home program. Obviously that work is going to be ongoing. Part of it is actually landing this reform bill today so that there is certainty about the system that is being introduced, or how the aged-care system is going to look from 1 July, and that will allow people to concentrate and focus on any additional costs.</para>
<para>I don't have a global figure for you, but I am advised that Services Australia has engaged with software vendors this month on Support at Home and some key software systems that will be updated are used by many providers if that's of any help.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand Senator Tyrrell has a few questions. I'm quite happy to cede to Senator Tyrrell.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Ruston. Both the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and Dementia Australia recommend that all aged-care workers should undertake ongoing training in dementia care. I understand the requirement for dementia training is part of the rules, but those rules are still in consultation. Can you guarantee in this bill that ongoing dementia training will be required for all aged-care workers in residential facilities and for all those who provide at-home support?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Tyrrell, and thanks for the heads-up. Yes, the government recognises the importance of ensuring that ongoing dementia training is required of all aged-care workers. We will not be taking that requirement out of the strengthened quality standards.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, older Australians living with dementia deserve a high level of care, and the workers who provide that care deserve investment in their professional development. I believe dementia care should be a mandatory unit at the Certificate III level. Will this government commit to setting a mandatory minimum level of dementia care for all aged-care workers in residential facilities and who provide at-home support?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Tyrrell for the question. The government does not currently mandate that personal-care workers hold a specific qualification type or level. The government does encourage all workers to undertake training to increase their skills, knowledge and confidence to provide safe, high-quality care to older Australians. There is funding available to support aged-care workers to obtain relevant qualifications, including the Certificate III in Individual Support, and aged-care providers are responsible for ensuring that they have a sufficiently skilled and qualified workforce through the quality standards. I can also confirm that government is preparing to commence consultation on the skills and training elements recommended for inclusion in the national worker registration scheme for personal-care workers that was recommended by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, the royal commission recommended that training protocols be designed for the sector. I'm wondering: have those training protocols been designed, and what progress has been made in terms of allowing the sector workforce to have access to those protocols?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm just getting you a more fulsome answer, but the quality standards will have ongoing and mandatory requirements around training for staff. The department and the safety commission are developing an integrated readiness plan to support the transition from changes arising under the Aged Care Bill. In terms of training, providers can expect resources and guidance materials specific to the changes. Workers will also be supported with tailored information and guidance, but there will be ongoing requirements, as I understand it, for ongoing training for workers. Our Fee-Free TAFE program will support more aged-care workers to obtain relevant qualifications, including the Certificate III in Individual Support, and those quality standards will further enhance and clarify provider responsibilities, including that workers are skilled and competent in their role, hold relevant qualifications and have relevant expertise and experience to provide quality care and services. The department will also be consulting on the English language proficiency and training requirement elements of the national worker registration scheme for personal-care workers by the end of the year.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>How many people have entered the aged-care workforce as a result of finishing the Fee-Free TAFE courses that you are referring to? Do you have a number?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will see if we can get that information from government. I do have a figure for across the NDIS and aged care. There have been 130,000 students take up the training in individual care, but that would not specifically be aged care; it would be across the NDIS and aged care. The other thing that has assisted with employment in aged care has been the increase in aged-care wages which have, as I understand from my discussions with providers, significantly reduced separation rates and attracted new staff to the sector.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Of that 130,000, how many have finished the course, and how many have taken up work after finishing the course? I understand it's NDIS and aged care combined, but I would be keen to know the rate of translation to people actually standing on the floor and helping to care for Australians?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't have the completion rates with me, but I'll see if we can provide them during the course of the day. I imagine some of those are currently undergoing training.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm not asking you to do this necessarily now, but I would be really interested to understand what the training programs are in relation to those people who are already working within the sector. You've given me some good examples of training outside of the sector, to enter the sector, but I'm keen to understand what the training programs are that relate to the recommendation of the royal commission on training protocols around people that are actually already working in aged care, to make sure that they are working in a manner that's consistent with the new?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Noted.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Following on, you've given a guarantee to the Senate that government is ready, in all aspects, for these reforms to be implemented on 1 July with sufficient lead time to enable the sector to be ready to start on 1 July. Does that certainty then flow on so that these changes have no impact on older Australians who are already receiving care?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to that is yes. Obviously, all of these changes are designed around supporting older Australians, both those who are currently receiving care and those who will be moving into the aged-care system. I acknowledge the work that you've done, Senator Ruston, and the work that's gone into the inquiry—which had a very significant number of public hearings considering the time available and did a lot of work, including on the recommendations and the additional comments that were provided to that—to make sure that older people are at the centre of this discussion. I think the whole nature of the reform, and I'm lecturing to the converted here, is about making sure that older Australians get the care they need. The focus of the readiness plan will be on making sure that everyone, including those who are receiving care, is prepared for the changes arising from the bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I appreciate very much that the purpose of this bill is to make sure that older Australians are getting the kind of care that they should. But I'm keen to understand the certainty which the government is prepared to provide to all older Australians who are currently receiving home care or any aged-care services so that they will not be impacted negatively by these changes in any way.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister is absolutely focused on that. I certainly know of all of the work that she has done in consulting and working across the sector, so I'm very comfortable giving that guarantee. Obviously there's a lot of work that needs to be done to make sure information's available so people understand what's new, what's changing and what's staying the same. Providers, as well, will need resources to make sure that they are able to provide information to older Australians using their services. There will obviously be a continued focus on this through the aged-care transition taskforce as well which—I know I'm going to keep saying this today probably—has its first meeting on Thursday. That's really been established to make sure that we're doing everything we can, and that the minister is advised very early, not just from the department but from representation on that taskforce. The taskforce picks up obviously members of the department and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. But when I look across there is the Older Persons Advocacy Network, Anglicare, the United Workers Union, the Council on the Ageing, UnitingCare Australia, the home implementation working group, a primary care expert and independent assurance. It really does pull in all of the stakeholders that will be required to provide independent advice to the minister about the transition and how it's proceeding. There is, in the words of the minister, 'stress testing' of how that implementation work is going, to make sure that, if there are issues, they are identified early and responded to quickly.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With the process that's being undertaken by the taskforce, will the taskforce be issuing statements after their meetings or be providing any broader updates that are publicly available in relation to their deliberations, concerns or recommendations to government?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm advised—and I don't want to get ahead of a group that hasn't met yet—that they have their first meeting next Thursday. My understanding is that what information is useful for the sector, for providers, will be determined by the transition taskforce. I would imagine that that would be one of the matters that they would deal with at their first meeting. Considering their role is transition and providing advice, you would expect information to flow from the transition taskforce.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just to be clear on that, you said that the decision in relation to what information would be publicly available will be determined by the taskforce. Can you clarify that that means that it will be the taskforce itself? The taskforce that was originally set up that reported to government on the viability of the sector was chaired by the minister. What is the minister's role in this new taskforce?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister is not a member of the transition taskforce. The taskforce will be co-chaired by the deputy secretary of ageing and aged care group and an independent representative. The co-chairs will lead the meetings and guide the work. The minister isn't a member of it. Senator Ruston, if you believe it's important that the aged care transition taskforce provides information to the sector, I'm very happy—and I'm sure members of it would be watching this debate—to make sure that the members of the transition taskforce consider that and determine a response. I don't want to tell them what to do, and I don't think the minister wants to tell them what to do, but I think the point you raise is valid. We are undergoing an extraordinary change to aged care. The transition taskforce is being established to troubleshoot, stress test and provide information, and I would imagine that there would be publication of what it's doing and of discussions. I think it's up to the transition taskforce to determine what format that is in, but I'm sure the department will be able to pass on a view from those participating in this debate about the need to share information and be upfront.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just to be clear, what I'm trying to understand is that the terms of reference and the powers of this particular taskforce will be such that it will be the body that determines what information is publicly available. There will not be any other process. I raise this because we saw, during the aged care taskforce, the members put under non-disclosure agreements as part of the deliberations of the taskforce, and we've seen an unusual use of NDAs happen on many, many other occasions. I certainly understand that when they're in commercially sensitive situations, an NDA is an appropriate thing to be used, but in the case of the deliberations of the aged-care taskforce it seemed like somebody was actually trying to make sure that the taskforce was gagged in terms of being able to speak about the things that it was deliberating on. I am keen to be assured, which you appear to be doing at the moment, that the transition taskforce will not be subject to a nondisclosure agreement in any way, shape or form, and it will be the taskforce itself that has power to make the determination as to what information is publicly available because it believes it's in the best interests of a successful transition to this new reform package. I note you said it will be co-chaired by the deputy chair of the Department of Health and Aged Care, so I am assuming that's Mr Lye. Who is the other co-chair, and what is the process in terms of determining what information will be publicly available?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The transition taskforce has quite a different job to the aged-care taskforce. The reason for nondisclosure there, Senator Ruston, as you would understand, was it was considering widescale reform of the aged-care system and so there needed to be put in place some element of confidentiality as people worked through some of what that looked like. They did, as I understand it, issue communiques out of that meeting.</para>
<para>The transition taskforce is a different arrangement, in which the reforms are settled—or they will be once we pass the bill—and will be working across the sector about issues that are arising as we work towards their implementation. There are no nondisclosure arrangements in place. It is a very collaborative arrangement. I leave it to the transition taskforce as to how they would like to update those interested about the work they're doing, but I would expect there to be some level of communication about issues that are arising and things like that. Again, I'm not the minister responsible and I don't want to tell the transition taskforce how to do their work before they've even met, but the fact that you've raised it indicates a level of interest in the work that it's going to be undertaking.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wasn't suggesting that I was asking you to tell the taskforce their role and responsibility, I was just wondering how they were going to be told what their roles and responsibilities were and how they reported. You also made a comment in the previous answer that providers will need to provide resources to older Australians to understand the transition and how aged care is going to be delivered into the future after the passage of this suite of reforms today. In addition to the $10,000 grants that are being made available for ICT to homecare providers, is there any other financial support that is being considered for providers not just in terms of ICT but also in terms of the other requirements for transitions like providing resources to older Australians, training for staff and, more generally, the costs that are associated with change?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Providers can expect resources and guidance materials specific to the changes, such as booklets—including those in different languages and translated versions—updated guides, practical scenarios, system training where required, and tool kits to support communication engagement with their workers. As I said in an earlier answer, workers will also be supported with information and guidance.</para>
<para>The commission has recently consulted on the draft guidance material, audit methodology, and worker-specific guidance for the strength and quality standards, and guidance targeted at older people is also under way to help older Australians understand the strength and quality standards. There is a lot of work going into providing all of the information and resources that providers and older Australians will need in order to adjust or to go through the changes that will be implemented through this reform.</para>
<para>The commission recently released a draft guidance tool, which is a digital platform to navigate the guidance material based on the provider's service type, and a series of fact sheets for each standard as well. The commission recently released a draft guidance tool, which is a digital platform to navigate the guidance for material based on the provider's service type, and a series of fact sheets for each standard as well.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Is there any financial support being offered? You have listed a whole range of materials, which are great. But during the hearing we heard from many providers that a day of training was going to cost potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars, particularly for some of the larger providers, and there will be a significant retraining program needed for all of our aged-care workers, no matter what level that they operate at, whether it be very senior and registered nurses, right the way through to our lifestyle care support workers. They will all need to go through retraining. We heard, as I said, during the inquiry that hundreds of thousands of dollars would be the cost of one day of training, because, obviously, if you are taking people off the floor, you have to replace them on the floor. Does the government have any idea of what the costs to the sector more broadly will be for retraining and making sure that our care workers are up to speed with these reforms?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Obviously, the funding that is allocated to the aged-care system is growing, so the investment in aged care, which is in the order of multiple billions of dollars, is provided. You would expect, whilst some of the aspects of training might change slightly to reflect the new standards in particular, providers would already have allocations for training of staff. So there may be some adjustment, but I think there is an acknowledgement that the public funding going into aged care is increasing, and part of that is making sure that they are explaining what they are doing to their workers and to older people using their service. As I said in my earlier answer, whilst there will be updating to that, the department is providing all the resources and guidance material to providers to help them with that job. I might just check that. In a sense, that is my answer. We're not providing specific grants for implementation outside of the ones we have already discussed but we are investing more into aged care in general and we are backing that up with the resources that providers will need to reflect the changes both to their workers and to their clients.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>To confirm, I am assuming you are not meaning that AN-ACC funding should be redirected to training costs?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have been given the figure of $39 billion going into the aged-care system in 2024-25. The point I was making was that there is already significant investment going in, and providers are already having to make sure that their staff are trained. I would expect that reflecting the updated changes, which, in a sense are new, it is an existing responsibility of providers to do that. But in addition to that, we are providing a whole range of supporting resources and materials to assist providers with that change and they would, of course, be provided at no cost to providers.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You mentioned the $39 billion and we all know the investment by respective governments into aged care has been really significant, obviously reflecting not only an ageing population but also a desire to make sure older Australians have the dignified care they deserve as they age, and I don't think anyone in this chamber would disagree with that. In the $39 billion figure you just quoted, my understanding is that the provision of that is largely in relation to the funding of AN-ACC and the funding of home-care places—obviously the Commonwealth Home Support program—and all the necessary programs that are business-as-usual activities of the funding flow between the federal government and aged-care providers in response to supporting the older Australians they care for. So could you tell me: of the $39 billion, how much is business-as-usual, demand-driven funding, and how much is actually allocated to programs outside of business-as-usual funding?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll see if there's anything further we can provide to you, Senator Ruston, but, essentially, the administration costs and on-costs for staff and things like that are factored into the price by IACPA—is that the correct short—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ruston</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>IHACPA.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>IHACPA. In home care, as you would know, there's a certain amount that's allowable to be used for providers in, for want of a better word, administration and other costs. But I'll see if there's some way we can split that out, if that's the question you're asking.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No, I don't need you to split that out at all. I won't ask you to do that. What I'm keen to understand is: of that $39 billion that you referred to in your response to my question about the costs of things other than ICT, what component is not business as usual but is actually reflecting support for the sector for the changes that are involved in this bill? Is any of that $39 billion actually one-off funding with respect to this activity?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>GALLAGHER (—) (): Okay, I've got you. Outside of the grants that we've already discussed, no, but it would include—and I don't know how we'd separate this out—some of the funding for making sure all the implementation and guidance material and all of that is ready and provided. That would be through the department's operating budget, which would probably be separate to that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would just like a simple response about how much the department is spending on the implementation of these changes—not on the changes themselves, because obviously they have a separate funding determination, as related to the rules in chapter 4. I'm just keen to understand what the cost of the implementation of this reform is and whether it's contained in that $39 billion or whether it's somewhere else. For example, the $1.2 billion for the ICT changes that would be required for this reform must sit somewhere. Does that sit in that $39 billion? So it's about the cost of this reform to government in total.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, I'll see if there's anything more we can provide. That $39 billion is the funding for the provision of care. As to the costs that the department perhaps incurs through its operating budget, I'll see if there is a way of separating that out. I'm not sure, because, again, it's existing budget that's being reprioritised to implementing this reform. But I'll see if there is some way that the Department of Health and Aged Care is accounting for this in a way that provides you with that info.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks. In the process of that, I would like to hear if there was any new appropriation that was specifically allocated against the implementation of this reform. Basically, in the same way as the $1.2 billion in relation to ICT, which is obviously a new appropriation in the last budget, have there been other new appropriations or redirecting of existing resources? I would like to have that information so that we can get an understanding of what the total cost of implementing this reform actually is.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We will see. There wasn't any separate appropriation for that in the budget, but I will see if there is any way that the department is accounting for this within its existing resources.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Minister. Does the minister or the department have any understanding of the broader awareness in the public domain about the changes that are coming in aged care?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think the first important thing to do is to have the bill passed, because then that would allow more accurate public information and targeted information about the changes, which is all being prepared but obviously can't be finalised until this bill passes. This is that has been talked about over the last couple of years. I imagine there's a level of awareness for people using the aged-care system that there are changes afoot, but I agree that there needs to be much more extensive information provided once the bill passes. So I think that's part of the job today—to make sure that we are in a position to finalise that information both for providers and for individuals who might use the service.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, is the government committing to a nationwide public education campaign so older Australians will be made aware of the changes?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There is some work being undertaken, Senator Ruston, to reflect the points that you have made. We understand that there needs to be widespread and accurate information provided to people through a range of formats. Some of that might be through a general public information campaign, but it's also going to be very essential that we provide targeted information about the reforms to people who are currently using services, to those who might be coming into the system and to their families and carers.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, you made the comment that you would provide information to those that are currently in the system. I was wondering if you could outline to me what the changes will be for those people that are currently in the system.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The information would be about the changes that we're talking about here through the bill. So those are the changes to the Aged Care Quality Standards, to what people can expect—to have a system based on the rights of the older person—and to the new regulatory model. All of that, I would imagine, would be part of an information challenge and an information task, including what it might mean for people going forward in the system, things like contribution rates and things like that—not for people in the system now. But that will be part of the challenge, and I imagine it would be an ongoing task.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>To be clear, is the government committing to do a nationwide information campaign should the bill pass?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes. The form that that will take has not been determined. I can tell you there hasn't been anything go through the formal process, like the independent campaigns committee or anything like that. That has not happened. It's waiting for this, and then there will be further consideration. But, yes, we understand the need to provide national information.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There seems to be an awful lot that is yet to be determined and an awful lot that is waiting on the passage of this bill. Back to my original question: assuming that we are able to pass this bill today or soon—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Gallagher</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sooner rather than later?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, I think we've just moved a motion in this place to make sure it does get passed one way or the other today. I'm keen to understand. Are you still absolutely convinced, given that you've said that you don't know what the grants program is going to look like—even though it seems to have bit of a rough definition around it—and you don't know what the communications program is going to look like, because we're waiting for the passage of this bill? I'm sure, if I asked questions on a number of other things, I would, once again, have a response that says, 'We're waiting for the passage of this bill.' I get that.</para>
<para>But, in the process of that, we still have a deadline of 1 July 2025 for this bill to be implemented. It seems to me that there's an awful lot that has to happen between the passage of this bill, which might happen today, and the implementation on 1 July 2025. You've given an ironclad guarantee that the government will be ready with sufficient time for the sector to be able to implement these changes so that older Australians are not negatively impacted in any way by these changes. You said that we're still waiting on just about all of the rules that are really fundamental in understanding what this reform is likely to look like for older Australians but, most particularly, in making sure that providers are in a position to implement the changes so that this is the most seamless and painless process for older Australians.</para>
<para>We all know that we want older Australians to have a rights based framework through which they receive their care, and we all agree about the importance of making sure that older Australians are receiving the dignified care that they deserve in their older years. Obviously, we have a very tight timeframe. We have a huge amount of information that isn't available to us yet. So I'm keen to understand whether the department has modelled what the level of risk of providers not being ready by 1 July to implement these changes is and what that risk looks like.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think the focus of the department has been on implementing or getting ready to implement the changes rather than spend resources and time looking at what happens if things don't get done. I think the emphasis has been on how to put in place the new reforms. Obviously, getting this bill finalised is a key part of that.</para>
<para>I know how hard the department and the commission have been working in preparation for this. I know, in the sector more broadly, how much effort has gone in over the last couple of years. I know how hard the minister has been working and indeed, Senator Ruston, how hard you yourself have been working on this. A huge amount of information is already out there, and there's information that's currently before the chamber. This bill formalises and finalises the new aged-care system. There is a lot of preparation, pending the Senate's agreement to this, that is being developed but, of course, can't be finalised until the bill passes the parliament.</para>
<para>I don't know that I entirely agree with your point that there are a lot of things we don't know yet. I agree there is a lot of information that's to be provided, but I think the bill really sets out exactly how the aged-care system is going to work and what people should expect. But, yes, following the passage of this bill, I expect it's going to be a very busy six months for the Department of Health and Aged Care and stakeholders as they work to implement these important reforms.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't ask flippantly about the risk associated with this, because it was quite clear throughout the entire inquiry, where witness after witness after witness came in and said they were concerned about the lack of detail. I think we got a sense of a genuine preparedness and desire by the sector to make sure that they are ready and that the people they care for or are going to care for into the future are not negatively impacted by their inability to be ready.</para>
<para>I draw attention to this particular issue on the basis that we talked about ICT. That is probably, in a sense, one of the more mechanical things: the more resources you throw at it, the better the chance that you're going to be able to achieve it or achieve the timelines. But we know that there's not a lot of money that's going to be made available to this sector, and we know that, in the last report from StewartBrown, half of Australia's residential aged-care providers, as an example, were still operating at a loss or weren't making a profit.</para>
<para>So this may only be a small burden, and a little bit later I'll be keen to prosecute what you know and what you understand in terms of the impact of these changes on the sector. But there are a number of other things that still remain outstanding that will have a significant impact, particularly on home-care providers, not the least of which is that we're still not expecting the final determinations on pricing for Support at Home until February. So I ask the minister: do we have a firm date for when we will be guaranteed to receive the final pricing determinations from IHACPA?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand the answer to that is February.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ruston</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The first or the 28th?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There will be information provided in December for IHACPA to consider, with a final determination in February.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Will the advice that will be provided in February be the final determination of IHACPA, or is there a process that needs to occur within government following the IHACPA determination in relation to final pricing?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No—I mean, other than the minister releasing the advice. The advice goes to the minister, and the minister then releases the advice.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are multiple questions here. Will the advice from IHACPA be released? Is that the determining advice? Does the minister have any capacity to make any changes on the IHACPA advice? Does that mean that it's guaranteed to be released in February?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As you know, Senator Ruston, it is an independent pricing authority. That is the reason for its existence—to do these matters independently. It provides advice to ministers, but there would be no expectation that there would be any delay in providing that information more broadly.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So the minister will receive the advice in February. I just need to clearly understand: what is the obligation following receipt of that advice for the minister to release that advice and to have it come into effect?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The advice I'm given is that the intention is that that advice would be out as soon as possible and that would be in February.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We'll hold the minister to that. I raise this because I am super concerned that the government and the department, particularly under quite extensive questioning and scrutiny over the last few weeks—whether it be through the inquiry or through the estimates process—have given us a bit of an impression that there's nothing to see here, everything's under control, it's all going to be fine and we need not worry about the transition arrangements that need to be put in place.</para>
<para>I don't think anybody in this place—I won't verbal you, Minister, but I think we all accept that this is a pretty significant piece of reform. It's absolutely necessary, and, as I said, we all support older Australians having their rights at the centre of the framework in terms of aged-care delivery going forward. That is something that I think we will all welcome very, very much when it occurs. But there remains a massive amount of concern out there in the public that we've been going along on this pathway to deliver this massive amount of reform without really having any clarity around what the transition might look like and what risks are associated with that transition.</para>
<para>I'll quote, word for word, some evidence that we received from Tom Symondson, the CEO of the peak aged-care providers body, when he gave evidence to the inquiry: 'The lack of detail on the rules is a very significant problem for us at the moment.' Since Mr Symondson made that comment, we have not really seen any more detail, and he made the comment that one of their main recommendations around the bill is sensible transition. What we are hearing today is that the department constantly says, 'Nothing to see here; everything will be fine,' and yet, when any questions are asked, the response seems to be, 'We can't do anything until the bill is passed.'</para>
<para>Your response, Minister, when I asked you about the level of risk, was that the department was not worrying about risk; it was worrying about getting the reforms implemented. Can I assume then that there's no contingency built in, in relation to what happens on day one if we find ourselves in a situation where there are some particularly unintended consequences of this largely-unconsulted-on piece of legislation?</para>
<para>I have to say: the inquiry was a fabulous process; it was, I think, one of the most worthwhile inquiries that I have ever been involved in, in order to give a say to everybody who wanted to have their say. We received over 200 submissions. We had some wonderful submissions from older Australians who were concerned about the changes.</para>
<para>One of those was from Hannah from Adelaide. She travelled all the way from Yankalilla, where she lives, to Port Lincoln to give live evidence at the inquiry because she felt so strongly about the arbitrary determination from the department as to caps on gardening and cleaning in home-care packages. We had heard, all the way through the evidence that we'd received, and through estimates as well, that these were determined because they had been estimated and there was some sort of consultative process around how these caps were determined. Hannah turned up and was absolutely fabulous and then, subsequently, she wasn't going to lie down; after turning up to the inquiry, she then prosecuted the issue through the media. She raised the very, very legitimate concern that the one-size-fits-all capping of things like gardening and cleaning is not necessarily going to be able to deliver the outcome we want for older Australians, and that is to keep them in their homes longer. We know that's what they want, but we also know that it's actually the most cost-effective way for taxpayers. Keeping people in their own homes not only keeps them happy, because that's where they want to be, but also is less expensive on the taxpayer in terms of the costs.</para>
<para>So Hannah raised the issue quite rightly. She lives in the Adelaide Hills, and those of you listening from South Australia know that the Adelaide Hills are unfortunately somewhat fire-prone in summer, so, for anybody with a property—not even necessarily a big property with a big garden—preparing for the bushfire season is going to take more than 1½ hours a month, even if they put all those 1½ hours into just one period of time to try and get ready for the bushfire season.</para>
<para>I just really wanted to give a shout-out, as much as anything, to Hannah, because she really, really did go the yards to make sure that we had the information, so that we could provide it to the government, so that they could see the fallacy that sat behind their determination on cleaning and gardening caps, because not everybody lives in the same sort of house; their family homes don't all look the same. Particularly when you get further out from metropolitan areas and go into regional, rural and remote areas, these challenges become quite a lot more exacerbated. So we were really pleased with the efforts of Hannah and others, but a particularly big shout-out to Hannah because she was prepared to go and speak to the media about this.</para>
<para>The caps on cleaning and gardening have now been lifted and people can use their home-care packages in a way that is going to deliver the outcome that they need to enable them to stay in their home. If that means, because of your particular condition, you may need more cleaning than the next person, or if you happen to be living, as Hannah does, in a bushfire-prone area, you will be able to use your package to make sure that your home is safe—and that's the most important thing here. We're not talking about an exhibition garden; we're talking about making sure that your property is safe and that sometimes 1½ hours of gardening a month won't achieve that. So I wanted to say thank you to Hannah. She was amazing—absolutely amazing.</para>
<para>To that end, I am interested in something. The decision has been made that cleaning and gardening will no longer be capped. Other issues were raised in relation to the service list for Support at Home. Two of them were the decision to contain things like showering in independent living as opposed to clinical care. I'm just wondering: on the basis of the evidence that we received during the inquiries around that particular issue, has any consideration been given to showering, as an example, or any other of the items that were contained in the prerelease service list being reclassified?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am advised that the service list was agreed to with the opposition as part of the discussions on this bill. You're right; there have been some changes around the issues that Hannah advocated for, and I love hearing stories about people getting involved in the democratic process. It's the reason we're all in these jobs, really—to work with community members to improve systems and laws. That change has been made, but the service list, I am advised, has been agreed to. So we've got the clinical supports category, where there are no contributions, the independence category, where there are some contributions, and everyday living services, where there are obviously some other contribution rates. This has really been at the crux of some of the discussions around chapter 4 of the bill, which is about how we build a system where there are some contributions, if people can afford to contribute, but also how we build a system that is sustainable going to the future.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>To be absolutely clear, as much as I'd like to think we were consulted at the kind of level of detail that you have just put on the record, Minister, we weren't. Our agreement is in relation to the categorisation of the service list. Particularly, I want to put on the record that we appreciated the fact that the government accepted our recommendation that no Australian would be asked to contribute more than half of their care contribution, but we were certainly not privy to the determination about what was on those service lists, which is why I'm asking about the showering. Can I take from what you've just said, Minister, that there have been no other changes to the categorisation of particular aspects of the service list, apart from the caps on cleaning and gardening?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The service list was released for consultation and feedback. Outside of the issues that you've raised, Senator Ruston, there have been no further changes to the service list.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Obviously, we're talking about Hannah's great advocacy on behalf of cleaning and gardening. But, in that consultation, I'm assuming that you would have also gotten the same sort of feedback that we got through the inquiry in relation to showering, as an example. I'll move onto other issues raised about the services in a minute. You responded to caps for cleaning and gardening. What was the rationale behind the decision to make those changes? Was it just Hannah's fabulous advocacy? Was the advocacy on behalf of those putting forward that showering, as an example, not be included in clinical care? Was their advocacy not strong enough? It certainly came through loud and clear in the inquiry that the inclusion of showering in the independence list was a raised as a great concern by many, many people who gave evidence.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand that it was a recommendation of the Aged Care Taskforce around that categorisation. In terms of the changes that we've made around cleaning and gardening, there was feedback. In addition to the feedback from the constituent that you raised, Hannah, there was feedback about more flexibility being desired in those areas, so we have responded to that feedback.</para>
<para>In relation to the showering issue, the advice that I have is that, if you are having two hours personal care or something in your home and showering were a component of that, it would be very difficult and complicated to pull that out as part of the overall care that you're being provided with.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm keen to unpack the service list. In terms of things like the pricing, first of all, we haven't seen the pricing yet, I assume. We will, hopefully, see the interim pricing in December. On transport, for example, is there a single price for transport? Is it a per-kilometre price? How, for example, do we determine how transport is built into somebody's package?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Transport is in the everyday living, if we talk about that in the service list. The specific pricing will be determined by IHACPA, so I can't give you any further detail on that.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ruston</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I wasn't asking—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry, Chair.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I just want your microphone on.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's alright. I should go slowly; it's going to be a long day. Minister, I wasn't asking you what the actual price was; I was just asking you if it is a single price, and then how that is determined. What have you asked IHACPA to price?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry. We're just in a little bit of a tricky spot because, obviously, of all the work that's underway. It's currently a single price, but obviously that matter will be determined by IHACPA. I can't really be any more definite than that, because there is obviously this process underway in December that finalises things in February, but it is currently a single price.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I do really need to put on the record my concern about it being a single price, as you can probably imagine. I come from a regional area, and I would like to call out that, if the government has sought for IHACPA to price transport on a single price, that would demonstrate, I think, a lack of understanding about the real challenges that are faced by people who live in rural, regional and remote Australia. I also would note that there is a big difference between regional Australia, rural Australia and remote Australia. So I put on the record that we would be absolutely horrified if the determination came back from IHACPA that there was a single price in relation to transport. If there is any further information that you can add in relation to the direction that was given to IHACPA in terms of how you would like transport to be priced, I would appreciate that. But, if there is not, I'll move on to my next question.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  Thanks to the very helpful group of individuals sitting to my left, I am advised that IHACPA would be looking at loadings to deal with some of the issues you raise, so that is currently being considered. Obviously, there's the additional funding in thin markets that's being provided to ensure that we are accommodating some of those pressures, particularly in regional and rural Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One of the other concerns that was raised throughout the hearing was around—obviously people don't know what pricing's going to come back with. What happens if the pricing is wrong?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's an interesting question. IHACPA has been doing this work, doing independent pricing, in hospitals and in residential care for a period of time. I'm not aware of their advice being wrong in the past, but essentially that's why it's advice from IHACPA. If the government were to consider that that advice was wrong, it's open to government to make other decisions. I don't believe that's happened to date, but that would be a safeguard that would be available should that need arise, if the government felt their advice was wrong.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I accept that IHACPA, before it became IHACPA, when it was the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority, had a great deal of maturity in its statistics that it was providing. I commend the independent pricing authority for what it has achieved, in terms of setting national efficient prices in the hospital setting, but it has been very recent that it has become IHACPA and included aged care in that determination. So we're talking about a reasonably immature data set here. The first lot of data that came from IHACPA, in terms of pricing, was only based on about four per cent of the market being tested in terms of developing that pricing. I'm interested to understand, in the current determination that IHACPA is undertaking, is there a requirement for a certain percentage of the market to actually be tested in determining those prices?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. My advice is that IHACPA obviously will be building up their capacity. They have released guidance or rules around seeking that information from providers so that all providers could provide their information. I'm not certain that there's a specific percentage that's required. But, yes, this will be built up over time. That's why we have independent experts, and they are consulting with the sector as well.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I move back to the service list? The first question is: could somebody give me a clear definition as to what is 'care management' and what is 'package management'?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Care management is around the individual and essentially what they're seeking from the care that's being provided, so it's all about them. Package management is, I think, the more administrative arrangements—invoicing and that kind of thing. It's what would probably classically be called administration costs.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In terms of care management, you said it's around the individual. What is it? Could you give me a broader example rather than just saying that it's around the individual. Give me a broader explanation of what's involved in care management. We've got a cap on care management now, so I am trying to understand what it is that we're capping here.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's really about how you work with the individual on what they want in their package. That's what care management is; it's the things the individual is seeking. I've just been through a similar process with my daughter at school. It's about how you set what supports are needed in order to deliver the outcome the individual is seeking; it's how you complete those kinds of discussions.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You said it's around what the person wants and around those sorts of discussions, so are we classifying care management so that it is only about discussions?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is that. Again, it's agreeing on what elements of care will support that individual. I'm also advised that in addition to that it's monitoring, helping an individual to change services, following up with people if needed and assisting if things go wrong.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Does the government see care management as a valuable proposition?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would think it's probably an essential proposition, yes.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm keen to understand the rationale that sat behind the decision by the government in this particular package to halve care management charges, particularly when one of the things that was raised during the inquiry—we heard it on numerous occasions—was that there's often a lot of criticism around care management not being as valued and as embedded into peoples' packages as would deliver the best care for an individual so that their care meets their circumstances, particularly the circumstances of the community that they live in. What was the process that was taken to determine that care management fees were to be cut in half?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It was a decision of government ultimately, but we'd obviously gone through quite a bit of assessment and consideration on this matter. The priority—and I think it's one that the opposition supports—is about making sure that every dollar spent in the aged-care system is maximised to the delivery of care. I'm not walking away from the fact it was a decision of government. I think the reforms outlined in the bill and the associated work that hangs alongside it are really about maximising every dollar into as much care provision as possible while allowing reasonable costs for those matters that you raise, like care management and package management. We believe we've got the balance right, but I don't think we apologise for trying to maximise that money going into the provision of care.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, I would 100 per cent agree with you that we do need to make sure that we maximise the benefit to the individual. The whole point of this reform is to make sure that the person who is receiving the care is at the centre of the decision-making and that it's their choice and their control about the care they receive. That's the only reason we are standing here today—that choice and control to individuals. So I don't think we're in disagreement about that.</para>
<para>You've said it's a decision of government, and I respect that. governments have the right to make decisions. But what I'm trying to understand is that, if we're putting choice and control back into the hands of the individual, there are some people who will probably have some quite complex needs around their care. You made the comment around monitoring changing services, following up on services and assisting when things are not necessarily going right. The question is: what was the average care management fee that was being charged to date?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think the maximum was 20 per cent; the average was 17 per cent. We're bringing that down to 10. I think the other important piece of information is that some of that was admin costs, which is now being built into pricing.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I get this clear: previously, the 20 per cent was care management and package management?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My answer was incorrect—or the nod of my head was incorrect. I have been corrected by the experts sitting next to me. I'm advised that up to around 35 per cent of a package could be used for both care planning and package management. Of a package of $78,000, up to $15,000 could have been used for essentially those costs—which is a lot from a package of that size.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My understanding is that it is currently 20 per cent for care management and 15 per cent for package management. That 35 per cent is not able to be moved: you can't do 25 per cent care management and 10 per cent package management. They are discrete caps.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>They were, and they are, but I understand it is quite difficult to fully understand that there weren't things coming in and out of those.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Given the fact that the average care management fee that was being charged was 17 per cent, and it has now been dropped to 10 per cent, could you respond to the concerns around how, if you've got an average of 17 per cent and you've dropped it to 10, there must have been some reason why the government took the advice for it to be dropped from 20 to 10 per cent, given that the average was 17?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think the government's decision really was about how to maximise the funding going to direct care, whilst balancing up reasonable costs for those other associated charges or costs for providers. I don't walk away from the fact that it's a government decision. I think the system that we are establishing here today will allow for efficiency in terms of those costs in packages and care, and this maximises the opportunities. I would say—I got this a fair bit, I'm sure the minister did, and I am sure you did as well—there was a lot of concern from older Australians about the money that wasn't lost but wasn't maximised for their own care provision. I had it raised with me a number of times about the package that was received and then the costs that were incurred for the administration of that package.</para>
<para>We have looked at this really carefully. The Department of Finance was involved, working with the Department of Health to try to land on a spot that we believe has reasonable costs but that maximises the investments going in for individuals in their care.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm interested to understand if the government, in halving the amount that could be charged for care management, believe that older Australians are not receiving the care management services that add the value and the quality of care that we all agree that care management is very important to provide. Do the government believe they were being overserviced or not receiving the service that they were supposed to be receiving? Halving care management—there must have been a reason care management was put in at 20 per cent in the first place, recognising the value proposition of managing somebody's package to such an extent that they really are getting the precision care that they need. What are the government saying in reducing it? As you rightly point out, Minister, we don't want to reduce the level of care that somebody is receiving, but we also are talking about this bill, which is about choice and control of individuals. We've established the fact that the government value care management in terms of making sure that we maximise the best and most effective care for the Australians who are receiving these packages. I'm keen to understand why the government made the decision to cut care management in half: what was the problem you were trying to solve?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Let me try to deal with this a bit more comprehensively than I have been able to do to date. One bit of important information is there is an extra supplement for people with individual needs—like First Nations individuals, care leavers, veterans and people who may be homeless. The work that I am advised the department has done on this is, rather than looking at it as a percentage or a set figure, in relation to what hours are needed to do that care-planning and package-planning properly.</para>
<para>If you look at the 10 per cent that allows for between one and six hours for someone who isn't getting that extra supplement per month in that planning, for the people who are getting the extra supplement in those other categories it equates to between two and seven hours per month. Providers' advice to government was that they needed between two and four hours. That's right in the middle. It means for someone on a very low-level plan, or with low-level needs, that that would be one hour, but if you have a person who requires a much higher level it that would be up to six hours a month in care-planning. Perhaps it is more useful to look at it in those terms, and in that way it fits within what providers are saying they needed, and maximises the care hours.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will make the point that the more arbitrary decisions are made, the less choice and control resides with the individual who is receiving the care. At the moment, how many people self-manage homecare packages?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Quick answer: we will provide that information for you, Senator Ruston, and get you an accurate figure. You want the numbers of people who self-manage their home-care package? Yes. We will come back to you on that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Previously, home-care providers were able to charge 15 per cent package management fees for back-of-house administration et cetera. I'm interested to understand how that is going to be treated going forward.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That will be determined by IHACPA as a supplement through the Support at Home program. That would set the maximum price, and then you would expect that the market will determine what the charges can be and whether there's a range that sit below that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In terms of determining the price of a service, how is IHACPA building the administrative cost into their pricing determinations? Previously you could charge up to 15 per cent for administration—if I'm correct—for package management currently. Could you outline the mechanism through which it is going to be contained within the price of the service? How is that working?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand that it is going to be contained in the price of the service and that there are consultations with providers underway now.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Even though we don't know the number of people who are self-managing—if you're self-managing, how does that then work for you? If you're buying a service and that particular service has to come from somebody who's registered to provide that service, that price has been determined in terms of its efficient pricing on the basis of the IHACPA determination. If IHACPA had built the cost of administration into the price of the service, we know from experience—as we saw with the pricing in the NDIS—that registered providers of services are obviously going to be providing those services at the prices that have been determined by IHACPA. How does that work for people who self-manage in terms of the charge that they will incur for a service when they're doing their own administration?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are still costs, essentially—even if you're self-managing your package—that are incurred. There's obviously the IHACPA price that will be set. I'm not sure if this answers your question specifically—I was trying to listen to some advice as well—but essentially providers will be able to be compensated for the cost of administrating the coordination of that care.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't know that that was the question I asked. Why don't I paint you a picture. Imagine there's a self-managed person who decides they want to get their lawns mown, their house cleaned or whatever and a person who has their package managed through a provider. On the basis of a uniform price for a service, which is determined by IHACPA, the self-managed person will pay the same price as the other person, but the person with a provider will be paying for the administrative costs. The first person will have to do their own administration because they're self-managing, and yet the price will be the same.</para>
<para>I'm trying to understand the fairness of incorporating package management costs into the price of a service. Does that not then put the person who is self-managing at a significant disadvantage? If it's at 15 per cent—which is currently what it is—in effect, we're saying that the person who's self-managed will be paying a 15 per cent higher cost for their service than the person on a provider managed package.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think I get where you're going, Senator Ruston. Your argument is that people who are self-managing their packages now and not paying those costs will incur some of that with the new arrangements. The advice to me is the department doesn't expect that to happen because the only way that would happen is if the provider starts adding that cost to what they were charging the care recipient, which is not what's happening now.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can you explain to me how this works if you're setting a single price?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The IHACPA price will be the price cap, not the price.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With the greatest amount of respect, we saw what happened with the NDIS when you set a price cap—everyone went straight to the price cap. I'd be keen to understand what the rationale is and why you think that wouldn't happen here.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The advice to me is that the aged-care market is much more mature than the market was in the NDIS.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have to put on record my great concern here. I have a very significant concern. This is no disrespect to IHACPA. They obviously have to cost by taking into account everything that is before them. If they're being asked to price in the cost of administration of a package under the conditions where somebody is having their package managed by a provider, of course, then that's what they're going to do.</para>
<para>But, for anybody who believes that history will do anything differently than what history has done forever, as soon as you give a single price, especially when you're talking about a single price, which is what we're doing—we are saying it is a maximum—history has always shown us that, if a provider of a service is able to charge a price because an independent government authority has set the price of it then there is an expectation that the person providing that service can charge that. We have seen that happen through the NDIS, and we've seen the subsequent challenges occur in terms of a market that has differential pricing depending on who you are.</para>
<para>I think it would've been well advised if the government had perhaps consulted more broadly around the way they've been treating care management caps and how they're treating package management fees. It seems to me here that people who are self-managing are likely to be impacted quite negatively by the change in the way that package management is administered within home care going forward. I'll be very keen, obviously, to see the nationally efficient prices that come out when we see the final determinations from IHACPA, but it is particularly concerning that we have made a decision in the full knowledge that history suggests that people will be charged more for a service than they need to be, simply because the market will move to that cap.</para>
<para>Before we move to the next session today, I want to ask about decision-making around the Commonwealth Home Support Program. We heard earlier this morning about $1.2 billion of IT changes from the government. The first question is: has the government factored in the ICT changes that will be needed to accommodate the likely 800,000 or more people that will be on Commonwealth Home Support Program packages in 2027, or will there be additional ICT changes required to facilitate the changeover from that program to Support at Home?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, with my Department of Finance hat on, I would expect that all of the ICT needs that are required to implement the system are included in that $1.2 billion.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister for Finance. Now, Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care, can you confirm that there will be no need for additional ICT changes to facilitate the transfer across of anybody from the Commonwealth Home Support Program in 2027?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The advice to government at the moment, certainly, is that the ICT investments of that money can accommodate the systems that are required to administer the new aged-care system. There are those grants that we talked about, which are a bit separate, but there are those in additional cost to that. I think this program is going to be tightly managed, including with assurance and all the rest of it, to make sure—these big ICT programs are inherently risky. I think all governments have experienced that with big IT spends. So it is going to be closely managed to make sure that it does the job it needs to do. But, certainly, the advice to government is that that was the funding that was required.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I can completely understand. ICT has a bit of a habit of doing this sort of stuff. I was more interested to understand whether, in the allocation of that $1.2 billion, there had been any consideration around CHSP or if it's the assumption that everybody is going to be on Support at Home so, when we get to 2027, CHSP will disappear off into the wilderness, anybody that was on CHSP will transition into Support at Home and there is no additional ICT requirement for Support at Home. It's just that those people are not necessarily coming across until 2027.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's included.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Right now, we've got 800,000 people on Commonwealth Home Support Program packages. I'm assuming that's a snapshot in time. Maybe there will be fewer by 2027 because some of these people might be coming into Support at Home et cetera. The minister, in her announcement in relation to the budget and this particular reform package, said that there would be 300,000 new home-care packages released over the next ten years. That would effectively be an additional 30,000 a year over ten years. Yet we've got 800,000 people currently, as we sit here, who are receiving aged-care supports through the Commonwealth Home Support Program. I'm interested to understand what the basis was behind the determination to release 300,000 packages over 10 years. I should say that's 30,000 packages a year. We've currently got—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! It being 11.15 am, the committee will report to the Senate.</para>
<para>Progress reported.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>23</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>23</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>URQUHART (—) (): At the request of the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, Senator O'Neill, I give notice of the committee's intention to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 for six sitting days after today proposing the disallowance of the Therapeutic Goods (Vaping Goods—Position and Supply) Determination 2024 and business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for eight sitting days after today proposing the disallowance of the Therapeutic Goods (Vaping Goods—Possession and Supply) Amendment Determination 2024.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.</para></quote>
<para>I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for the bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">The statement read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTROD U CTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2024 SPRING SITTINGS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">ELECTORAL LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (ELECTORAL REFORM) BILL</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Purpose of the Bill</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The objective of the proposed amendments to the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 </inline>and the <inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 </inline>is to support the integrity and transparency of Australia's electoral processes by:</para></quote>
<list>lowering the disclosure threshold for political donations to $1,000;</list>
<list>requiring timely disclosure of political donations and electoral expenditure;</list>
<list>introduction of a new concept of nominated entity;</list>
<list>introducing 'caps' on political donations and electoral expenditure;</list>
<list>administering frameworks on a calendar year cycle;</list>
<list>enhancing public funding to registered political parties and candidates;</list>
<list>expanding federal account requirements;</list>
<list>modernising and streamlining electoral operations;</list>
<list>removing Senate group disclosure obligations, requiring Senate groups to disclose gifts as 'candidates'; and</list>
<list>savings provisions and streamlining of declaration votes.</list>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for Urgency</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill is urgent as passage will be needed during the 2024 Spring sitting period in order to retain the option for relevant legislative changes to take effect and be implemented by the Australian Electoral Commission before the next election which must be held no later than 17 May 2025.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>23</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>24</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection of Bills Committee</title>
          <page.no>24</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>24</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the 13th report of 2024 of the Selection of Bills Committee, and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Selection of Bills Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">REPORT NO. 13 OF 2024</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Jacqui Lambie (Jacqui Lambie Network Whip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Ralph Babet</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Maria Kovacic</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Matt O'Sullivan</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Fatima Payman</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator David Pocock</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Gerard Rennick</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Lidia Thorpe</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Tammy Tyrrell</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator David Van</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 20 November 2024 at 7.14 pm.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The committee recommends that—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the <inline font-style="italic">provisions </inline>of the Free TAFE Bill 2024 be <inline font-style="italic">referred immediately </inline>to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 February 2025 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the <inline font-style="italic">provisions </inline>of the National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024 be <inline font-style="italic">referred immediately </inline>to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 6 February 2025 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the <inline font-style="italic">provisions </inline>of the Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024 be <inline font-style="italic">referred immediately </inline>to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 January 2025 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the <inline font-style="italic">provisions </inline>of the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024 be <inline font-style="italic">referred immediately </inline>to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 January 2025 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the <inline font-style="italic">provisions </inline>of the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024 be <inline font-style="italic">referred immediately </inline>to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 January 2025 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3. The committee recommends that the following bills <inline font-style="italic">not </inline>be referred to committees:</para></quote>
<list>Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024</list>
<list>Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024</list>
<list>Customs Amendment (ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Second Protocol Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024</list>
<list>Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals and Other Measures) Bill 2024</list>
<list>Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024 (No. 2)</list>
<list>Health Insurance (Pathology) (Fees) (Repeal) Bill 2024</list>
<list>Help to Buy Bill 2023 [No. 2]</list>
<quote><para class="block">Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 [No. 2]</para></quote>
<list>Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Amendment Bill 2024</list>
<list>National Organic Standard Bill 2024</list>
<list>Navigation Amendment Bill 2024.</list>
<quote><para class="block">4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:</para></quote>
<list>Australian Capital Territory Dangerous Drugs Bill 2023</list>
<list>Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023</list>
<list>Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024 (No. 2)</list>
<list>Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Energy Regulator Separation) Bill 2024</list>
<list>Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023</list>
<list>Criminal Code Amendment (Inciting Illegal Disruptive Activities) Bill 2023</list>
<list>Digital ID Repeal Bill 2024</list>
<list>Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024</list>
<quote><para class="block">Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Communications) Bill 2024</para></quote>
<list>Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair Territory Representation) Bill 2024</list>
<list>Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023 [No. 2]</list>
<list>Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Protecting Environmental Heritage) Bill 2024</list>
<list>Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020</list>
<list>Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024</list>
<list>Freeze on Rent and Rate Increases Bill 2023</list>
<list>Health Legislation Amendment (Modernising My Health Record—Sharing by Default) Bill 2024</list>
<list>Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ban Gambling Ads) Bill 2024</list>
<list>Treasury Laws Amendment (Extending the FBT Exemption for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles) Bill 2024.</list>
<quote><para class="block">5. The committee considered the following bill but was unable to reach agreement:</para></quote>
<list>Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024.</list>
<quote><para class="block">(Anne Urquhart)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Chair</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">21 November 2024</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appendix 1</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Proposal to refer a bill to a committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Name of bill:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Free TAFE Bill 2024</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To allow the Committee to scrutinise this legislation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible submissions or evidence from:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Interested parties and stakeholders.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Committee to which bill is to be referred:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Education and Employment Legislation Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible hearing date(s):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">January 2025</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible reporting date:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">27 February 2025</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(s igned )</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Wendy Askew</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appendix 2</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Proposal to refer a bill to a committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Name of bill:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To allow the Committee to scrutinise this legislation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible submissions or evidence from:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Interested parties and stakeholders.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Committee to which bill is to be referred:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Environment and Communications Legislation Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible hearing date(s):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">January 2025</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible reporting date:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">27 February 2025</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(signed)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Wendy Askew</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appendix 3</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Proposal to refer a bill to a committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Name of bill:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To allow the Committee to scrutinise this legislation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible submissions or evidence from:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Interested parties and stakeholders.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Committee to which bill is to be referred:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible hearing date(s):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">January 2025</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible reporting date:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">30 January 2025</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(signed)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Wendy Askew</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appendix 4</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Proposal to refer a bill to a committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Name of bill:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To allow the Committee to scrutinise this legislation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible submissions or evidence from:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Interested parties and stakeholders.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Committee to which bill is to be referred:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Economics Legislation Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible hearing date(s):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">January 2025</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible reporting date:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">17 February 2025</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(signed)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Wendy Askew</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Proposal to refer a bill to a committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Name of bill:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To examine the Bill in more detail and hear from stakeholders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible submissions or evidence from:</para></quote>
<list>CHOICE</list>
<list>CALC</list>
<list>ACCAN</list>
<list>The Australian Communications Consumer Action Network</list>
<list>Financial Rights Legal Centre</list>
<list>Super Consumers Australia</list>
<list>Financial Counselling Australia</list>
<list>WEstjustice</list>
<list>Consumer Credit Legal Service WA</list>
<list>Consumer Policy Research Centre</list>
<list>AFCA</list>
<list>ACCC</list>
<list>Treasury</list>
<list>COBA</list>
<list>DIGI</list>
<list>Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman</list>
<list>Telstra</list>
<list>Optus</list>
<list>TPG Telecom</list>
<list>ANZ</list>
<list>CommBank</list>
<list>NAB</list>
<list>Westpac</list>
<quote><para class="block">Committee to which bill is to be referred:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Economics Legislation Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible hearing date(s):</para></quote>
<list>13, 16 or 17 December 2024</list>
<quote><para class="block">Possible reporting date:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">23 January, 2025</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(signed)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Nick McKim</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appendix 5</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Proposal to refer a bill to a committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Name of bill:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To allow the Committee to scrutinise this legislation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible submissions or evidence from:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Interested parties and stakeholders.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Committee to which bill is to be referred:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible hearing date(s):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">January 2025</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible reporting date:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">30 January 2025</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(signed)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Wendy Askew</para></quote>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the report be adopted.</para></quote>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add: ", and the provisions of the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 November 2024".</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to move an amendment to the minister's amendment:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "26 November 2024", substitute "3 February 2025".</para></quote>
<para>Just so folks are clear, we've circulated a sheet in my name with two amendments. I'm just moving (a) at the moment, which is in respect of the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024. To anticipate the next matter, I believe my colleague Senator Hanson-Young would like to make a contribution on this amendment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The stitch-up is in, isn't it? The two big parties are desperate for distraction and desperate to get something done in this space so quickly before anybody looks at the detail and before they've worked out they've got no answers to the real questions. They want to smash through before Christmas this bill that kicks young people off the internet. They want to smash it through the parliament with a fake inquiry of only five days. What a joke. Have the courage of your convictions to put forward legislation and have it scrutinised properly.</para>
<para>Why are they smashing this through so quickly? Why do they not want anyone to look at the details and to ask the hard questions? Their very own joint social media inquiry report, handed down only on Monday this week, didn't recommend this as a measure. In fact it was the exact opposite. All of the experts have said that, if you want to protect young people online, you have to make these platforms safer, you have to regulate them properly, you have to put in place guardrails and you have to work with parents to make sure their needs and their children's needs are being met. But you are desperate to get a distraction, because nothing else is getting through this parliament this fortnight. Your mis- and disinformation bill is a bloody bin fire. That's what's going on. This is a distraction because you haven't even been able to run the argument on your own response to mis- and disinformation, so you ram this through as a big distraction.</para>
<para>It's not very often, I must say, that I agree with Senator Canavan, but on this particular issue, on social media, I agree that this should not be rammed through. This should not be put through, on such a complex issue, without proper review and proper scrutiny. But, of course, we know what's going on here: the government's desperate for a distraction because of the mis- and disinformation bill bin fire, and the opposition are split on the issue of social media, so Mr Dutton wants this done as quickly as possible, before anyone realises that he can't keep his own team in the tent. That is what is going on here.</para>
<para>We're about to see it all over again on the next bill, which is, of course, the electoral reform legislation, another stitch-up. When the two big parties decide to get together and ram stuff through in this place, you know they are failing the public debate. They are always failing the public debate when they want to ram stuff through with no real inquiry, no review and no scrutiny, because they have no bloody answers. It's a disgrace.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson-Young, please. Have you finished your remarks?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to make a short statement, if I can, on this as well.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're free to speak for five minutes, Senator Lambie.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. I am terribly worried about this, as much as we all have good intentions. I haven't even seen a draft. How am I supposed to, over a weekend, get expert advice on this when you've given it five days?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hanson-Young</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It was tabled an hour ago.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Oh, it's been tabled? Thank you. It must be so good! One could have been dropped off at my office, but they didn't even do that.</para>
<para>There is a real issue here. As Senator Hanson-Young said: this is going to happen before Christmas, seriously? You've had 2½ years. We've known social media has been a big problem for a long time, and you really want to move this through this quickly? I really need to have expert advice on this over the weekend and a little bit further, because, quite frankly, how do you expect people to respond in five days? This bill no doubt could be made better if we had more time to get it right.</para>
<para>What I don't want to do here is make you two look like this is all about helping those under 16 so we can do something about the abuse that's going on online and young kids stop taking their own lives, when the bill isn't done properly. How is this supposed to be effective in helping those kids under 16? How? You can't be serious. Honestly, I would rather take a few more months and get this right and make sure this bill is correct and actually works.</para>
<para>Let's be honest here: you're throwing it back on the mums and dads. What about these social media people? What about these platforms? What part are they playing in this? What are they doing? Are you a bit too scared to take them on because they'll go at you in an election? There is a lack of courage in this place once again—for the sake of our kids.</para>
<para>By the way, if you think one move is going to fix this, you are delusional. It's called social intelligence, and, until you start teaching it to the next generation so they learn and have the courage to say no and know what the right thing to do in life is, it's really not going to change. You want to hit one thing, but you don't want to put in other bits and pieces. How about we look at the social intelligence and running it through the curriculum for kids that are five or six years of age? How about you do that? How about you look at these boot camps? You don't even want to speak about that because—goodness me!—you might get a little bit of slap-back before an election. Once again, you don't have the courage to say, 'Your kids can go and do a boot camp for 10 days, and we'll get them off these damned screens.' That's how it works. If you think one move is going to work, you are absolutely delusional.</para>
<para>Go and see what the Scandinavian countries are doing. We are building more detention centres and putting our kids in them. They are failing miserably—the kids are becoming better criminals. It is failing! You have to start with the next generation, and you are not doing that. So what other moves are you going to make alongside this? What courage do both you major parties have to actually make a difference to the new generation of kids coming through, to make them more resilient, to make them able to have the courage to say, 'No, we're not going to be a part of this,' to say no to drugs and alcohol and screen time? This just won't work. Leaving it in the parents' hands, without taking those social media companies by the throat, is never going to work. And five days? God almighty! What a joke this is in here today! What an absolute joke!</para>
<para>How about we just get one thing right in here, and we do it at 110 per cent so it actually works? Why can't you do that? Oh, no; you want to have this big headline, 'We've done this for your under-16 kids.' I tell you what, Australians: it's probably not going to work, because, when they run things like this through, you can guarantee it's got gaps bigger than your front teeth. It won't work. You've got to put other things in place alongside this. So what exactly are you doing to put those things in place? And what are they? This won't work alone. It just won't.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, isn't this a wonderful day! The Greens are normally helping the government to truncate debate, to guillotine debate. Now they're talking about adding more time for debating—and we agree with them this time, because we agree with debate. Debate is the way to truth. We agree with their amendment and we will be supporting their amendment.</para>
<para>This is a vital bill, an absolutely crucial bill. It has serious consequences, and not just for people under 16 years of age. It has serious consequences for the Australian family and who has responsibility for children in this country. Is it the government, or is it going to remain the parents? Parents have already had their responsibility, their authority, whittled away at state and federal level. We need to enshrine responsibility for children with parents. That's critical. It's fundamental. This bill has important social and family consequences, and we've been given one hour!</para>
<para>This is a stitch-up between the Labor-Liberal uniparty, yet again. Digital identity; identity verification bill; misinformation/disinformation bill; working on digital currency; children under 16 banned from the internet—these are all working together to capture everyone in this country; we've said it for the last four years. We were the first cab off the rank with regard to the Morrison government's misinformation/disinformation bill and the same with the digital identity bill. Oh, sorry; they called it the Trusted Digital Identity Bill! It's a stitch-up.</para>
<para>We need scrutiny, and we will be supporting the Greens on this. Let me tell you why I'm saying this. Parents must be the ones supervising their children in their own home. It is a parent's responsibility, a parent's duty, a parent's right, and you are affecting those things—parental responsibilities, duties and rights. You're undermining parents.</para>
<para>Age verification software and facial recognition must be used in every device, whether it be a phone or a computer. Why do we know that? Because this banning of children under 16 years of age has failed in every country, because the bureaucrats can't control it. So, as to what you've set up with your bills, one of the earliest in this parliament from the Labor Party government was identity verification software. We will need the cameras on all the time. What we should be doing, instead of sidelining parents, is making device management easier. Apple, Microsoft and Android could make parental locks easier and more powerful.</para>
<para>I want to acknowledge Senator Rennick's comment a couple of days ago when he said that you can already get apps—some free, some for a price—that enable parents to control the apps that are downloaded onto a child's phone. They're already there. We don't need this bill at all. We notice that opposition leader Peter Dutton has joined in supporting the need for this bill, but there's no need for it.</para>
<para>As I said, no country has made age limits work because bureaucrats cannot see us using the device. That's what you need and that's what this bill gives you with your preceding bills. We see Mr Littleproud speaking on Sky News in support of this and a huge backlash—devastating comments against Mr Littleproud. If the bill goes through, parents allowing children to watch cartoons on YouTube will be breaking the law. It will need facial recognition and monitoring of key strokes for content to police this. Hackers and burglars will be in paradise. They will be able to come in and watch your activities in the house through your camera 24 hours a day and find out when you are going to be out of the house. Parents watching a cooking video with their child on their lap will be locked out because the child is under 16. Children will be forced into the dark corners of the web—peer-to-peer messaging—with no protections against illegal material, hate, phishing, sextortion and hacking.</para>
<para>We have already seen these bills being introduced in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and other countries simultaneously. This goes beyond the uniparty in this country; it goes globally. We have seen in the United Kingdom police raiding journalists and commentators who have been criticising the Starmer government and jailed. That is where this is heading. We have seen the digital ID, misinformation and disinformation bill, identity verification started and introduced by the LNP—the Liberal-Nationals. Stop working as the uniparty for globalists and start working for our country. We will support the referral.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The great English-Irish philosopher Edmund Burke warned about the tyranny of the majority. We see that today with the major parties using their numbers to abuse due process. The whole point of democracy is transparency and accountability. If we run this inquiry in the next five days—throughout sitting days, I might add, when, I dare say, there will be a lot of other bills coming up—there will not be enough time to scrutinise these two very important bills.</para>
<para>One is to do with keeping children off the internet. As I have pointed out before, there are already apps out there in the market whereby you can actually monitor your children and the apps they are using and you can keep them off those apps if you want to block them. So why on earth are the Liberal Party, who are always talking about small government and using the free market, turning their backs on their own ideals—and not for the first time, I might add? They are very good at talking out of both sides of their mouths, the Liberal Party, when it comes to their so-called beliefs in empowering the individual. Why on earth they want to shut this down is indicative of their inability to stand up for their own values.</para>
<para>The second thing we need to look at is this electoral legislation amendment. Yet again, we were warned by the people that were founding fathers of democracy and enlightenment in the 17th and 18th century that the whole point of democracy was to empower the individual. Yet what we see here are the two major parties again seeking to use their numbers to shut down transparency on what they intend to do with amendments to the Electoral Act. This is not something that should be played with because democracy and making sure we have a rigorous democratic process are at the heart of trust in this country. Let me tell you, the public have never had a great deal of trust for politicians but they are fed up to the back teeth with the entire process, the entire establishment, not just politicians but the health system, the military. We get the stories of abuse within the military, and when you try and raise it through Veterans' Affairs, they just circle the wagons, protecting their own, rather than protecting those people who have been abused by their colleagues or by the government.</para>
<para>I support this motion. All it is doing is asking to push out the date of the closure of the inquiry from next week, which is completely unrealistic given we are in sitting week anyway, to the second week of February next year, which will give us a couple of months over the Christmas break to have a greater look at these two very important acts. I would ask that the major parties do the right thing by the people of Australia, do the right thing by democracy itself and make sure we can shine a light on this legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want the people listening to this, including those in the gallery, to understand that it is a blow to our democracy and the use of this parliament for all of us to look at this legislation which is going to be proposed and the impact it's going to have. For us to only just have received a draft of this in the last hour—and I haven't seen it—is uncommon for this parliament. We are rushing bills through and guillotining. There's no debate. There's nothing happening. And this is a real shame.</para>
<para>We're talking about the youth of this nation. We're going to shut them out from any internet or activity on social media whatsoever, because you want to be the nanny state. You want to take the control parents have over their children. Okay—there are things they're watching on the internet and social media. And you talk about bullying. Until you can actually deal with bullying in classrooms, what gives you the right to control what they watch on the internet, Facebook or these other social media outlets? You can't even control the classrooms, but you want to control what they watch.</para>
<para>I've pushed in this place four times to have a Senate inquiry into gender dysphoria, puberty blockers and hormone treatments for our children. Parents came here crying because of what it's done to their children. I wanted a Senate inquiry into that. You all voted against it initially. There were only three of us that voted for it. Last time, the coalition woke up themselves, but the Greens, the Labor Party and some of the crossbench still oppose it. You wouldn't even have an investigation into that. If you really care about the children, why don't you have a Senate inquiry into that? You're more worried about shutting them down. Why? It's because you want to control what they see, and that is why the misinformation and disinformation bill is all about control. Digital ID is about control. You only want them to see what you want them to see. You take control out of the parents' hands. Parents should be the ones to decide.</para>
<para>Not only that—what about the kids who benefit from social media, which I believe is possibly the majority? You want to take away from them what they can actually access. What about all the good things that they could be watching? You want to take that away from them. This is not a nanny state. This is not communist bloody China. This is Australia. This is what you're doing. You're shutting down parents' rights over their children constantly, day in and day out, and that has to stop. We are going to support this inquiry to take it up to February next year.</para>
<para>What I'm saying here also is that it is indicative of the politicians, both Labor and the coalition, going to your meetings and outside to the public, telling the people one thing and then acting totally different on the floor of parliament. The majority of Australians don't know what happens in this place. They don't know how you vote, what you vote for and or what you stand for. Half the time, I don't even know what the hell you stand for. I don't believe it's in the best interests of this country or the Australian people.</para>
<para>Stop pushing legislation and everything through this parliament just because we're coming to the end of this sitting term. Don't do this to the Australian people. Give them right to have their say. The Albanese government said, 'We're going to be open, honest and accountable,' but accountability is one thing that I have never seen in this parliament. It is just ridiculous. I hope that people understand that. You're the worst government I've ever seen. Stop taking control of the people and telling them how they should run their lives. Governments were set up for three things: the economic stability of the country, the rule of law and the Constitution. Let's adhere to the Constitution. Get out of telling people how to run their lives and their businesses.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Surely the house of review should be voting in support of actually reviewing legislation. Yet what we've seen from the major parties is that, when there's something in it for them when it comes to electoral reform, they're happy to ram it through. There's no need for any scrutiny. When it comes to something that they want to take to an election and say, 'We delivered this,' they don't care about whether it's actually going to work, they don't care about what the experts are actually saying about this policy. They don't want to hear about it. They're very happy to team up when it suits them. And that's no surprise because we have seen, in the past three days, a number of experts raising concerns about this electoral reform and this charade of creating a level playing field. It is really about entrenching the duopoly. It's more money for the parties come election time; it's 'a level playing field' with loophole after loophole after loophole.</para>
<para>In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis we have the government bringing forward electoral reform, which doesn't come into effect until 2028, ahead of things like a mandatory food and grocery code. That's disgraceful. Tell that to the millions of Australians who turn up to the checkouts at Coles and Woolworths and look at how much it's costing them. And is it any surprise that the Coles and Woolworths of Australian politics don't want to deal with that? What they want to do is ram through electoral reform that is actually about an extra $20 million for their coffers every election. They'll get an extra $30,000 per MP per year for administration costs, and yet this place is very happy to put extra reporting duties on Australians, on small businesses. I don't see a $30,000 taxpayer handout to deal with the added requirements, so why is that the case when it comes to the parties?</para>
<para>At the same time, truth in political advertising legislation can wait. 'We'll introduce it, but it's not a priority.' This is a total stitch-up between the major parties. The fact is these things need scrutiny. When it comes to electoral reform, for more than 400 pages JSCEM talked in broad detail about the kinds of things the government should do. It went into no detail about the level of caps, how that would work, and we're already seeing experts raise concerns.</para>
<para>When it comes to social media and age-gating, people are rightly concerned about the impact of social media—what it means for young peoples' health and wellbeing, what it means for their childhoods—where you have the highly addictive product of smartphones run by companies that don't seem to give a stuff about what they're doing to the mental health of young people. And so rather than dealing with this huge problem in society, we have the government cooking up a silver bullet that experts have told me this week has been tried in 10 countries and has failed in 10 countries. The government is taking a one-off approach and they say, 'Right, no-one under 16 on social media.' That has to be part of a much broader suite of reforms, of actually putting the onus on social media companies to clean up their act, to make their product less addictive, to make it safer for people, to show us what the algorithms are actually doing. And, surely, have them start paying some actual tax here in Australia. Stop these social media companies shifting their advertising revenues overseas, taking a billion dollars worth of Australian ads and saying, 'We'll shift that off to our parent company.'</para>
<para>Why are you willing to do this but not actually do the hard thing of looking at the broader system? And while you're at it, let's invest more in the areas that we want people to be spending time at. Community sport is underfunded in this country. We jump up and down about the Matildas, but I still haven't seen more investment in women's sport.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's not every day that I agree with Senator Hanson, but I must say that on this she's absolutely right. What are we doing to the generation that is so in tune and engaged with what's happening in politics? We come into this place, we take pride in ourselves through the Raise Our Voices program and we read speeches of young people in our electorates to make it seem like we care. But we've clearly seen that all the Labor and Liberal duopoly care about is a vote-buying exercise, a bandaid solution, to a more serious problem at hand. The intentions may be to protect our children, but the way we're going about it with the lack of scrutiny, the lack of consultation and the lack of proper research to allow us to really understand what is going into this bill are something that everyone—all the mums and dads out there—will scrutinise this government for.</para>
<para>We can see that this bill is a blunt attempt to cover up. Instead of addressing the root causes of a problem—instead of addressing the lack of mental health services out there for young people—it's a way to shut them down. Because they're not voting, why would their voices matter? They're not going to engage in our political system, so it's best to keep them in the dark! We're forgetting that this is the future generation that's going to be filling the space up—at least, we'd hope that they do, unless there's a way for the major parties duopoly to silence them as well. Where is the democracy, or is that just confetti we like to throw around when it suits us? It's outrageous that we don't get the time to scrutinise it. We don't get enough staff to read through these bills, and then we're expected to make decisions—or the government and the coalition make deals and just ram it through.</para>
<para>So much for transparency; so much for accountability! Then we wonder why we're not progressing. Isn't the Labor Party supposed to be a progressive party that actually gets things done and does the job? Or are you just here to say: 'At least we're not the coalition. They were in government for 10 years and didn't do anything'? Show us that you're doing something with accountability and allowing the crossbench to scrutinise what's before us, not just a short five-day-long inquiry into something that is going to have ramifications and impact the way our young people connect and the way they engage with technology. You can't blind them and keep them in a so-called safe place and not give them the tools necessary to engage with technological advancements.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time for this debate has expired. The question is that Senator McKim's amendment to the government's amendment, providing that, in relation to the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, the committee report by 12 February 2025, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [11:52]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>18</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Van, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>22</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the amendment moved by the minister be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As flagged, we have another amendment, in relation to the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 and associated bills. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"but, in respect of the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 and Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Communications) Bill 2024, the provisions of the bills be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 3 February 2025".</para></quote>
<para>I'm aware that my colleague Senator Waters wants to make an observation in regard to that, if that is possible.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>She can't, the time has expired. The question is that paragraph (b) of the amendment which was circulated earlier by Senator McKim be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [11:56]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>17</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>22</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>DAVID POCOCK () (): I move paragraph (c) of my amendment:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"(c) the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 November 2024".</para></quote>
<para>I move this amendment to give us an extra couple of days to have a look at the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I do draw your attention to the Greens' motion which was similar and has just been defeated, but if you want it put, I will put it. The question is that paragraph (c) of the amendment moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [11:59]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>17</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>22</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move paragraphs (a) and (b) as circulated, to try give the crossbench a bit more time on these bills:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"but, in respect of</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 3 March 2025; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the provisions of the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024, the Economics Legislation Committee report by 3 February 2025."</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the Senate is that paragraphs (a) and (b) of the amendment moved by Senator Pocock be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [12:03]<br />(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>17</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>23</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.<br />Original question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>36</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That general business notice of motion no. 689 be considered during general business today.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>36</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Postponement</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If there is no objection, the business is postponed.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>36</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Reporting Date</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>36</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Leave of Absence</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CADELL</name>
    <name.id>300134</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That leave of absence be granted to Senator Brockman for 21 November to 28 November 2024 for personal reasons.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Leave of Absence</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for personal reasons:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Senator Allman-Payne from 18 November to 21 November 2024; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Senator Hanson-Young for 20 November 2024.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>36</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Procedure Committee</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>36</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I, and also on behalf of Senators David Pocock, Van, Babet, Thorpe and Rennick, move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following matter be referred to the Procedure Committee for inquiry and report by 13 February 2025:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amending standing order 72(4) to ensure the allocation of opportunities to move to take note of answers is fair and proportionate to the representation of each party and independent senator.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>37</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Postponement</title>
          <page.no>37</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to postpone business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3, standing in my name for today, until the next sitting day.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>37</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Appropriations, Staffing and Security Committee</title>
          <page.no>37</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>37</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I, and also on behalf of Senators Thorpe, David Pocock, Waters and Payman, move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Appropriations, Staffing and Security for inquiry and report by 28 February 2025:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The resourcing and staffing of the Clerk Assistant (Procedure) Office and the Parliamentary Library to support non-government senators to prepare amendments and private senators' bills as well as provide advice and other relevant information.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS</title>
        <page.no>37</page.no>
        <type>REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Insurance (Extended Medicare Safety Net) Amendment (Indexation) Determination 2024</title>
          <page.no>37</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, in accordance with subsection 10B(2) of the <inline font-style="italic">Health Insurance Act 1973</inline>, the Senate approves the Health Insurance (Extended Medicare Safety Net) Amendment (Indexation) Determination 2024, made under subsection 10B(1) of the Act on 12 November 2024.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>37</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme Select Committee</title>
          <page.no>37</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reporting Date</title>
            <page.no>37</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme be extended to 20 December 2024.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>37</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Prudential Regulation Authority</title>
          <page.no>37</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>37</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CADELL</name>
    <name.id>300134</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 26 November 2024, the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any briefs prepared by the General Counsel of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) for the APRA Executive in relation to operation of section 56 of the <inline font-style="italic">Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993</inline> (SIS Act) since December 2020;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any briefs prepared by the General Counsel of APRA for the APRA executive in relation to APRA's appearance in legal proceedings brought by superannuation trustees seeking the advice of the court on trust deed changes relating to amendments to section 56 of the SIS Act; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) any submissions made by APRA to a supreme court of any state or territory as part of legal proceedings brought by superannuation trustees seeking the advice of the court on trust deed changes relating to amendments to section 56 of the SIS Act.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion be agreed to.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called and the bells being rung—</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ruston</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Can we cancel?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Chisholm</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, we oppose it.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I can cancel if there's concurrence.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll cancel the division. Let me put the question again. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Cadell, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, for an order for the production of documents of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [12:16]<br />(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>39</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>17</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>9</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Birmingham, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>38</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>38</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7238" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Aged Care Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>38</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question in front of the chamber is that the bill stand as printed.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are 79,000 people on the national priority list.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think it's around the same figure that you used before we moved to other business, which is around 800,000 people.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
<para>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?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
<para>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.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
<para>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.</para>
<para>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.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
<para>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.</para>
<para>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?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
<para>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?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Sure—I was about to move mine, but you go ahead.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to the Aged Care Bill 2024, and move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 7, page 15 (line 10), omit the definition of <inline font-style="italic">decision-making supporter</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 7, page 28 (after line 16), at the end of paragraph (a) of the definition of <inline font-style="italic">serious injury or illness</inline>, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ix) a serious wound or pressure injury; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Clause 11, page 36 (lines 18 to 20), omit subclause (2), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A <inline font-style="italic">registered provider</inline> means an entity that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the registration period has not ended; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) that registration has not been revoked under a provision of Part 3 of Chapter 3.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">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.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Clause 11, page 36 (line 28), after "provider", insert "to deliver funded aged care services".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Clause 11, page 37 (line 11), omit "Despite subsection (4), an", substitute "An".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Clause 12, page 37 (line 33), before "any", insert "if the registered provider is not a government entity—".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Clause 12, page 38 (line 1), before "any", insert "if the registered provider is not a government entity—".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Clause 12, page 38 (line 4), before "if", insert "for any registered provider (including a government entity)—".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Clause 12, page 38 (line 13), after "operations", insert "of an approved residential care home or service delivery branch".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Clause 20, page 44 (lines 31 to 34), omit subparagraph (c)(v), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) Clause 20, page 45 (line 19), omit "requested", substitute "required".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) Clause 20, page 45 (line 25), at the end of paragraph (c), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; (xiii) the delivery of high quality nursing services by sufficient numbers of qualified and experienced direct care staff members.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) Clause 24, page 50 (after line 18), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">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.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(14) Clause 25, page 51 (line 22), after "decision-making", insert ", or be supported (if necessary) to make or communicate decisions,".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(15) Clause 25, page 51 (line 23), after "accesses", insert "to ensure the individual's will and preferences are respected".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(16) Clause 27, page 56 (line 3) to page 57 (line 17), omit the clause, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">27 Actions of supporters</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">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):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) request, access or receive information or documents;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) communicate information, including the will, preferences and decisions of the individual;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a thing, other than making a decision on behalf of the individual, prescribed by the rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">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).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: For the provisions about how supporters are registered, see Division 3.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(17) Clause 28, page 57 (lines 19 to 25), omit subclause (1), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(18) Clause 29, page 58 (lines 9 to 12), omit paragraph (1)(b), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(19) Clause 29, page 58 (lines 13 to 15), omit subclause (2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(20) Clause 30, page 59 (lines 1 and 2), omit paragraph (1)(d).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(21) Heading to subclause 30(2), page 59 (line 4), omit the heading.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(22) Clause 30, page 59 (line 15) to page 60 (line 27), omit subclauses (3) to (5).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(23) Clause 37, page 64 (lines 6 to 15), omit subclause (2), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The registration may be made on the request of a person (including the individual) or body.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(24) Clause 37, page 65 (line 11), at the end of subparagraph (6)(b)(ii), add "and".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(25) Clause 37, page 65 (lines 12 to 14), omit subparagraph (6)(b)(iii).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(26) Clause 39, page 66 (lines 3 to 11), omit subclause (1), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the supporter;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the individual.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">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).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(27) Division 4, clauses 43 to 48, page 68 (line 1) to page 71 (line 19), to be opposed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(28) Clause 49, page 73 (line 8), omit "referred to in", substitute "covered by".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(29) Clause 49, page 73 (lines 13 to 19), omit subclause (4), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(30) Clause 52, page 74 (line 31), after "written", insert "or verbal".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(33) Clause 53, page 75 (lines 12 to 21), omit subclauses (2) and (3), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The notice under subsection (2) must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) be given as soon as practicable after the request is received by the System Governor; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) The System Governor must make the decision within:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) otherwise—28 days after receiving the request.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(34) Clause 62, page 82 (after line 10), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) When undertaking the aged care needs assessment, the approved needs assessor must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) consider the individual's rights mentioned in subsection 23(1) (independence, autonomy, empowerment and freedom of choice); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(35) Clause 93, page 111 (line 8), omit "may prescribe", substitute "must prescribe, if relevant,".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(36) Clause 130, page 143 (lines 26 to 30), omit the clause, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">130 Effect of registration while suspended</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">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.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: This means the registered provider will not be eligible for funding under Chapter 4.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(37) Clause 144, page 158 (lines 9 to 12), omit paragraph (1)(b), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(38) Clause 163, page 171 (line 31), after "if", insert ", before 1 December 2026".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(39) Clause 169, page 177 (line 30), omit "individual", substitute "person".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(41) Clause 197, page 207 (after line 15), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(42) Clause 211, page 217 (after line 11), after subclause (1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(43) Clause 211, page 217 (after line 29), after subclause (4A), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(44) Clause 214, page 220 (after line 15), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(45) Clause 220, page 225 (after line 10), after subclause (1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(46) Clause 223, page 228 (after line 3), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(47) Clause 231, page 241 (after line 3), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(48) Clause 268, page 267 (lines 22 to 24), omit subclause (1), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The rules may make provision for, or in relation to, a code of conduct that applies to persons or bodies:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) to whom money may be payable under an arrangement made under subsection 265(1); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) who receive a grant of financial assistance made under subsection 265(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(49) Clause 314, page 310 (line 12), omit "decision", substitute "determination".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(50) Heading to clause 343, page 353 (line 5), after "persons", insert "or bodies".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(51) Clause 343, page 353 (line 6), after "person", insert "or body".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(52) Clause 343, page 353 (line 8), after "person", insert "or body".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(53) Clause 343, page 353 (line 11), after "person", insert "or body".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(54) Clause 375, page 374 (line 16), after "Minister", insert ", the Complaints Commissioner".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(55) Clause 405, page 398 (lines 1 to 9), to be opposed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(56) Heading to Part 5, page 420 (line 1), omit "monitoring and".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(57) Clause 435, page 420 (lines 6 to 7), omit "sections 405 and", substitute "section".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(58) Clause 436, page 420 (after line 10), before subclause (1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(59) Clause 437, page 422 (after line 5), before subclause (1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(60) Clause 438, page 423 (after line 7), before subclause (1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(61) Page 429 (after line 11), at the end of Division 2, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">445A Amount of penalty for serious failures to comply with registered provider duty</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Despite subsection 82(5) of the Regulatory Powers Act:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(62) Clause 537, page 496 (line 6), omit "If", substitute "Subject to subsection (9A), if".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(63) Clause 537, page 496 (after line 8), after subclause (9), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9A) The relevant information used or disclosed by the person must be de-identified if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) it is appropriate in the circumstances to de-identify the relevant information; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) de-identifying the relevant information does not prevent the person from fulfilling the purpose for which the information was disclosed to the person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(65) Clause 555, page 514 (lines 10 to 11), omit paragraph (c).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(66) Clause 557, page 519 (table items 3 and 4), omit the table items.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(68) Clause 569, page 533 (line 22), omit "Subdivision B of Division 2 of".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(69) Clause 569, page 533 (lines 23 to 25), omit the note.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(71) Clause 570, page 534 (line 16), omit "Subdivisions B and C of Division 2 of".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(72) Clause 570, page 534 (lines 17 to 20), omit the note.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(73) Clause 571, page 535 (before line 7), before paragraph (1)(a), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(74) Clause 571, page 535 (line 8), after "Chapter 4", insert "(value of an individual's assets)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(75) Clause 571, page 535 (lines 9 to 11), omit paragraph (1)(b), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the System Governor's powers and functions under Part 2 of this Chapter relating to reconsidering decisions under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) Division 1 of Part 5 of Chapter 4; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) Subdivision C of Division 2 of Part 5 of Chapter 4.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(76) Clause 571, page 535 (lines 12 to 14), omit the note.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(77) Clause 572, page 535 (before line 31), before paragraph (1)(a), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(78) Clause 572, page 535 (line 32), after "Chapter 4", insert "(individual's total assessable income)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(79) Clause 572, page 536 (lines 1 to 3), omit paragraph (1)(b), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the System Governor's powers and functions under Part 2 of this Chapter relating to reconsidering decisions under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) Division 1 of Part 5 of Chapter 4; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) Subdivision B of Division 2 of Part 5 of Chapter 4.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(80) Clause 572, page 536 (lines 4 to 6), omit the note.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(81) Clause 573, page 536 (before line 30), before paragraph (1)(a), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(82) Clause 573, page 536 (line 31), after "Chapter 4", insert "(individual's total assessable income)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(83) Clause 573, page 537 (line 2), after "Chapter 4", insert "(grants)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(84) Clause 573, page 537 (line 3), omit "sections".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(85) Clause 573, page 537 (before line 6), before subparagraph (1)(c)(i), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ia) Division 1 of Part 5 of Chapter 4;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(86) Clause 573, page 537 (lines 8 to 11), omit the notes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(87) Heading to subclause 575(2), page 539 (line 6), at the end of the heading, add "<inline font-style="italic">to staff of the Commission</inline>".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(88) Clause 575, page 539 (after line 10), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Subdelegation</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> to holders of specified non-SES offices or positions</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Subdelegation</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> to consultants</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(89) Clause 599, page 558 (after line 9), after paragraph (2)(a), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(aa) the extent of funded aged care services accessed by individuals from different locations and with different backgrounds and life experience;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(90) Page 558 (after line 29), after clause 600, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">600A Review of accommodation pricing</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Minister must cause an independent review of accommodation pricing under this Act to be conducted.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(91) Clause 602, page 562 (after line 14), after paragraph (b), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ba) specifying that the amount or period may be set by a determination made by the System Governor in accordance with the rules;</para></quote>
<para>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.</para>
<para>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.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
<para>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.</para>
<para>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.</para>
<para>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?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, we do, that's why they are in the amendments. Obviously, the rules will have more to say on that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
<para>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.'</para>
<para>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?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
<para>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.</para>
<para>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.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm advised they're in the final stages of that procurement process, Senator Pocock.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Gallagher</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, we'll take that on notice.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>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?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
<para>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.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We've heard about the three-month goal to get a package. Is there a goal around average waiting times for assessments?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
<para>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.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Gallagher</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm just trying to get them.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If you want to just grab the amendment, it's actually Nos 6 and 7 on the first page.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Keep going.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It says here:</para>
<quote><para class="block">insert "if the registered provider is not a government entity—".</para></quote>
<para>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?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry, I was getting some verbal advice and have—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ruston</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Aren't you fully briefed on absolutely everything?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
<para>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?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ruston</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was worried that it didn't as I was going through it! So, repechage. Might have helped you, though.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm advised that the state engages to provide the service in that scenario.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Great. I'm a bit intrigued about what's going on.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ruston</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll let you know later.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes. I've always got eyes on those two moving in!</para>
<para>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.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
<para>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.</para>
<para>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.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Chair, can I just check that, as I asked for before, item 88 will be put separately?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The next question is that amendment (88) be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask the indulgence that you record the opposition of the Australian Greens to item (88).</para>
<para>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.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the amendment on sheet 3056:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 602, page 564 (after line 8), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Review by </inline> <inline font-style="italic">Senate Committee</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, or such other committee constituted under a resolution of the Senate, must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(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</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) report the Committee's findings to the Senate as soon as practicable after completing each review.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) The following provisions are specified:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) section 14 (Aged Care Code of Conduct);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) section 15 (Aged Care Quality Standards);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) section 16 (meaning of <inline font-style="italic">reportable incident</inline>);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) section 17 (restrictive practice in relation to an individual);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) section 141 (Provider Register);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) section 154 (personal information and record keeping);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) section 162 (restrictive practices);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) section 163 (immunity from civil or criminal liability in relation to the use of a restrictive practice in certain circumstances);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) Chapter 4 (funding of aged care services);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(j) section 379 (aged care worker screening database);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(k) section 507 (register of banning orders).</para></quote>
<para>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.</para>
<para>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.</para>
<para>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.</para>
<para>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.</para>
<para>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.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Progress reported.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We will now move to senators' statements.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</title>
        <page.no>54</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Communications) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7279" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Communications) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When Labor introduced the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Communications) Bill 2024 earlier this week, it represented the greatest attack on free and fair elections in my lifetime. Labor's bill will establish a penalty regime for people or entities who authorise electoral matter that the AEC deems inaccurate or misleading. It would mean there would be civil penalties for Australians just because some Labor appointed bureaucrat thinks what Australians are saying is not true. This is an ugly attack on freedom of speech. The coalition will oppose the introduction of measures that purport to adjudicate truth in political advertising. Freedom of speech and the contestability of ideas are necessary—indeed, compulsory—for a healthy liberal democracy. Distinguishing between truth, opinion and falseness in the context of an election is an inherently subjective process and one that is best left to voters. No country has improved its democracy by tasking government appointed bureaucrats with determining what is true, false or an opinion. No country has improved its democracy by censoring its democratic participants. This bill represents a terrible attack on free and fair elections in Australia. The gormless, faceless, soulless drones of the Labor Party are trying to take away the voice of free Australians. For the sake of Australia's democracy, we urge all members and senators to oppose this bill.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>PricewaterhouseCoopers</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to take note of two articles that have been published just in recent hours: one by David Ross from the <inline font-style="italic">Australian </inline><inline font-style="italic">Business Review</inline>, entitled 'Former PwC partner Paul McNab points the finger at international links to tax scandal', and another by Tom Ravlic published in the Mandarin, entitled 'PwC Australia provides perfect example of how not to respond to an inquiry, says senator'. The senator to whom Mr Ravlic is referring there is Senator Paul Scarr, who I was very proud to work alongside in the inquiry into what PwC have been up to. One of the things they failed to do was to provide a report we have been talking about called the Linklaters report, which is a report that they commissioned and paid for themselves. We haven't seen the terms of reference for that. We don't know what is actually in there. But we do suspect, based on a five-line press release—that's the sum total of information we have in the public space—that six people have been sanctioned for their engagement. Today, courtesy of Mr David Ross, we find:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… Paul McNab—</para></quote>
<para>one of the people named by PwC as a baddie in the tax evasion scandal—</para>
<quote><para class="block">alleges PwC International Washington National Tax Services partner Matthew Chen received allegedly confidential Australian government tax information in 2014 in part of a suite of emails detailing reform plans.</para></quote>
<para>We know this because it's gone to court. It wasn't revealed to the Senate by the PwC entity in any way, shape or form, nor was it provided to us by direction of the master of all of this, the global general counsel, Diana Weiss. <inline font-style="italic">(</inline><inline font-style="italic">Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Defence Force, Legalising Cannabis Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Australian Defence Force</span>
              </p>
            </p>
            <a href="s1353" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Legalising Cannabis Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The 2024 Defence workplace experience survey results were squeezed out of Defence in Senate estimates and they are pretty ugly reading for Defence leadership. Support for senior leadership in the Army has now tanked at just 29 per cent positive, support for the senior leadership in the Navy has sunk to just 32 per cent positive ratings and support for senior leadership in the Air Force has plummeted to just 37 per cent, all four falling year after year after year after year. So for four years now Defence leadership has been ranked worse and worse and worse by the people actually in those jobs, in uniform, trying to keep this country safe. And what is Defence's answer? They want more money, more medals, more gold braid, more promotions, more tanks they can't staff, more boats they cannot build. When will Defence leadership be held accountable? When will the war parties in this place finally hold the failing Defence leadership to account?</para>
<para>A week from now this chamber will have the chance to vote to legalise cannabis for the whole of this country and for the enormous benefits that will produce for this country such as: 60,000 people a year out of the criminal justice system; billions and billions of dollars a year taken from organised crime and put into legitimate business, where people can be paid a fair wage; and almost zero—zero—change in the amount of cannabis being consumed in the country. What will it mean for ordinary people? It will mean, on a Friday afternoon after a full-on hard week of work, they will not just have some beer barn supported by the alcohol lobby that is funding the Labor and coalition parties; they will have other choices, adult choices about where to relax and where to spend their recreational time. We have a week to do this. Let's legalise cannabis and take this country forward.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banking and Financial Services</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CANAVAN</name>
    <name.id>245212</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Access to banking services is absolutely an essential right. Without a bank account people cannot really buy food, they can't really pay their rent and they cannot basically live. Recently, I met with a Bundaberg local, Hans Jacobi, a self-funded retiree who has been loyally banking with the Heritage Bank for the past six years. Hans and his wife regularly withdraw cash to meet their ever-increasing expenses. In June this year they received a call from Heritage Bank, interrogating Hans and his wife on what they have been spending their money and why they were consistently withdrawing cash from their accounts. Just last month, they received another call, explaining that, seemingly due to the fact that Heritage does not want Hans using cash, they would shut down all of his accounts, including his term deposit and family trust, and sent him cheques in the mail of whatever is left. Their reasoning for this was the way that Hans was using his account was inappropriate for Heritage's business.</para>
<para>I don't think any bank in this country should have the right to interrogate customers about how they use their own money. It is their money, not the banks, and it should not be up to them to pry into the privacy of Australians about the use of their own money.</para>
<para>I also welcome this week that the government has announced that it will seek to introduce a mandate for people to use cash. But if they cannot withdraw cash from their own bank accounts, there is not much point of that mandate occurring. We need to make sure that Australians can access their own money with their own privacy protected. And no-one should be de-banked because they have the temerity to withdraw cash from their own account, which was meant to be, under the terms of service, an on-call deposit account. The banks are meant to have the cash there to provide. It will destroy confidence in our banking system if this kind of behaviour doesn't end. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEWART</name>
    <name.id>299352</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I recently had the opportunity to meet with Karrina Nolan from the First Nations Clean Energy Network to discuss how Australia can maximise the economic and industrial benefits of the move to net zero. I heard about the incredible efforts of the network to remove the barriers to energy security and ensure that First Nations communities harness the economic opportunities from the clean energy transition. As project partners, equity holders, revenue sharers, clean energy workers and sub contractors, Aboriginal people should be here too.</para>
<para>A clean energy future is, of course, a secure future. It is a future where we don't have to burn fossil fuels to keep the lights on. It is a future where we are not are risking rising sea levels swamping our islands and cities in the coming decade. Crucially, it is also a Future Made in Australia. It is creating an economy where First Nations people can continue to live and work on country. It's been our land for over 65,000 years, and, as Australia transitions to a net zero economy, it is absolutely vital that First Nations people benefit from the clean energy revolution.</para>
<para>It was great to hear about the collaboration between the First Nations Clean Energy Network and Minister Bowen in developing the first First Nations Clean Energy Strategy. The development of this strategy reflects the Albanese Labor government's commitment to the economic empowerment of our mob and a genuine partnership with First Nations people when it comes to Australia's economic and investment opportunities. When finalised, the strategy will seek to stimulate investment and unlock opportunities for First Nations people to lead and to benefit from the clean energy transition. It establishes a framework for First Nations people to have a seat at the negotiating table and to form strong industry and government partnerships.</para>
<para>Whether you're developing skills for clean energy through our government's fee-free TAFE, a renewable company or a traditional owner group, the Albanese Labor government is investing in your economic future.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Veterans</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With a federal election coming up soon, hopefully Tasmanians will give me another go. But no matter what happens, I'm not done fighting for our veterans. We're a long way off from getting what we need.</para>
<para>One thing we urgently need is to get a national commissioner up and running. Not just any commissioner, but one with the full powers of a royal commission. If they don't have those powers and can't work independently, Defence leadership will continue marking their own homework and nothing will change—just more of the same. That's why I'm moving an amendment to the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill to establish this national commissioner, and I'm using the coalition's own bill from 2020 as the basis. That bill lapsed in 2022, but now the coalition have the chance to back their own idea again and do what's right for the veterans.</para>
<para>This isn't just my idea. Recommendation 122 of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veterans Suicide is crystal clear: we need a statutory entity with independent oversight to drive real reform across Defence and Veterans' Affairs. This isn't about more reports or bureaucracy; it's about having a babysitter because you both need one when it comes to the way you treat veterans. It's about preventing suicides and improving the wellbeing of those who serve and have served our country.</para>
<para>The big parties have an opportunity here, a real chance to change lives. Veterans and their families deserve actions, not excuses. It's time we take a stand, stop passing the buck and make this happen. Quite frankly, if you had any common sense, before you start ramming this legislation down the veterans' throats again, you would have this babysitter set up. Both major parties have failed year after year after year when it comes to veterans and their wellbeing.</para>
<para>For goodness sake, just do something right in here. Instead of ramming that harmonisation bill down our throats, how about you do the right thing and set up the babysitter—the national commissioner. My goodness me, that is exactly what needs to be done. You need that before you need anything else.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tobacco Regulation</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CADELL</name>
    <name.id>300134</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In an inquiry regarding therapeutic amendments for vaping three months ago, at the end of the inquiry I asked the department, 'What does failure look like?' They said, 'We haven't looked at that.' Well, they can look out the window and they can see what failure looks like now. Failure is 150 firebombings of businesses throughout Australia. Failure is only 3½ thousand vapes going across the counter at pharmacists in the last month. Failure is one in 100 pharmacists agreeing to do it because they don't want to be firebombed. Failure is 400,000 vapes a month being caught illegally, and that's only the tip of the iceberg.</para>
<para>I'm all for small government, but when it comes to outsourcing our nicotine consumption, I do not want to give it to organised crime. I do not want to outsource what goes into nicotine products to organised crime gangs, most of which have come out of China. I don't want to outsource what they give our kids and what they give people in Australia who are trying to get off nicotine and smoking.</para>
<para>Since this inquiry, it's estimated 100,000 vapers have gone back to smoking. I hear the government say, 'We are fighting big tobacco.' You are driving people back to big tobacco; you are driving people to criminal enterprises. This is what failure looks like. We look at Sweden in comparison. For the first time they are equivalent to smoke-free, less than five per cent of their population is smoking. They have done it through pouches, they have done it through vapes, they have done it through other nicotine replacement therapies. That is what success looks like.</para>
<para>What we have now is an absolute abrogation of our duty to keep our people safe, keep our businesses safe, keep our pharmacists safe. I have a constituent in Newcastle who does not have a vape store in a commercial building—they have a hairdresser and some residents—but they cannot get insurance because next door to them is a vape store. What are we becoming when honest businesses can't get insurance because of government policies?</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BILYK</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's no doubt that many Australian households are doing it tough right now because of the cost-of-living crisis that we inherited from the previous government. It takes a long time to turn around a decade of neglect, but our policies are starting to make a real difference in Australians' lives. Before we came to government, we promised that we would address this crisis by getting wages moving again and by providing cost-of-living relief while putting downward pressure on inflation.</para>
<para>The previous government gave us a string of deficit budgets and projected deficits as far as the eye could see. We've delivered $77 billion in savings and the first back-to-back surpluses in decades. We inherited inflation of 6.5 per cent. Headline inflation is now at 2.8 per cent and back within the Reserve Bank's target band. Annual wage growth was at an average of 2.2 per cent under the coalition. Under Labor, it's at an average of 3.8 per cent, with real wage growth for the last four quarters, despite the mess we inherited.</para>
<para>Australian households are benefiting from tax cuts, energy bill relief, cheaper medicines, more bulk-billing and a range of other relief measures. The opposition complain about the pressures on Australian households time and time again, hoping Australians will conveniently forget the challenging conditions that we inherited from them and their absolutely chaotic time in government. They're also hoping Australians will not notice that their policies will make the situation worse. The opposition have already announced that, if they returned to government, they would wind back many of our cost-of-living measures, as well as our reforms that are getting wages moving again. They will push up energy bills by hundreds of dollars through their expensive and misguided nuclear plan bubble. The coalition cannot be trusted on the cost of living.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Raise Our Voice in Parliament</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BARBARA POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>BFQ</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I am reading a speech from Dana, a young person from my state, South Australia. This is part of the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign, which amplifies the voices of young people and their visions for the future. Dana would like to say the following:</para>
<quote><para class="block">My name is Dana, and I am 13 years old.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I stand here today and say that we should build homes for homeless people.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This will make sure they have a place to keep warm and not sleep on the side of the road or on the footpath.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Instead, every person has the right to have shelter and stay safe, so I say every single person deserves a home once and for all.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In the meantime, the government has something called a code blue, when it's way too cold for homeless people to sleep on the side of road or on the footpath.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Instead, they can go to a hotel to keep warm, but these spots can be limited.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">What I'm trying to say is that no one should be living in streets anymore, not now—not anytime!</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">So, I say no more homeless people should live on the streets!</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I think of the homeless people that sleep on the footpath in winter, they might also get hypothermia if they don't act fast.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Change a homeless person's life by giving them the chance to live somewhere, by doing that you're a hero and the homeless people, and wider communities, will be so grateful for you doing that and for giving each homeless people a home.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We <inline font-style="italic">need</inline> to act fast before the cold winters hit again next year!</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Thank you, Parliament, for hearing and understanding my voice!</para></quote>
<para>Thanks, Dana, for your wonderful and compassionate speech. The Greens echo Dana's concerns, and I certainly share them. We're determined to end Australia's shameful housing and homelessness crisis. We have to end the growing number of tents in Adelaide in our own parklands. Every time I go through the parklands there are more and more people living in homelessness. In a wealthy country like ours, it's unacceptable, just as Dana says, for over 120,000 people to be homeless on census night. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Ralph Waldo Emerson said, 'What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say,' and in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis we've got the government prioritising giving millions more in taxpayer money to politicians rather than actually tackling the cost of living for Australians.</para>
<para>Australians are feeling the pain every time they go to the check-out and pay for essentials, yet, with just four days of parliament left for the year, the government still hasn't introduced a bill to legislate a new mandatory food and grocery code. They released an exposure draft back in September but haven't actually prioritised bringing it to the parliament. They pushed the bill to increase funding for politicians through the House of Reps ahead of new legislation to protect Australians from scams. There's a bill that would build 105,000 new homes in a housing crisis and give renters better conditions, through banning no-cause evictions and giving five-year leases. That's being used as a political football. A bill to reduce the rate of indexation for students keeps getting bumped from day to day.</para>
<para>The government is missing in action on gambling advertising. Almost 18 months after the landmark Murphy review laid out what this parliament needs to do, the government is nowhere to be seen. There are the urgent reforms to protect nature that the government seems to have given up on. The Prime Minister is not interested in protecting nature this term. Australians are looking at this place, looking at the major parties, and asking, 'What are your priorities?' because, regardless of what you say, actions speak louder than words. When will you start putting Australians first?</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With Dr Jim Chalmers running the Treasury in Australia, sometimes I wonder whether I am in Argentina or Venezuela. It is true that we are in Australia, but we have a bizarre situation where the government thinks that bureaucracies build houses. This latest thought bubble—to get the Future Fund, Australia's sovereign wealth fund, to now be directed by the government to invest in Labor's pet projects—is extremely dangerous economic policy from this government. The key point is that, just because you build a bureaucracy, it does not mean that you can build the houses.</para>
<para>To give you a sense of where we are on housing, in 2018 the country built 220,000 houses. This year we're down to 160,000 houses, and a million people have come into the country in the last two years under this government. We're down to 160,000 houses in this year of 2024—the same number as in 1989, when the population was closer to 17 million. That gives you a sense of the government's incompetence.</para>
<para>This is despite having the National Reconstruction Fund. I'm not sure what we're reconstructing from, but we've got a big fund of $15 billion. We've got the Housing Australia Future Fund, which spends more on corporate affairs and executive salaries than it does on houses. So far that fund has built a grand total of zero houses. So the idea that the government can now raid the Future Fund and get that to work on the government's favourite projects and favourite ideas is very short-term, very dangerous Argentinian or Venezuelan style thinking. I have no problem with those countries; I only use those as examples of often poor economic policy, as case studies, for Australia, and I'm very concerned that we are heading in that direction under Dr Chalmers. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>One Nation</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As frequently happens, the Senate is dealing with a tangled mess of legislation that is flawed in design and will have unintended consequences. That's inevitable when pressure groups run the government. It is a process that never involves the word 'no'. Too many Australians think governments should solve all their problems, and too many in government think they can. One would have thought both would have sooner seen this folly.</para>
<para>When Australia federated in 1901, the state ceded only the powers necessary for the operation of Australia as a single country rather than six states. Today's twisted, concocted federalism has given overlapping state, federal and local governments a bureaucratic tangle of incompetence and waste with no accountability and no consequences. It has allowed the Commonwealth government acquisition and abuse of power to go beyond anything our wise founding fathers envisaged. One Nation will honour our Constitution, withdraw the Commonwealth from areas that are none of the federal government's business and return to competitive federalism, as Australia's founding fathers designed.</para>
<para>This week I've called again for the abolition of the Commonwealth Department of Education, a move that will not take a single teacher out of a single classroom. I've called for abolition of the national curriculum, which is riddled with woke virtue signalling, victimhood and social engineering. Headmasters should determine and decide what's best for students, not woke bureaucrats thousands of kilometres away. I've called for abolition of the department of climate change, along with the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, the Clean Energy Regulator, the Climate Change Authority, the Australian Climate Service and the Net Zero Economy Authority. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation will be rolled into a people's bank, and there's more to come. One Nation will shrink government to fit the Constitution and to serve the people.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Prahran Post Office, Science</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HODGINS-MAY</name>
    <name.id>310860</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Greens join the Prahran community in calling on the government to stop the closure of the Prahran AusPost in Pran Central. This post office, which is slated for closure on 22 November, is a lifeline for the residents of Prahran and South Yarra. Replacing this post office with a self-service kiosk will significantly impact residents, especially older migrants, people with disabilities and those who struggle with digital-only services. We can't allow this essential service to operate as just another for-profit business. Post offices are an important part of our social fabric, yet under Labor's watch these public institutions continue to be eroded. I and the Greens will continue to campaign alongside our local community to keep the doors of Prahran's AusPost open.</para>
<para>It was a privilege to attend Research Australia's 2024 awards night to present the Frontiers Award to the Centre for Microbiome Research. I got to speak to extraordinary leaders in their research fields. I met Professor Russell Gruen, a world-leading specialist trauma surgeon; Dr Jane Tiller, a champion for banning the use of genetic results in insurance underwriting; the wonderful Professor Misty Jenkins AO, a leading brain cancer immunologist; and Professor Brendan Crabb, Director and CEO of the Burnet Institute and a leading infectious disease researcher who is here today. We reflected on the remarkable accomplishments of researchers and scientists in this country, from Sir Macfarlane Burnet's Nobel Prize-winning research into immune tolerance, to the development of the cochlear implant, to the development of the HPV vaccine, which has lowered the risk of HPV related cancer for women around the world—absolutely amazing stuff.</para>
<para>The health of our nation relies heavily on the ingenuity and dedication of our researchers and scientists. The government must increase direct spending on science, research and development, which is at its lowest point in three decades. We must treat medical and health research as an investment, not as a cost.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Multicultural Media Organisations</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Multicultural media organisations are the glue that hold our communities together, catering to diverse voices and telling incredible stories. Longstanding mastheads such as <inline font-style="italic">I</inline><inline font-style="italic">l Globo</inline>, the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Jewish News</inline> and <inline font-style="italic">Ne</inline><inline font-style="italic">os </inline><inline font-style="italic">K</inline><inline font-style="italic">osmos</inline>, for instance, serve their respective communities with great pride in my home state of Victoria. I'd like to single out <inline font-style="italic">I</inline><inline font-style="italic">l </inline><inline font-style="italic">G</inline><inline font-style="italic">l</inline><inline font-style="italic">obo</inline> newspaper, who this month celebrated their 65th anniversary. First published on 4 November 1959, <inline font-style="italic">I</inline><inline font-style="italic">l Globo</inline> continues to serve a very important function for the Italian community, not just in Victoria but across Australia. The newspaper informs, entertains and supports local events, promoting a harmonious and inclusive society.</para>
<para>Earlier this year I was delighted to join the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, for a tour of <inline font-style="italic">I</inline><inline font-style="italic">l Globo</inline>'s new premises and learn more about how the organisation is embracing the digital age across its online platform, the Rete Italia radio network and its online streaming service, Il Globo TV. This investment wouldn't be possible without the vision of the managing director, Julius Larobina, and the project manager, Nicoletta Larobina, who exhibit the same passion as their late father and the co-founder of <inline font-style="italic">Il Globo</inline>, Ubaldo. The Albanese Labor government recognises and backs the essential role that multicultural media plays in Australia and the Australian media landscape. Congratulations to <inline font-style="italic">Il Globo</inline>, all their staff and the broader Italian Media Corporation for their continual investment in ethnic media in Australia. I also thank you for the tremendous service you and your staff provide. Long may it continue. Good luck to everyone and congratulations.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Student Visas</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's an old saying that goes: when you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, deny it's your hand. Senator Henderson has given that an award-winning rendition. The <inline font-style="italic">Sydney Morning Herald</inline> reports this morning that, just weeks before the humiliating backflip on international student caps, she headlined an event for migration agents, including Liberal Party donors whose business is helping international students extend their stays in Australia. And the migration agent who hosted the event is the Secretary of the Rouse Hill Liberal Party. You couldn't make it up, could you? The Leader of the Opposition says international students are the new boat people, but Senator Henderson is fundraising from the visa agents who are helping them stay in the country after their study visas finish. The Liberals and National dog-whistle about migrant students—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Sheldon, please resume your seat.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Watt, you're not even in your spot. Senator Henderson.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Henderson</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On a point of order, I would say to Senator Sheldon that he has completely misled the Senate. There was no fundraising at all, and I made that very clear.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Henderson, resume your seat.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Henderson, I've asked you to resume your seat. That is a debating point. We'll now move to question time.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>59</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Future Fund</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Has the government received advice or modelling—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat. Senator Wong.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would draw to your attention that Senator Henderson was interjecting on her own leader quite loudly. Obviously, there was a response to that, but it did begin very clearly with Henderson's very loud interjections on her leader.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is why I called Senator Birmingham, hoping that his mere presence would call his side to order. I'm going to start question time again and, Senator Birmingham, invite you to begin again.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Has the government received advice or modelling that guarantees that the Albanese Labor's government decision to redirect Future Fund investments will deliver the same financial returns had it been preserved as a purely apolitical sovereign wealth fund with a sector neutral investment mandate, as it has been for the past 20 years?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>First, I would say to Senator Birmingham directly that the benchmark return rate of the fund will remain at between four and five per cent above CPI per year over the long term and that there is no change to the expected risk profile. I do want to ask the opposition what their problem is with investing in national priorities. You have to ask: why is the coalition so worried about investing in national priorities? What is wrong with priorities such as increasing the supply of residential housing, supporting the energy transition and delivering improved infrastructure, including economic resilience and security infrastructure? What is the public policy problem with that? It says something about the coalition, doesn't it? They're seeking to drum up fear and loathing over housing, again, over infrastructure and over the energy transition.</para>
<para>We have been very clear. The Treasurer and the Minister for Finance, as the ministers responsible for this, have been very clear that these changes in the new investment mandate are about maximising the fund's role in a changing economy, ensuring that it has regard to national priorities, but making sure that the Future Fund will still be about maximising returns. It's just that these important national priorities will be part of their investment considerations.</para>
<para>The senator knows that because he was the finance minister, and he knows that this is the same argument that the coalition have against governments or anybody else doing anything about housing. It's the same position that they've had for a number of months now, when they've teamed up with the Greens to stop any additional supply as a result of housing legislation. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Birmingham, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>For clarity, Minister, is the Future Fund and the government's objectives for it purely about maximising returns first or are you seeking to redirect Future Fund investments to the government's priorities rather than focusing on achieving that maximising of investment first and foremost?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wonder if—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hume</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Answer the question!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm happy to answer the question, Senator Hume, and I wonder if you've actually read what was released today. The finance minister and the Treasurer have been very clear about a new investment mandate. It is clear that the fund is still about maximising returns, but these important national priorities will be part of their investment considerations. That is not a difficult proposition. It appears to be so for the opposition, though, who are allergic to investments that might actually drive national priorities, such as residential housing and infrastructure that increases our economic and national security resilience. One would have thought that these were things that would have had bipartisan support, but we know that the opposition will always want to play the game of aggression and opposition and not actually deal with the proposition on the table. <inline font-style="italic">(</inline><inline font-style="italic">Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If these priorities of the government's will maximise returns, wouldn't the Future Fund have delivered them anyway under its previous mandate? What is the point of the change in the mandate if it is going to continue to maximise returns, as you argue?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>First, the independent investment decision-making of the Future Fund will continue—that's that first point. They are a very big investor, as you know, Senator. I'm interested in this second supplementary question, because the first two questions were, 'This is a dreadful thing,' and the third is, 'But it won't make any difference.' The reality is, Senator Birmingham, if you go out and say to Australians: 'We've got an independent fund. It will make its decisions independently but we think it should consider these national priorities in making those investment decisions, and those national priorities are residential housing,' what do you think people are going to say? Do you really think people are going to say, 'This is such a dreadful idea,' Senator Birmingham? That appears to be the position of the coalition. Yet again, we see that the coalition, when it comes to the economy are a reckless opposition, not an opposition that's up to responsible management of the economy. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Happy Thursday! My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister. We know Australian families have been experiencing cost-of-living pressures, in part from the rising energy prices that Labor inherited from the previous Liberal and National government. Minister, how is the Albanese government's commitment to tackling energy price pressures, such as providing every single Australian household a $300 rebate on their bill, helping these Australian households?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We do know that Australians are working hard right now. They're working hard to keep their budgets on track, and some Australians are doing it tough. What it means is that every little bit counts. This is why our government's No. 1 priority is helping Australians with cost-of-living challenges.</para>
<para>Over the last few weeks many Australian families will have received an electricity bill, and every single one of those bills will be cheaper as a consequence of this government's energy price relief policies. More than 10.7 million Australian households have now received a Commonwealth rebate on their energy bills. More than one million small businesses have also received a rebate. It is part of a $3.49 billion investment by the Albanese government. The most recent data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics showed that the government rebates are having a direct impact on bills and on inflation. According to ABS, electricity prices have fallen 12.3 per cent since June 2023. Without Labor's energy relief fund, electricity prices would have increased 15.4 per cent in that same period. This means more money in the pockets of Australian families.</para>
<para>Our government's energy bill relief supports the investments we are making in the longer term to put downward pressure on energy prices. On 30 October we hit the highest renewable penetration recorded at nearly 75 per cent. It was the third record broken in quick succession. South Australia and Tasmania already regularly meet more than 100 per cent of their operational electricity demand from renewables. Labor is supporting the build-out of firmed renewables, and that is because they are the lowest-cost form of new generation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I do note that it is almost two years since the Liberals and the Nationals voted in this place, this very chamber, against the government's plan to deliver energy relief for millions of Australians, including pensioners, veterans and many low-income families. Minister, what further steps has the government taken to put downward pressure on power prices during this time?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ciccone is right to remember that, in 2022, the Coalition voted against energy bill relief for pensioners, low-income families, veterans and some of our most vulnerable households. They opposed our plan.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Colbeck, it is not like you to be so vocal, but I have called you a lot this week. I'm asking you to listen in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senators will also recall that those opposite opposed our plan to cap coal and gas prices. Wholesale electricity prices are currently around $48, and that is less than one-fifth of the $286 they were when the coalition left office. One of the most important interventions that our government is making is actually restoring certainty and policy predictability to the energy market after a decade of division and disunity. Recently we've seen more evidence of disunity, with Senator Canavan saying net zero is dead, and the member for Hinkler calling for the coalition to reconsider policies around net zero. It is back to the future with this one. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ciccone, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>According to many Australian energy experts, like AEMO and CSIRO, firmed renewables are the cheapest form of energy and put downward pressure on prices. Minister, what is the impact of different energy regeneration technologies on power prices and reliability for households?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The senator is correct: CSIRO's <inline font-style="italic">GenCost</inline> report confirmed that firmed renewables continue to be the lowest cost of new generation, and nuclear power, which is proposed by those opposite, is one of the most expensive. Independent analysis from IEEFA shows that nuclear could add an average of $1,200 a year to a four-person household's bills. One of the very big questions that those opposite are yet to answer is how they would ensure that affordable and reliable energy was available during the decades that it would take to build taxpayer funded nuclear power plants. Well, as the Chair of the AER explained to a House committee a few weeks ago, nuclear can't really fill the role of coal. Coal can't last until you'd have nuclear power available. She went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… we see the reluctance of coal fired generators to offer contracts now because they're worried about the reliability of their own plants.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Future Fund</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. The announcement this morning that the government will break bipartisan consensus on the Future Fund and direct it to invest in the government's political agenda is gravely concerning. Former chair of the Future Fund David Murray said that this change will lead to boondoggle budgeting. Why is the Albanese government robbing Australia's sovereign wealth fund to prop up Labor's priorities, which just so happen to align with the policy areas in which you are failing?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It does seem that this change to the investment mandate has really exercised those opposite. A statement of expectations that hadn't been updated in 15 years and a new investment mandate—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't agree with the comments from Mr Murray. I would say that it is, to me, astounding that the opposition does not believe that housing is an important national priority. They see that as something partisan. It says, 'increasing the supply of residential housing in Australia'. That's not very political. I would have thought that is something that you would believe is a national priority. It says, 'supporting the energy transition'. Well, maybe. We know you don't believe in climate science. We know you don't believe in net zero, so—perhaps. And it says, 'delivering improved infrastructure including economic resilience and security infrastructure'. We've included those as areas for the Future Fund to consider in its investment decision.</para>
<para>Of course, as our leader has explained, there are no changes to the rate of return. We do expect the Future Fund to maximise return, but where they are making decisions, and those decisions between opportunities for the Future Fund are similar, we believe that it is responsible to consider those national priorities. It's as simple as that. That's all that's changed—nothing else. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hume, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>By politicising the Future Fund and its investment activities, Labor has opened up the door to putting any political agenda into the fund's investment mandate. Will the government rule out directing the Future Fund to divest from any asset classes or investments?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As you can see, the decision today is about areas where the Future Fund is making investments. I strongly don't believe, as you have put it, that this is politicisation of the Future Fund. What a load of rubbish! Something that was established two decades ago can never ever be changed under any circumstances—how ridiculous is that? Why have an investment mandate? Why have a statement of expectations? Why do they exist? They exist so that shareholders can update, if they choose, and provide further advice or information.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order on direct relevance: Senator Hume's question was specifically about divestment. Senator Gallagher has come nowhere close to questions of where the government would direct them to divest.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question also included politicising the fund. I'll remind the minister of the narrowness of the question, but I do believe she's being relevant.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I answered it. The changes that have been outlined in the investment mandate and the statement of expectations are about where the Future Fund is considering investments. They are not about divestment; that is not covered in any way in the changes that have been made to date. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hume, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If the Future Fund does not invest in Labor's political policies following your interference, can the government rule out further direction to the Future Fund to force them to invest in your priorities?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Wong?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>President, we—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think she's perfectly capable of it.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I've got the minister on her feet. Minister Wong.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Generally I don't ask you to rule on hypothetical questions, but that was an entirely hypothetical question. From the beginning it goes 'if'—then a set of propositions, neither of which are factual. So I would say to you: it actually does infringe the standing order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On the point of order, the question goes to the intent of government policy, as has been announced in the last 24 hours, and the consequences if that intent of the government policy is not actually achieved. It's perfectly reasonable to be asking the government and the minister a question about the consequences if their publicly stated intentions are not met.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am advised that the Clerk believes the question to be in order because it does talk about the broad consequences of the fund.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think it is important, because there were so many ifs in that, to be really clear about what the government has announced today. The government remains committed to the Future Fund's independence and its commercial focus. There are no changes being proposed here to the existing benchmark rate of return or the risk profile. The government will not be directing specific investments being made by the fund. The fund and its board will continue to make decisions about investments independently, and its primary objective will be to maximise returns.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Future Fund</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BARBARA POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>BFQ</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Unlike those opposite, I think it's good to see the government nudging the Future Fund investment mandate towards public good—public money for public good. However, nothing is being done to get investment out of destructive industries. Private investment funds increasingly face member criticism for making investments in fossil fuel companies that contradict their own net zero targets. Our $230 billion sovereign fund invests billions in Australia's biggest fossil fuel companies. The science is clear: we cannot keep expanding coal and gas if we want to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees. The Future Fund has a clearly stated purpose to invest for the benefit of future generations. Minister, when will your government direct the Future Fund to stop investing in fossil fuels, which are wrecking the future of our kids?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Pocock for the question. That is not any part of the changes that we have made through the investment mandate or the statement of expectations. We are not including any changes about restrictions further than what exist now in relation to investments in the Future Fund. We believe that the independence of the Future Fund should be maintained and that the board needs to make those decisions based on investment advice, including the rates of return. They obviously have a responsibility to report, and we've made some changes there to increase reporting about particular investments in a way that provides more information to the public. I would say that the Future Fund is one of Australia's biggest investors in renewable energy already. We believe that setting out these new areas for the Future Fund Board of Guardians to consider when they're making decisions is an important change to the current arrangements and will strengthen the role and future of the Future Fund.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pocock, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BARBARA POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>BFQ</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Investment exclusions are not new for the Future Fund. It is not sector neutral. In 2013, under pressure from the Greens, the Future Fund made the decision not to invest in tobacco, because of the harm it causes. It doesn't invest in cluster munitions, and thank heavens for that. Coal and gas are the tobacco of today. Your government is pushing the fund to invest in social goods, housing, renewables and infrastructure. Why stop there? We need to stop bad investments too. How can you justify not directing the fund to divest from fossil fuels? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Future Fund, as Senator Pocock outlined, has an exclusions list under its ESG risk management policy, but investment decisions of the Future Fund are made by the Future Fund Board of Guardians independently from government in accordance with the fund's investment mandate. Under the Future Fund Act 2006, the responsible ministers must not give directions to the Future Fund to invest in a particular financial asset. We are not making any changes to that. Our focus has been on increased transparency and information about the investments the Future Fund has, increased reporting against that ESG framework and now providing three national areas of priority for the Future Fund to consider when they are making their investments, being mindful that no change has been made to the rate of return or risk profile for the Future Fund.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pocock, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BARBARA POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>BFQ</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, in 2023 your government signed up to the Glasgow statement which requires you to 'end new direct public support for the international unabated fossil fuel energy sector within one year'. Instead, the Future Fund has increased, by 11 per cent in just six months, its investment in Santos, Woodside and Whitehaven, three of Australia's biggest fossil fuel companies. Minister, will the government honour this agreement you've signed and end new Future Fund investments in fossil fuels, which are growing?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, yes, and we do not direct the Future Fund in the investment decisions it makes. It is an independent board of guardians that makes those decisions. We provide some guidance, through the investment mandate and the statement of expectations, which has been modestly amended—despite the hysteria from those opposite—to include housing, the energy transition and the resilience of our national infrastructure as priority areas for the fund to consider. How outrageous is that!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DARMANIN</name>
    <name.id>301128</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. Australia marks the 40th anniversary of Medicare this year—40 years of health care for all Australians. Labor will always protect Medicare because we believe health care is a right, not a privilege. Labor created Medicare to achieve this aim, and, since the last election, the Albanese Labor government has worked hard to rebuild Medicare after a decade of neglect by the Liberals and Nationals. Minister, why is the government committed to rebuilding Medicare, and how are the government's Medicare reforms assisting Australians with cost-of-living pressures?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Darmanin for the question and for her ongoing interest in and advocacy around the importance of Medicare and the role of public health more broadly across the Australian community and how important that is. Since coming to government, under the leadership of the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Mr Butler, the Albanese government has been working hard to strengthen Medicare. We inherited a system that was under enormous pressure and was failing, with all of the data showing that bulk-billing in particular was declining, that people's access to primary care was getting harder and more expensive, and that medicines were getting too expensive. So those have been the areas that we have focused on in our first two years.</para>
<para>Of course, there's been the largest investment into Medicare in its 40-year history; that was our investment in the 2023 budget to strengthen Medicare with the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive, and that bulk-billing incentive, that investment, has provided an additional 5.4 million bulk-billed visits across the country just since we have put that in place.</para>
<para>We have also seen the success of the Medicare urgent care clinics. We said we would establish 50 urgent care clinics at the election. We actually delivered 58, and we have announced an additional 29 to take our commitment to 87 free urgent care clinics. And we know how popular they are. As of last week, we'd had 900,000 visits to urgent care clinics across the country—almost a million visits to urgent care clinics across the country—and half of these patients said they would have otherwise gone to the emergency department. And do you know that all that people need to attend those urgent care clinics is a Medicare card?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Darmanin, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DARMANIN</name>
    <name.id>301128</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese Labor government has invested more in bulk-billing than the Liberals and Nationals did in their entire decade in government. The investment has seen an estimated 5.4 million bulk-billed GP visits. By increasing bulk-billing rates, we are ensuring health care is free for more Australians. Minister, why does the government value free health care?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Bulk-billing has increased in every state and territory since we came to government—5.4 million additional bulk-billed visits—and we know that by reducing the cost of health care for Australian families we limit the barriers to getting the care they need and reap the benefits—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Wong?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston continues to interject and continues to disregard your calling her to order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's correct, Senator Wong. Senator Ruston?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ruston</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Maybe the minister might like actually to—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston, please resume your seat. Seriously! Senator Ruston, resume your seat. Honestly! I called you out for interjecting and you kept on, and then you thought you'd do a little stunt and stand up and continue. Minister Gallagher, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The difference between us is: we invest in Medicare, invest in bulk-billing and invest in urgent care clinics, and those opposite wind back indexation, they freeze rates and they try to introduce a GP tax—we'll never forget that. Who was that? It might have been Mr Dutton when he was last in charge. Then, of course, we've got Sussan Ley, from the other place, the deputy opposition leader, now belling the cat and saying that charging for services is a core tenet of the Liberal Party, and that if you don't pay for it you don't value it. Well, we over here believe in universal access to free health care. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Darmanin, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DARMANIN</name>
    <name.id>301128</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is clear that the Albanese Labor government's reforms to Medicare are assisting Australians across the country. We're rebuilding Medicare so that Australians can live happy and healthy lives. Minister, does Medicare face any challenges to this rebuilding process?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, they certainly do, Senator Darmanin. The challenge faced by Medicare is the election of a Dutton coalition government, because we know what they did last time. We don't have to imagine; we saw it. They'd tax GP visits, freeze funding, decimate the health system and withdraw money from the hospital system. They've done it before; they'll do it again. We know Senator Ruston herself, in her own words, has said, 'Medicare is unsustainable.' The coalition will say that bulk-billing rates were higher under them, but what they aren't saying is that that was due to an inflated number, with COVID vaccinations. Bulk-billing was in freefall when we came to government, after a decade of neglect. It faced serious challenges with Medicare, due to the mismanagement of those opposite.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston! Minister Wong.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The whole answer is talking about the coalition. Come on!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>President, a point of order on relevance—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm sorry, Senator Wong. Please resume your seat. Order!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question was about us.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Birmingham, order! Minister Wong.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>People may not like the answer, but that doesn't give senators the right to persistently interject after you have called.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister Wong. I quite agree, and I will continue to call all senators to order. The minister has 10 seconds left.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The biggest challenge facing Australians on this—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Seriously. Now it's Senator Birmingham. A point of order: the minister had barely got to her feet when the leader of the opposition started to interject.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have asked for order, and I will ask for order again. The minister has the right to be heard in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The biggest risk facing Australians when it comes to their access to healthcare services is the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peter Dutton.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>When you are silent!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston, you can either leave the chamber or listen in silence. That's the choice.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7247" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for Senator Watt, representing the Minister for Education, regarding the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024. If passed, there will be a wage increase for childcare professionals through a worker retention payment with a wage increase above the modern award rates over two years. Providers opt in by applying for the payment. The cut-off for application falls at the end of this month. Not every childcare centre will be applying for this grant, for a variety of reasons, but I'd like to know how many of the country's almost 9,000 childcare centres have so far applied for this grant.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Tyrrell, for your interest in this matter. I take it from what you've said that you are supportive of what the government is doing and that is very welcome to see. I'm sure you, like all of us on this side of the chamber, agree our early childhood education and care workers have been grossly undervalued in their pay rates over many years. They obviously perform incredibly important work for families, for children and for our economy as a whole because of the important education and learning they impart on our kids from a very early age, and that is why our government has agreed to a 15 per cent wage rise over two years for early childhood education workers across the country.</para>
<para>As you have indicated, over the last couple of months a number of departments, including mine and the Department of Education that I represent here, have been working with employers and employer groups on the implementation of this policy. There has been some excellent progress made around the industrial arrangements that need to be reached to qualify for this worker retention payment. But I would certainly be happy to talk further with you about any concerns you are receiving from any employers who are finding that process difficult.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So nobody has applied yet, thank you. The government's funding commitment towards this is only for two years. Some enterprise agreements or other arrangements negotiated go beyond two years, so providers will be agreeing to wage increases without any certainty on how they will be funded in the future. Does the government think the short-term incentive on offer is enough to recruit and retain childcare workers?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wouldn't interpret my previous answer saying none have applied. As I say, there has been a lot of work undertaken with employers, employer groups and relevant unions around introducing this policy and making sure it works properly. We are confident that, on the basis of the agreement reached with a wide range of employers in the sector, the settlement of this and the implementation arrangements will work and will give employers the confidence to be able to pay their workers that worker retention payment that the government is funding, I might add. Only a Labor government is funding it, of course, because we value those early childhood education and care workers. So I'm confident that, based on feedback I have received from the sector, where we have got to will provide confidence to employers that they can enter into those arrangements. As I say, if you are hearing to the contrary, I would be happy to have a chat with you about that.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Family daycare and in-home providers are not eligible for this worker retention payment. We are told the government is working closely with these sectors to learn how best to support this workforce. Why aren't these providers involved in the scheme, and when will the 7,000 childcare services that are not eligible for this scheme be protected with similar wage increases?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Tyrrell. As I indicated, the government's focus to date has been on long daycare centres, on outside of school hours care centres. That has been our focus up until now. I did hear Senator McKenzie—I think it was—say that it was a good question that you asked, which is interesting coming from a member of the opposition, because they did nothing about early childhood wages for the 10 years they were in government. They did nothing about the spiralling cost of child care for Australian families while they were in government. As usual, with Senator McKenzie, they are very wise when in opposition; they are just not very good when in government.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm sorry, Senator Tyrrell. Do you rise on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Tyrrell</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to redirect us to: are they going to be included at some point?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is it a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Tyrrell</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Apologies, yes, it's a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Watt, I will redirect you back to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We will give these things consideration going forward but to date our focus has been on the long daycare sector and outside of school hours care sector. There may be other sectors I have forgotten but they have been the primary focus. But we will give these kinds of things consideration going forward. Again, I would be happy to discuss those matters with you.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Superannuation</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Will Australians be able to access their superannuation to invest in housing?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That is not part of our housing agenda—it hasn't t been—and it is not part of our super agenda. I should say that. We are about strengthening superannuation—making sure the superannuation guarantee has continued to increase—and also about paying super on PPL, making sure that women who have taken time out of the workforce to care for children and receiving PPL get superannuation paid on that. That has been our focus. Of course, we've got the high-balance superannuation changes we'd like to get through the Senate as well.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Why don't you want them to own their own houses?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm giving you an outline of our superannuation policy. Our housing policies, some of which are stuck in this place, are all about increasing the supply of housing and using government's investment to generate that additional supply of housing, whether it be through infrastructure, working with states and territories, building the workforce with our fee-free TAFE—I note you were also opposed to that; it is hard to believe that there's a major political party in this country that would be opposed to fee-free TAFE when we've got skills shortages—additional investments in rent assistance, the Housing Australia Future Fund or the Social Housing Accelerator.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Bragg</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is that going good? How many houses?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's going very well, thank you, Senator Bragg—very well indeed.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Why is it that it's appropriate for the Treasurer to raid the Future Fund as he sees fit on projects that suit Labor's political agenda with money that doesn't belong to him but Australians are not entitled to access part of their superannuation money, which does belong to them, in order to secure a home?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We can go through all the reasons why we don't support super for housing, but I can also quote others, including economists, who would say that it would be one of the worst public policy decisions of the 21st century if we were to allow super to be raided for housing.</para>
<para>I don't think you're across the announcement that we made today about the Future Fund, where we actually deferred drawdowns until the 2032-33 year, providing certainty to the Future Fund. So it's the opposite to your imputation that there is a raiding of the Future Fund.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hume, you asked your question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We are deferring any drawdown of the Future Fund. We haven't changed the rate of return and we haven't changed the risk profile, so none of that changes—absolutely none. We've simply said, 'Consider housing, energy transition and infrastructure resilience'—hardly things I would imagine this chamber wouldn't support. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, can you categorically rule out mandating superannuation funds to invest in government priorities, just like you are doing with the Future Fund?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There is an existing regulatory arrangement around how superannuation funds operate. There were no changes to that in the announcement today. The announcement today was simply and really is about—the hysteria from those opposite!—saying that the Future Fund Board of Guardians, if they are contemplating investments and being mindful of rates of return and risk as the main priorities, should look at housing, economic infrastructure resilience and security, and the energy transition. It is hardly world-stopping news.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Point of order!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, there's no need to call out 'point of order', because I can see you standing there.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry, I should have said that through the President. On relevance, the minister hasn't ruled out changing the regulatory environment. Does—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>She did.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, she didn't.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie, you're getting into a debating point, and the minister began the answer to her question addressing your question specifically.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I answered the question. There are no changes to the way superannuation funds are regulated in this country.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banking and Financial Services</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Financial Services, Senator Gallagher. Minister, Australians opening insurance renewals have been falling off their chairs. Brendan O'Malley from the <inline font-style="italic">Courier Mail</inline> reported in September that a homeowner on Cheviot Street in Brisbane had their insurance bill increase from $3,000 to $32,000 a year—more than 10 times. Queensland's Suncorp Bank profited $379 million last year, while Suncorp Bank's insurance division made a whopping $1.2 billion profit, more than triple that of their banking business. Why is your government letting insurance companies rob Queenslanders?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't accept the proposition that Senator Roberts has put as part of his question. But I do accept and understand that insurance affordability is a real issue for Australian households and businesses, and it is something that the government is concerned about. You see in the inflation data that one of the big drivers of inflation is the costs around insurance. There are a number of reasons insurance premiums have increased in the last 12 months—it's due to a range of factors—but I think Senator McAllister was talking about this earlier in the week. There have been more frequent and more intense hazard events, price inflation is making it more expensive to repair damages, and there is the global distribution of risk by reinsurers, which are having to cover the costs of earthquakes in New Zealand and hurricanes in Florida—that all has an impact on costs here. The government has established an Insurance Affordability and Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Taskforce within PM&C to address the impacts of climate change and inflationary pressures that are driving up the cost of insurance. We are looking at what further steps the government can take, working with industry and stakeholders through the taskforce, including some things the insurers always raise this with me: risk mitigation, land use planning and other near-term opportunities to address affordability.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Roberts, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That insurance bill that I talked about before went up because Brisbane City Council published new climate scaremongering flood maps. The street never had a problem with flooding yet was included in a new zone marked for a one-in-2,000-year climate change doomsday flood. Minister, why are you letting insurance companies use baseless climate change scaremongering as an excuse to gouge billions at the expense of Queenslanders?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I said in my previous answer, there are a range of drivers impacting on the cost of insurance. Some of it is around local hazardous events that we've had, including floods, and including floods in Brisbane and other areas of Queensland. But there are other reasons, like price inflation and like the reinsurance market, which is being affected by those big, global natural disasters that we've been seeing. Some would say—and I would say—these are caused by climate change. I accept that you might not agree with that. In relation to land use planning, that has been subject to a number of inquiries and reviews post the flooding, particularly in areas like Brisbane. Land use planning zoning maps have changed to reflect some of the risk associated with that, and that would feed into premiums not just in Queensland but around the country.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Roberts, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Foreign insurance companies own these insurance companies in Australia. Foreign multinational, global wealth funds and corporates like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and Goldman Sachs are the largest and control shareholders. Insurance is expensive, and the money goes overseas. Minister, why aren’t you doing anything to stop these insurance companies gouging Queenslanders and sending the profits overseas to multinational, global investors?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Certainly, I’ve already alluded to the fact of global distribution of risk by reinsurers. You talk about them. The global reinsurers affect the price of insurance here, as they do in other countries around the world. But I do not accept that we are not taking any action. We have established this taskforce to look at what further steps we can take to build on existing work, including in areas like risk mitigation and land use planning, as well as other steps to deal with some of these affordability challenges. This is a challenge not just in Queensland but around the country.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Donations to Political Parties</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Special Minister of State, Minister Farrell. The proposed electoral donation reform bill contains some good measures, such as the lowering of the disclosure threshold. However, it’s obvious that this is a major party conspiracy to remove choice and diversity for the voters. Constitutional lawyer and professor emeritus at the University of Sydney Dr Anne Twomey has noted that an independent candidate with no infrastructure under this system would only be able to receive a maximum of $20,000 per donor per year, making it difficult to get elected, while a major party that has branches in the eight states and territories, a federal branch and associated entities could, over a three-year election cycle, receive as much as $2.56 million from a single donor. Minister, how can this be described as anything but a cynical attack on the diversity of the political landscape?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Payman for her question. I don't believe you have accurately described the legislation that we have introduced into this parliament. When you were a member of the Labor Party, which wasn't all that long ago, you took to the people of Western Australia a number of things. You took to the people of Western Australia that we needed to lower the disclosure records for donations. We've done that in this legislation. You took to the people of Western Australia, the people that elected you, the proposition that there would be real-time disclosure of every donation that anybody made to any candidate running in an election, so that you could tell, before you voted for that person, who else was backing that candidate. You took to the people of Western Australia the proposition that we needed to cap donations, and we've done that. We've capped donations—not in the way you've just described; you haven't, I think, accurately understood the proposal that you took to the people at the last election. But we have capped the amount of money that people can donate, and we've done it equally for everybody. This is levelling the playing field. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Payman, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Please stop misleading Australians, Minister. The ABC reported on 14 November that the increase of the election funding rate to $5 per vote would net the major parties nearly $20 million based on last election's primary votes. Minister, are these reforms tackling big money, or is this just a redistribution of electoral wealth in favour of the major parties that fences off the playing field more than it does level it?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Payman, technically, this level of detail about a bill before the parliament is out of order, but I will invite the minister to answer in whatever way he wishes.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Payman for her first supplementary question. I didn't quite get through all of the other things that you supported going into the last election. The other point I should have made, if I had been a little bit quicker, was that you supported a cap on expenditure. That cap is $800,000. I bet you there's nobody in the audience here today who couldn't get their message across to the community in an election by spending $800,000.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Canavan.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, give me a break! There is a price to pay, if you want democracy to work in this country. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Payman, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Maybe I should stop expecting answers here. Minister, can you explain to Australians why a bill like this can be rushed through without an inquiry or scrutiny, but the ALP's promised HECS relief has to wait until the next election?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Payman, again, you say this is being 'rushed through' the parliament. You took everything that's in this legislation to the people of Western Australia 2½ years ago. This legislation is not a surprise to anybody. The only people in this chamber that are seeking to block this legislation are the people who are backed by the billionaires. I say we need an electoral system in this country that allows ordinary people like these people here, and even some of these people over here, to participate. We do not want— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Antisemitism</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. All Australians were disturbed to learn of a series of anti-Israel vandalism attacks in the Sydney suburb of Woollahra overnight. Last week, you and your government supported a UN resolution recognising Palestinian sovereignty—a change of Australia's longstanding position on Israel and a position out of line with our most important ally, the United States. Do you accept that your government's shifting position on Israel emboldens anti-Israel elements within the Australian community to conduct such anti-Israel vandalism?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to make clear I unequivocally condemn what we saw last night in Sydney. The intimidation, violence and destruction of property is unacceptable in this country. We know that these actions are designed to incite and create fear, and they cannot be tolerated. I say again, as I've said many times: there is no place for antisemitism in this country. I have always stood against antisemitism, I have always stood against prejudice, and I'll always stand for a country in which the diversity of the Australian community are and feel safe.</para>
<para>Now I'm asked about a separate issue, which is: why we voted the way we did at the UN General Assembly. We use our vote in the UN system to do what we can to work with others to progress the cause of peace. The vote is consistent with the priority we place on building momentum towards a two-state solution, which previously had bipartisan support.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, a first supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, did DFAT or Australia's UN mission recommend that Australia maintain a position of 'abstain' on the UN resolution regarding permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people? Why did you overturn their recommendation?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I said in the answer to the first question, the vote is consistent with the priority the Albanese government places on building momentum towards a two-state solution. I know that those opposite have not taken the same view—neither have the Greens—but we do believe, as does the majority of the international community—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Cash?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order in relation to relevance. The question was specific in relation to the DFAT or Australia's UN mission's recommendation to the Albanese government, and whether you overturned that recommendation.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister is being relevant.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie, I have called for order. Your constant interjections are disrespectful and, quite frankly, really annoying. Either listen in silence or leave the chamber. Minister Wong, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The vote in favour of this resolution by Australia was alongside more than 155 members of the community, including the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Japan and New Zealand.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, a second supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, will you admit that your government's constant changing of Australia's longstanding position on Israel has left Australian Jewish committee members much less safe and secure than they were prior to October 7 last year?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We will always stand against antisemitism, and we always have.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tertiary Education</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Senator Watt. Education is one of our proudest national assets, and Australians expect governments to safeguard it. Unfortunately, shonks and crooks seeking to exploit international students have been undermining the quality and integrity of our system. How is the Albanese Labor government improving the integrity of the education sector while increasing accessibility for Australians, and why are these reforms so important?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Senator O'Neill, for a very important question to end the week on, because Australia's education system is the envy of the rest of the world, but that doesn't mean that we can't improve it so it continues to deliver for students and for our country. That's why the Albanese government has taken the responsible step to return the number of international students to a sustainable level and to bring integrity back to our tertiary education sector.</para>
<para>All week, Australians have been scratching their heads about why Peter Dutton and the Liberal Party have recklessly reversed their support for international student caps and cracking down on the shonks and crooks who feed our international education system. Well, this morning we got our answer, and it's sitting right around there. A story in the Nine newspapers titled 'Senior Liberal headlines event for student visa agents before tanking migration bill' lifted the lid on the real reason the coalition has reversed its position. The article states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Coalition frontbencher Sarah Henderson—</para></quote>
<para>hello, Sarah—</para>
<quote><para class="block">headlined an event for migration agents and private colleges and launched a new brand for a Liberal Party member who helps international students extend stays in Australia just a month before tanking Labor's bill to crack down on the private education sector.</para></quote>
<para>Well, well, well. Senator Henderson can now add 'brand ambassador' to her long list of careers. The article goes on:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Henderson, who leads the opposition's education policy, spoke at the private forum attended by dozens of … agents—some of whom have had restrictions imposed on them by the tertiary education regulator or helped international students appeal their visa rejections …</para></quote>
<para>And then the kicker:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Some of the companies are also Liberal Party donors.</para></quote>
<para>And there you have it: Senator Henderson and Mr Dutton have recklessly changed their position on this bill to appease a few dodgy donors.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator O'Neill, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister, for that answer. We know that education plays a crucial role in getting people into well-paid, secure jobs. I note that Mr Dutton and the Liberals have described fee-free TAFE as wasteful spending and student debt reduction as profoundly unfair. Why is the Albanese Labor government making TAFE and university more affordable for students, and what challenges does this cost-of-living support face so far?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We know Australians are under the pump at the moment, and that's why the Albanese Labor government are delivering cost-of-living relief. It's why Labor is making TAFE courses free, opposed by the opposition, and reducing the burden on students, opposed by the opposition. An arrogant Mr Dutton and his team call this wasteful spending and say TAFE students don't value their free courses. They arrogantly think they can say one thing and do another. It wasn't very long ago that Mr Dutton called international students 'the modern version of boat arrivals', and, as recently as two months ago, Deputy Liberal Leader Sussan Ley and Senator Henderson—there she is again—said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The coalition has maintained the importance of a cap on international students …</para></quote>
<para>But all it took was one event with Liberal Party donors, including shonky education agents, to see their principles collapse, recklessly stopping this government from capping international student numbers to assist with migration levels while also cracking down on the shonky agents who, it turns out, are Liberal Party donors.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator O'Neill, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. I know that you understand all Australians are feeling the pinch of cost-of-living pressures. I note that Mr Dutton and the Liberals and the Nationals believe that if you don't pay for something you don't value it. How are the Albanese Labor government's education reforms helping to ease cost-of-living pressures for Australians, and what are the key barriers to delivering these very important reforms?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese government's free TAFE and student debt relief policies are helping Australians with cost-of-living pressures. But, just as he opposed all of our cost-of-living relief, Mr Dutton has opposed this relief too. That's because what we learnt this week is that Mr Dutton and the coalition believe that only those who pay for something appreciate the value of it. I'll tell you who else appreciates the value of what they pay for: those shonky migration and education agents who sank Labor's student caps. They know the value of that, and that's why they were prepared to pay the Liberal Party for it. What else is Mr Dutton willing to recklessly change his position on if the price is right? Will a big tech fundraiser change his position on social media age limits? We know Senator Antic wants that. Will a Stuart Robert fundraiser change his position on government IT procurement? Oh, hang on—that already happened.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Henderson</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Point of order on imputing motive against me: Senator Watt is falsely claiming that I attended a fundraiser—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's a debating point. Please resume your seat. Senator Henderson, I reminded you last week that, when I call you to order and I ask you to resume your seat, you do so. I did that today, and you ignored me two times. When I call you to order and ask you to resume your seat, please do so. There is not a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McGrath, I called you a number of times during that question. I'm going to ask you to listen to the remaining few seconds in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The fact is that a reckless and arrogant Peter Dutton has opposed every single cost-of-living measure this government has proposed, and, if he's elected Prime Minister, things will get worse for every single Australian, except those Liberal Party donors.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS</title>
        <page.no>72</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Comcare</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In question time on Tuesday 19 November I undertook to provide further information in response to questions asked of me by Senator Lambie relating to the independent review of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. I've written to Senator Lambie to provide additional information, and I table my letter for the information of all senators.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</title>
        <page.no>72</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Answers to Questions</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KOVACIC</name>
    <name.id>306168</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by coalition senators today.</para></quote>
<para>We had some very interesting answers to questions around the Future Fund. Not very many of them actually answered the specifics of the question, particularly in relation to whether or not there had been any modelling or advice in relation to the government's decision to redirect Future Fund investments. Senator Gallagher did say to Senator Birmingham that we have a changing economy and it's important to meet the needs of national priorities, but I think the concern here is that this is meant to be an independent decision-making body. This is not a body that should have government directing it based on their own political agenda, and I think that is a particularly significant concern given that, in the last 25 years, no government has actually done this. This Albanese government is the first one.</para>
<para>I note that Senator Gallagher said that it's a changing economy. But I'm not quite sure that that is a sufficient reason for what has happened here, particularly when, over the last number of months, we've talked often about the concerns around housing and Australians, particularly for women aged over 55, the largest cohort of homeless in our country, and whether it's reasonable for them to be able to access their super for housing. Their answer is: 'No, we can't change this. These are the rules, and we must stick to these rules. It's very important for the integrity of superannuation that we don't change it.' So I wonder why, then, it is okay for the integrity of the Future Fund to change it and for those priorities to be in line with the political priorities of this government. I think they're fair and reasonable questions.</para>
<para>I note that the finance minister did say that the focus remains on maximising returns, but it really doesn't answer the questions as to why these changes have been made. I think it's no coincidence that the chair changed from Mr Costello, who served from 2009 to 2014. Shortly before his tenure ended, Mr Costello warned against changing the mandate. He said this is something that we should not do. Mr Costello said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If people start thinking they can take this money and direct it to various purposes of their own, the game would be up, there wouldn't be any point in continuing to have an investment fund.</para></quote>
<para>I think that's something really important to keep in mind. I note as well that in one of our questions we talked about the commentsfrom the former Commonwealth Bank chief executive David Murray, who was quoted in the <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> as saying that the fund could inevitably become a 'tempting target for politicisation' and we shouldn't allow that to happen. But it appears that that is what we are seeing here today. The article continues:</para>
<quote><para class="block">He argued that "political freeloaders" risked raiding the investment vehicle for their own pet projects.</para></quote>
<para>That seems to be exactly what we're seeing here today.</para>
<para>In addition to that, Senator Gallagher was unable to directly answer Senator Hume's question in relation to divestment. I note her answer was:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… divestment … is not covered in any way in the changes that have been made to date.</para></quote>
<para>I note, in particular, the use of the words 'made to date'. So there wasn't any clarity that there would be no changes made in relation to divestments; it was just that they had not been made to date. That is another concern. Senator Gallagher went further to say that shareholders can update things if they choose, so we should then expect potential divestments as an update from this government down the track. This is also unacceptable.</para>
<para>Senator McKenzie asked a series of important questions around super for housing, and it was very clear that this government doesn't accept that Australians can use their own money to help them buy their own home. But the government can use the Future Fund to fund their own political agenda, and that, in itself, is entirely unacceptable. It's something that we need to get a proper understanding of in terms of what the future of our actual Future Fund will be under this government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I might just pick up on the last point from the opposition, and that is this question about the Future Fund and it being for the government's 'own political agenda'. Yes, it is part of our agenda to make sure that we have more housing. It is our agenda to make sure that we have investment in the future. Senator McKenzie was suggesting that we should raid super, against the advice of a large majority of economists right across the economy that the effect of raiding super funds on housing would be a disaster. The Future Fund is, particularly and specifically with the new mandate, given the opportunity, if the returns are there, to make sure that it has a laser view on the importance of our kids and our families having an opportunity to own a home. If the maths adds up, the investment will take place. That's pretty logical.</para>
<para>When you start talking about housing with those opposite, we saw the opposition and Mr Dutton turn around and make a decision to oppose the sorts of housing initiatives that we've taken and, in a disgraceful chapter, to block Labor's international student caps. We've said quite clearly that changing the international student caps is an opportunity to turn around and make sure we take pressure off housing for many communities. This is part of the housing approach. Why are they opposed to what we're saying? We saw it in the paper today. What we saw today was Senator Henderson getting caught with her hand in the cookie jar but saying it's not her hand. That's what happened.</para>
<para>They're against housing in the Future Fund. They're against student caps being put in place. They're against relief. They're against every program that this government has put forward to make sure that ordinary Australians, their kids and their families are protected and given opportunities in the future. Every program is squandered or opposed by them—and constantly supported by the Greens; this green-blue alliance. The algae of politics. That's how they carry on. It's toxic. The toxicity goes to the Future Fund and to student caps.</para>
<para>When you start raising questions about why they're in this position, you have to go back to the reasons why. Why are they opposed to housing in so many areas? When you go to areas such as the international student caps, you only have to go as far as a secretary of the Rouse Hill Liberal Party. He funds the programs and policies for the views that he holds, and he reaches out to all the shonky, exploitative immigration and migration agents, in the case on international student cap usage. Of course, Senator Henderson has supported those agents. She has not only supported this agent but also supported those agents that fund the Liberal Party, fund Senate campaigns and fund campaigns right across the Liberal and National parties. They've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar. At the same time they're turning around and saying, 'No, we want to go further, but then we're going to the fundraiser.' You're calling a dog whistle on overseas students and trying to turn around and undermine what's happening. You've got one hand on the whistle and the other hand in the jar! One hand is on the whistle to call it out and the other hand is in the jar, getting maximum benefit, which turns around and has a negative effect on housing across this community.</para>
<para>This is a pattern of behaviour: oppose the Future Fund, oppose international caps, oppose the initiatives that we've put up time and time again. What we have seen, quite clearly, is that these migration agents are pushing so many buttons on those opposite, and the net effect is on housing right across this community. Those migration agents are getting their money's worth out of Senator Henderson. It's her hand in the jar, because it is in the jar of making sure that housing policy, whether it be through the Future Fund or anything else, is turned around and not effective policy that they will support. When you start looking at the critical things we should be doing in getting positive returns from the Future Fund, why wouldn't you say it would be housing? If it's international caps, why wouldn't you say it be housing? If it's putting more investment to buy and own your own— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to take note of the response given by Minister Wong to Senator Cash. All decent Australians were horrified when they learned of the disturbing attacks last night that occurred just around the corner from where I live, in Woollahra, on people's cars, on houses and on the Chiswick restaurant. In a street where Wolper Jewish Hospital and the Emanuel Synagogue are, we saw antisemitic attacks occur in Woollahra.</para>
<para>It is horrifying to me, but it is a blight on this government and the total lack of leadership that this Prime Minister has shown when it comes to the rising tide of antisemitism that we are seeing across this country. I know of Senator O'Neill's distaste on the Labor side—and a couple of others would share her distaste—for what is happening to our Jewish community, but, unfortunately, those sensible voices are drowned out in the Labor caucus room as they pander politically to a small cohort of voters in south-west Sydney and condone not an attack but an act of terrorism that occurred last night.</para>
<para>Just this weekend past, I spent Sunday morning with the JCA. There were only three of us shiksas, three non-Jews, there for brunch, but 500 Jewish women turned up. They had to find a bigger venue. This community, our Australian Jewish community, are coming together to support each other as they live increasingly in fear. This brunch was in Wentworth. This attack was in Wentworth. We know that there is a large Jewish population in Wentworth. This community is living in fear.</para>
<para>What is coming from this government? Nothing but absolutely immoral flips and twists and turns and moves away from the strong relationship we have always had with our partner Israel—the only country in the Middle East who shares our values and who shares our democracy. Yet this Labor government is so bereft of a moral compass that they find every opportunity to move away from Israel, and it is an absolute shame and disgrace. You are hanging out to dry Jewish Australians every single day from your lack of moral clarity led from the Prime Minister down.</para>
<para>Now we learn that the foreign minister decided against the advice of DFAT—to out-left DFAT is an effort. The foreign minister has made a captain's call to reverse our position at the UN. What a disgrace. Answer this: how can anyone in that government—forget this rabble up here—accept that there will be any sort of two-state solution while we have had, for over 400 days, over 100 hostages being held? Where is your humanity. Baby Kfir has never experienced a birthday out of captivity—hell, most likely, if he is still alive. We do not know. His whole family was taken from their kibbutz by terrorists who filmed their murderous acts.</para>
<para>This war was started by Hamas and this war has been funded by Iran, yet those opposite are now siding with those who condone terrorism. We saw in the attacks last night the letters 'PKK'. No-one really knows what they mean. They think it has got something to do with this Kurdish separatist movement from Turkiye. Maybe that's bit of a 'der' moment considering these attacks happened just outside Ocean Street, just outside the Turkish embassy. Maybe that's not too long a bow to draw.</para>
<para>The lack of leadership from this government has contributed to the rising tide of antisemitism that is flooding through this country, and you should all hang your heads in shame. I hope none of you are turning up to a Hanukkah celebration, because you have turned your backs on the Jewish community. They know it, and you should be absolutely ashamed.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to take note of the answers to questions from senators today in relation to the Future Fund. We were a little surprised in question time to receive as many questions as we did on the Future Fund given that we know that the cost of living is the biggest issue for Australians and that they want to understand what cost-of-living relief the government is delivering and how the government is able to help people in these cost-of-living times.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, we got questions from those opposite about a change to the Future Fund and the investment mandate of the Future Fund. The reason that it's interesting that they raised these questions is that the continuing overall obligation of the Future Fund remains the same—maximising returns. Nothing has changed in that respect. But we have asked the Future Fund to consider increasing residential housing supply. I wouldn't have thought that that was a very political, complicated thing to ask of an investment fund when we know that we need more housing across Australia. We've asked the Future Fund to look at energy transition. The one thing that the entire globe is dealing with at the moment is how to transition the energy market. Of course it makes sense to update the investment mandate to include that. We've asked it to make infrastructure more resilient and more secure. I wouldn't have thought that that is highly political or highly ideological, but those opposite are opposed to this.</para>
<para>What's interesting to me is it's clear that there are pieces of this new investment mandate that they are heavily opposed to. It's because they don't support our energy transition, and they don't support our move to net zero. We know that our government is committed to this transition. What we don't know is what the plan is from those opposite. We have some very loose details and some very loose numbers. I want to talk about the difference when it comes to cost. We're talking about the things that our government's doing to invest in the energy transition, something that those opposite are so opposed to.</para>
<para>What is the alternative from the Liberal and National parties? It's a nuclear power plan—a $600 billion nuclear power plan that will only supply about four per cent of the energy network when it is actually built and will add $665 to power bills. It's an incredibly costly plan from those opposite; $600 billion is a lot of money. It's hard sometimes to understand how much money that is. It's a big figure; there are a lot of zeros. I thought it would be helpful to explain how much money those opposite are planning on charging taxpayers to deliver a plan that doesn't achieve anything more than 3.7 per cent of our energy market. Six hundred billion dollars is the same as 775 Tasmanian stadiums. That's how many stadiums you would have to build to spend the same amount of money that they are planning on spending on nuclear power. It is the same amount of money that it would cost to build 50 Snowy Hydros. You would have to build Snowy Hydro 50 times over to spend the same amount of money that they are planning on charging taxpayers for their nuclear power plan. With the same amount of money that they want to charge for nuclear power, you could fund the NDIS 14 times. That's how much money they want to spend.</para>
<para>The obvious question is: What will they cut to pay for it? Will they cut essential services like the NDIS? They will have to. They will have to cut money to pay for this. Six hundred billion dollars is a huge amount of money to spend on a plan that delivers almost no electricity supply in 2050 and does not deliver net zero. This is why they are talking about the Future Fund today. They are so opposed to net zero and energy transition in a way that develops renewable energy, the green economy and more jobs for regional Australia. They're so opposed to that that they would rather spend $600 billion of taxpayer money on a nuclear power plan that will not deliver electricity to Australian households for another 20 years. It is an absolute joke. So every time they come in here and question our commitment to the net zero energy transition, we will make sure that Australians understand that if a Peter Dutton Liberal-National government is elected, it will charge taxpayers $600 billion—700 Tasmanian stadiums worth of money—to deliver a plan that will not work.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Smith, you have until 3.30 because we have a hard marker.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Everyone knows that Labor is making them poorer. Disposable income has fallen by 8.7 per cent, Australia is at an 18-month per capita recession and annual economic growth is stagnating at just 1.5 per cent. Today Australians woke up to the news that Labor is now going to not just rob them of their financial present, but also rob them of their financial future by changing the rules that govern the Future Fund. Remember this: the Future Fund is a $200 billion asset that is owned by every Australian. Created in 2004 with just $60 billion, it has grown to $200 billion. It belongs to each and every Australian, and they woke up yesterday to the government going to change the way that fund is managed and the decisions that can be taken by the fund managers. And don't believe Senator Gallagher; don't even believe Senator Smith. You only have to listen to the comments of the first chairman of the Future Fund.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>75</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Personal Explanation</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a personal explanation.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Today Senator Sheldon gave two speeches in which he imputed an improper motive against me, as did Minister Watt during question time. I have engaged with literally hundreds of stakeholders through the Senate inquiry process into Labor's student caps bill. As reported today, the event that I attended in Sydney on 11 October was not a political fundraiser; it was an important part of my consultation on this bill. I reject any suggestion that I was acting in any way other than with complete integrity.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>75</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That on Monday, 25 November 2024, following the authorisation of any committee meetings, senators may make statements, of not more than 5 minutes each, relating to the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, for up to 45 minutes.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>76</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>76</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7238" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Aged Care Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>76</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The committee is considering the Aged Care Bill 2024. The question before the committee is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—On behalf of Senator Allman-Payne, I move amendments (1) to (10) on sheet 3110 together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Heading to subclause 179(3), page 186 (line 23), omit "<inline font-style="italic">Serious</inline>", substitute "<inline font-style="italic">Civil penalty provision</inline><inline font-style="italic">—</inline><inline font-style="italic">serious</inline>".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 179, page 187 (after line 4), after subclause 179(3), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Strict liability offence</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">serious failures</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) A registered provider commits an offence of strict liability if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the provider has a duty under subsection (1); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the provider engages in conduct that does not comply with the duty; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the conduct amounts to a serious failure by the provider to comply with the duty.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) in the case of an offence committed by a registered provider that is an individual—150 penalty units; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in the case of an offence committed by a registered provider other than an individual—1,000 penalty units.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Heading to subclause 179(5), page 187 (line 12), omit "<inline font-style="italic">Death</inline>", substitute "<inline font-style="italic">Civil penalty provision</inline><inline font-style="italic">—</inline><inline font-style="italic">death</inline>".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Clause 179, page 187 (after line 25), at the end of clause 179, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Strict liability </inline> <inline font-style="italic">offence</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">death or serious injury or illness</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) A registered provider commits an offence of strict liability if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the provider has a duty under subsection (1); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the provider engages in conduct; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the conduct amounts to a serious failure by the provider to comply with the duty; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the conduct results in the death of, or serious injury to, or illness of, an individual to whom the duty is owed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) in the case of an offence committed by a registered provider that is an individual—500 penalty units; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in the case of an offence committed by a registered provider other than an individual—4,800 penalty units.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Fault-based offence</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">death or serious injury or illness</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) A registered provider commits an offence if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the provider has a duty under subsection (1); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the provider engages in conduct; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the conduct amounts to a serious failure by the provider to comply with the duty; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the conduct results in the death of, or serious injury to, or illness of, an individual to whom the duty is owed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) in the case of an offence committed by a registered provider that is an individual—1,000 penalty units or 5 years imprisonment or both; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in the case of an offence committed by a registered provider other than an individual—9,500 penalty units.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">General defence of reasonable excuse</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Subsection (3A), (6) or (7) does not apply if the registered provider has a reasonable excuse.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (8) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Clause 180, page 188 (lines 19 to 22), omit subclause 180(3), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A person may be found liable to pay a civil penalty under this Act, or be convicted or found guilty of an offence against a provision of this Act, relating to a duty under this section whether or not the registered provider has been found liable to pay a civil penalty under section 179, or been convicted or found guilty of an offence against section 179.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Heading to subclause 180(4), page 188 (line 23), omit "<inline font-style="italic">Serious</inline>", substitute "<inline font-style="italic">Civil penalty provision</inline><inline font-style="italic">—</inline><inline font-style="italic">serious</inline>".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Clause 180, page 188 (after line 30), after subclause 180(4), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Strict liability offence</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">serious failures</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4A) A person commits an offence of strict liability if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person has a duty under subsection (1); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person engages in conduct that does not comply with the duty; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the conduct amounts to a serious failure by the provider to comply with the duty.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: 150 penalty units.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Heading to subclause 189(6), page 189 (line 4), omit "<inline font-style="italic">Death</inline>", substitute "<inline font-style="italic">Civil penalty provision</inline><inline font-style="italic">—</inline><inline font-style="italic">death</inline>".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Clause 180, page 189 (after line 15), at the end of clause 180, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Strict liability offence</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">death or serious injury or illness</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) A person commits an offence of strict liability if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person has a duty under subsection (1); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person engages in conduct; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the conduct amounts to a serious failure by the person to comply with the duty; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the conduct results in the death of, or serious injury to, or illness of, an individual to whom the duty in section 179 is owed by the registered provider.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: 500 penalty units.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Fault-based offence</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">death or serious injury or illness</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) A person commits an offence if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person has a duty under subsection (1); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person engages in conduct; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the conduct amounts to a serious failure by the person to comply with the duty; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the conduct results in the death of, or serious injury to, or illness of, an individual to whom the duty in section 179 is owed by the registered provider.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: 1,000 penalty units or 5 years imprisonment or both.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">General defence of reasonable excuse</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Subsection (4A), (7) or (8) does not apply if the person has a reasonable excuse.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (9) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Clause 186, page 191 (line 7), after "subsection 179(3) or (5)", insert "or is found guilty of an offence against subsection 179(3A), (6) or (7)".</para></quote>
<para>The Greens have long called for and supported a shift to a rights based framework. Advocates and older people have made clear that older people must have rights that are not only unequivocally clear but also enforceable. It is a key concern for the Greens and many others that the rights within this bill remain aspirational for providers. The removal of the criminal penalties has been a significant problem for many participants and advocates. This has been bitterly disappointing for participants and their loved ones seeking justice, and we strongly urge the government to support the inclusion of criminal penalties in the bill to signal to participants that their rights are enforceable and that they can seek justice.</para>
<para>It is a wonderful move that we are moving to a rights based framework but it makes a mockery of that move if those rights are not enforceable. We understand that the reason that part was taken out was to please the Liberals, and what an appalling outcome.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, I wanted to pick up with a line of questioning from Senator Ruston this morning. As I understand it, if I heard correctly, you talked about the enabling ICT changes that need to occur to implement this system to have it operational. Can you just confirm that you said that it would be delivered by 1 July next year and that the implementation is critical for this scheme to take effect?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry, Senator Reynolds. What was the second part of your question?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>REYNOLDS () (): The first one was about the criticality of the IT system to the effective implementation of these reforms, and the second one was about your having said that all the system changes will be implemented by 1 July next year.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't have the budget papers in front of me, but I believe that it was phased over the forward estimates in terms of expenditure. But the ICT changes that will need to be in place for 1 July 2025 will be in place.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. So they will be in place by 1 July. Is that the changes required by the My Aged Care system—that is, Health and Services Australia—or is that also all of the providers, because obviously the providers need to have their systems updated as well?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We did cover this this morning at some length. That is just for the government's internal systems. In terms of the providers, there is a small grant round of $10 million, providing grants of $10,000 for those providers in the Support at Home program, who are going to face the majority of the most significant changes. For many of the other providers, including in residential care, we don't believe that there will be significant change, although I know that there are some providers who disagree with that. This is a matter that the transition taskforce no doubt will be considering. It has its first meeting next Thursday, so I imagine things like this will be on the agenda. But, for providers who aren't directly involved with the new Support at Home program, we expect the ICT needs to be minimal. In fact, it's more of a reporting into the system that the government has than requiring a new system for themselves.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. Would it be safe to say that these reforms that are in the current legislation can't be implemented until the IT system is in place?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Not all of it will be dependent on the IT system. Elements of it will, but not all of it, because there are a whole range of other changes in the legislation that wouldn't be dependent on the IT program being in place. But we are conscious that, for some elements of it, we do need that in place, including for the Support at Home program, and that needs to be in place by 1 July 2025.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, can you describe, then, what elements will be impacted and won't be able to be delivered if the IT system reforms are not in place?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government's program will be to enable registered provider operation under the new act through reforms, including Support at Home, places to people, worker screening and registration, and some of the regulatory framework subsidies and payments. It will also streamline interactions with government through the existing GPMS, service referrals, payments and reporting. So, if we're going to the hypothetical of what would be affected if the system were not in place, I would say that those would be the key areas.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So, essentially, they're the key elements to be delivered under this policy change. Can I just clarify something that I may have misheard. I have the budget papers here and had a look. In the budget papers for 2024-25 it does say that it was $1.2 billion over five years from 2023-24—last financial year. Did I correctly hear you say that it was $1.5 billion now?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No, it's $1.2 billion.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is $1.2 billion? Thank you. That's helpful. Also in the budget measures for improving aged-care ICT support, which are, as we know, going to be delivered by Services Australia, the actual delivery is over five years. Can the minister explain why it's over five years, what things are going to be delivered over the next seven months to get it operational by 1 July, and what is the remainder of funding for the forward estimates?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am again advised that all of the features needed to start on 1 July 2025 will be done. I think from memory—I just don't have the budget papers in front of me—that it is frontloaded across the forward estimates. So we expect that upfront build, but then there will be continuing costs—maintenance and otherwise—of the system that you would expect with any large IT program. I'll see if there's any further information. Of the $1.2 billion, $589 million was provided as sustainment funding critical to maintain core ICT systems which are central to the continued operation of the aged-care system. Core ICT includes Aged Care Gateway and the Government Provider Management System, as well as associated business to government, B2G, and the aged-care data warehouse systems. Costs include platform hosting, software licensing, cybersecurity, general operating costs and digital contractors once the current funding expires on 30 June 2024.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So that is $589 million of the $1.2 billion. If I understand it correctly, that's to maintain and upgrade the core ICT systems. Is that correct? If that's correct, what's the rest of the $1.2 billion being spent on, and when?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The rest has been allocated for new or enhanced funding for foundational reform, including the new Aged Care Act, GPMS, B2G and the integration of My Health Record and My Aged Care.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Minister. That's very interesting. So $600,000 is for systems integration and to provide some of those essential services. You mentioned the integration with My Health Record. Is that correct?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Gallagher</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the minister aware of all of the problems that are currently being experienced by My Health Record? It's been the subject of a very damning ANAO report recently. It is significantly behind and has a myriad of issues, if you think of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules and DTR guidelines. Are you aware of that, and what would the impact of that be on this program?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, I am aware of it, but, as that matter is not directly relating to the bill that we have before us, I don't have officials or information there, other than to say that the commitment we are giving here, with the investment in funding that we've provided through the budget, is to build the IT system, sustain it and operate it for all of the changes that are entailed in the Aged Care Bill. I would say that My Health Record has been a problem project, it seems, since its inception.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Reynolds—before I go to you, Senator Pocock—do you have much more on this, for the courtesy of Senator Pocock?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Reynolds</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, I do have quite a few questions. Given that this is a key enabler for these legislative changes, I do have quite a lot of questions on this IT system.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pocock is happy for you to continue, Senator Reynolds. You have the call.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, you mentioned the $589 million for sustainment funding for the current ICT systems. My understanding is that Services Australia are getting the majority of that money to do that sustainment, and my understanding from the budget papers is that it's for sustainment of, and essential enhancements to, the critical aged-care digital systems so they remain legislatively compliant and they can support the implementation from 1 July. My recollection of those systems, from my time as minister, is that a number of them are legacy systems and are not necessarily very reliable—certainly not for the longer term. Which of these five aged-care digital systems is the funding for? What is the funding for each of those systems? I ask that because, if any one of those doesn't work, my understanding is these ICT systems won't work, and this can't be delivered.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I covered those off in my last answer. Obviously, we did not come with officials that, essentially, would be required at estimates, and I'm not sure this was interrogated at estimates, which is probably the place where we would have officials available. We've provided you with the budget. We've provided you with the names of the programs that are being continued to be sustained. It is true: there wasn't enough investment in IT systems across the board under the previous government. We're having to deal with a lot of that now. Legacy systems are a problem, which is why, when I first got the bill for this one—which was at $1.2 billion; it was an extraordinary amount of money—it was interrogated to see exactly what it could do. I wish the amount was smaller than it is, but this is what I am advised is necessary to keep systems ongoing and create the new IT framework that supports the implementation of the Aged Care Act.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You just mentioned, I think, digital contractors. Will the contractors for the two major aspects of this that you mentioned be internal contractors or will the health department or Services Australia be sourcing external contractors? If so, who and for how much of that budget?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, these are questions that would be more appropriately put to Services Australia or the health department during estimates. I would imagine that it will be a mix. As you know, we've been trying to convert contractors into permanent Public Service jobs, where those jobs are ongoing, but there continue to be requirements, particularly in the IT space, where a contracted arrangement is more appropriate. So my answer to that would be that there will be a mix.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In relation to the project management for this project, I think it has been underway for, probably, up to 12 months. I understand, from when I've had a look at the documents, that the funding in the 2023-24 budget was for initial project discovery and design. Is that phase now complete? If it's not, that will impact on the timing of delivery of these new systems.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am advised that we're at the gateway review stage of that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That's the gateway for discovery and design?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes—for the overall build.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That's a different stage. The ICT build and testing is a separate process. The reason I ask about this, Minister, is that this has been, again, ongoing for some time. They were anticipating the legislation, in terms of the build, many months ago. My next series of questions are: If the discovery and design phase is not yet complete, how long will that take after the passage of this legislation? Will the discovery and design phase require regulations? I would anticipate that normally, to determine what goes into the IT systems, it would require the regulations as well as the legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm thinking back to estimates. My understanding is that everything that's required for the IT system is in the bill, so there are no further legislative requirements.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That wasn't actually my question. Just to clarify, I think your answer meant that the designers don't need the regulations to design and then test the IT systems—is that correct?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You had a question that said, 'Often in builds like this you will have to have further regulation about the IT system.' I'm saying that's not the case. But in terms of what the designers need for the IT system, my understanding is they have everything they need. They know what they need. They know how to build the system. I think the budget allocation was in this year's budget, so obviously, in terms of the budget certainty, this has not been going on for months and months. It has been since the budget was handed down, where that budget certainty was provided. We are in the early stages. They're having the first gateway review. Again, all of the advice to me is that it is on track for the changes to be in place by 1 July next year.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>For the sake of complete clarity, the design of all of the IT system changes that are required to implement this legislation are done, and it doesn't require the regulations that go with this piece of legislation?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My understanding is all the planning has been done. We're just going through a gateway review and then further information will be provided to providers by the end of the year.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 3117:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Chapter 4, clauses 190 to 337A, page 195 (line 1) to page 347 (line 17), to be opposed.</para></quote>
<para>This would take out the whole of chapter 4. And while the Greens support the wealthy paying their fair share, opening the door to an expanded user-pays model only risks serving to increase the profits of the private providers that are already robbing older people blind. We have significant concerns this bill, and in particular this part of the bill, takes aged care down a path that it will be very difficult to unwind. Instead of treating aged care as health care, this bill has completely embedded it as a marketplace. Participants and the government will continue to subsidise for-profit aged-care providers, and for this reason we are strongly urging and moving for the removal of chapter 4. I commend this amendment to the chamber.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government won't be supporting this amendment. The public, through tax revenue and other sources of income, provide $39 billion worth of funding or investment into aged care. The Commonwealth will still be, by far, the main contributor to the aged-care system, as it should be, but we believe in the capacity for individuals to make contributions, where they can afford to do so. These are modest contributions and they are heavily means-tested, as they should be, as appropriate, and clinical care and those key features of the health system remain free under all circumstances. So as you say, under those conditions the public should provide the support, but we do believe, in the interests of the sustainability and viability of this sector, there's a need to introduce modest contributions.</para>
<para>This is something that has been discussed and consulted upon, including through the Aged Care Taskforce. It has included providers and consumers, and consumers have been very supportive of the vast majority of this bill. I think we have worked with the opposition carefully to consider impacts on individuals and to make sure the contributions arrangements that are put in place are carefully thought through and that individual's incomes, including those currently in the system, are accommodated and taken care of.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the committee is that chapter 4 stand as amended.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [15:59]<br />(The Chair—McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>29</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>11</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With the Senate failing to support our amendment to insert criminal penalties and the amendment you just voted down to remove chapter 4 from the bill, the Greens can no longer support the passage of this legislation. We are deeply concerned that the parliament is conceding the opportunity for once-in-a-generation reform to the self-interest of for-profit providers at the expense of participants. With the rejection of our amendment to put criminal penalties back into the bill, we have significant concerns about the enforceability of the rights based framework. We've long supported the shift to the rights based framework, but older people, their advocates and their loved ones have been clear that those rights must be unequivocal, clear and enforceable. Aspirational rights do not go anywhere near the heart of the problem in aged care. The operation of Australia's aged-care system as a market means the incentive for providers to profit always trumps the provision of high-quality care. Further, we're worried the bill will usher in a permanent state of expanded means testing and user pays. Instead of treating aged care as health care, we'll turn it into a marketplace. Participants and the government will continue to subsidise for-profit aged-care providers. We cannot risk a two-tiered system that bakes in equality. The elderly are not commodities; they're people. First and foremost, aged care must be universal, and for these reasons we cannot support the passage of the bill. I'll now seek leave to move the last lot of Greens amendments to the bill.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 3101 as well as amendments on sheet 3102 to sheet 3104 altogether:</para>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3101</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 547, page 508 (before line 4), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Internal disclosures</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 547, page 508 (line 4), omit "A disclosure", substitute "(1) A disclosure".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Clause 547, page 508 (lines 17 to 19), omit paragraph 547(c), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the discloser has reasonable grounds to suspect that the information:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) indicates that an entity may have contravened a provision of this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) indicates that an entity may have engaged in conduct covered by subsection (2); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) if an entity is a body corporate—indicates that a related body corporate of the entity may have engaged in conduct covered by subsection (2); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) concerns misconduct, or an improper state of affairs or circumstances, in relation to an entity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Clause 547, page 508 (after line 19), at the end of clause 547, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) This subsection covers the following conduct:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) conduct that constitutes an offence against a law of the Commonwealth that is punishable by imprisonment for a period of 12 months or more;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) conduct that represents a danger to the public or an individual who accesses the aged care system;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) conduct that is prescribed by the rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A disclosure covered by subsection (1) is an <inline font-style="italic">internal disclosure</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to a disclosure of information to the extent the information disclosed concerns a personal work-related grievance of the discloser.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">External disclosures</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) A disclosure of information (an <inline font-style="italic">external disclosure</inline>) by an individual (<inline font-style="italic">the discloser</inline>) qualifies for protection under this section if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the discloser has previously made an internal disclosure of the information; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person to whom the internal disclosure was made:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) took no action in relation to the internal disclosure; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) did not complete an investigation in relation to the internal disclosure before the end of the period of 90 days beginning on the day the internal disclosure was made; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) completed an investigation in relation to the internal disclosure that resulted in no further action being taken; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the external disclosure is made to one or more of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a member (however described) of the Parliament of the Commonwealth or a State, or of the legislature of a Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a person who works in a professional capacity as a journalist; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the discloser reasonably believes that the external disclosure is in the public interest.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Disclosures to support persons</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) A disclosure of information by an individual (<inline font-style="italic">the discloser</inline>) qualifies for protection under this section if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the disclosure is made to one or more of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) an officer or employee of a trade union;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an independent aged care advocate;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) a legal practitioner; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the disclosure is made for the purposes of seeking support or advice in relation to the information, or another disclosure relating to the information.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) A disclosure of information by an individual (<inline font-style="italic">the discloser</inline>) qualifies for protection under this section if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the disclosure is made to a medical practitioner or psychologist; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the disclosure is made for the purposes of seeking or obtaining medical or psychiatric care, treatment or counselling (including psychological counselling).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Clause 550, page 511 (line 3), omit "paragraph 547(c)" substitute "paragraph 547(1)(c)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3102</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Page 509 (after line 3), after clause 548, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">548A Claims for protection</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If, in civil or criminal proceedings (the <inline font-style="italic">primary proceedings</inline>) instituted against an individual in a court, the individual makes a claim (relevant to the proceedings) that, because of section 548, the individual is not subject to any civil, criminal or administrative liability for making a disclosure that qualifies for protection under section 547:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the individual bears the onus of adducing or pointing to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility that the claim is made out; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the individual discharges that onus—the party instituting the primary proceedings against the individual bears the onus of proving that the claim is not made out; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the court must deal with the claim in separate proceedings; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the court must adjourn the primary proceedings until the claim has been dealt with; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) none of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) any admission made by the individual in the separate proceedings;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) any information given by the individual in the separate proceedings;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) any other evidence adduced by the individual in the separate proceedings;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">is admissible in evidence against the individual except in proceedings in respect of the falsity of the admission, information or evidence; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) if the individual or another person gives evidence in the separate proceedings in support of the claim—giving that evidence does not amount to a waiver of privilege for the purposes of the primary proceedings or any other proceedings.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) To avoid doubt, a right under section 126K of the <inline font-style="italic">Evidence Act 1995</inline> not to be compelled to give evidence is a privilege for the purposes of paragraph (1)(f) of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3103</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 551, page 511 (after line 24), after subclause (2), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2A) In proceedings for a civil penalty order against an entity for a contravention of subsection (1):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person seeking the order bears the onus of adducing or pointing to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility of the matters in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if that onus is discharged—the entity bears the onus of proving that the claim is not made out.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 551, page 512 (after line 19), after subclause (5), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5A) In proceedings for a civil penalty order against an entity for a contravention of subsection (3):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person seeking the order bears the onus of adducing or pointing to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility of the matters in paragraphs (3)(a) and (b); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if that onus is discharged—the entity bears the onus of proving that the claim is not made out.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3104</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Page 509 (after line 22), after clause 549, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">549A Certain recipients to take steps to protect disclosers</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an individual makes a disclosure that qualifies for protection under section 547 to an entity (the <inline font-style="italic">recipient</inline>); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the recipient is:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a registered provider; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a responsible person of a registered provider;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the recipient must take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to protect the individual against any reprisals that have been, or may be, taken in relation to the disclosure.</para></quote>
<para>The Greens are concerned about the strength of the whistleblower provisions contained in the bill. In the absence of a worker voice, it's critical that participants and workers are protected from adverse consequences for whistleblowing. The royal commission shows that people must feel safe to speak up when something is wrong, particularly in a sector like aged care, where it can be a matter of life or death. These amendments go towards strengthening the protections for whistleblowers, and we strongly encourage the Senate to support them.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government will not be supporting these amendments. The Aged Care Bill introduces a new expanded whistleblower framework to ensure that anyone is protected if they make a whistleblower disclosure about aged care. Whistleblowers will be protected from any civil, criminal or administrative liability, including disciplinary action. No contractual or other right or remedy may be exercised against a whistleblower on the basis of a disclosure.</para>
<para>The identity of whistleblowers will be also protected and not be disclosed except in limited circumstances, or with the consent of the whistleblower. An example of a circumstance in which their identity may be disclosed includes, where necessary, to lessen or prevent a serious threat to safety, health or wellbeing. Neither a whistleblower nor any individual who employs or is associated with them may be victimised or threatened by any entity as a result of making a protected disclosure or for intending to make such a disclosure. For example, if a family member or staff member makes a disclosure on behalf of an older person, the older person must also not be victimised under the bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Given where we are at with whistleblowers in this country—and the government is currently prosecuting Richard Boyle—it seems to me that taking on expert advice and beefing up whistleblower protections is a very good thing, so I certainly will be supporting the Greens' effort to do that.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the committee is that amendments on sheets 3101, 3102, 3103 and 3104, standing in the name of the Australian Greens, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [16:10]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>13</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>26</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move my amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 3097 together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 338, page 348 (after line 20), after the paragraph beginning "The System Governor". insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The System Governor must provide quarterly reports to the Minister on the duration of waiting periods for certain funded aged care services.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Page 353 (after line 3), after clause 342, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">342A Quarterly reporting on waiting periods for certain funded aged care services</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Subject to subsection (4), the System Governor must give the Minister a written report, within 28 days after the end of each quarter, on the duration of waiting periods for non-specialist funded aged care services.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the report must include the following information:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the number of applications for non-specialist funded aged care services made under subsection 56(1) for which a decision under subsection 57(1) has not been made, including applications made during that quarter and previous quarters;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the average number of days between the date of an application for non-specialist funded aged care services being made under subsection 56(1) and the commencement of the provision of non-specialist funded aged care services, where those services commenced in the quarter;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the median number of days between the date of an application for non-specialist funded aged care services being made under subsection 56(1) and the commencement of the provision of non-specialist funded aged care services, where those services commenced in the quarter;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) an assessment of the differences in the time taken between application and the commencement of services as a result of whether the non-specialist funded aged care service was delivered in an approved residential care home or a home or community setting;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) an assessment of the differences in the time taken between application and the commencement of services as a result of the State or Territory in which the non-specialist funded aged care service was delivered;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) an assessment of the differences in the time taken between application and the commencement of services as a result of the local region in which the non-specialist funded aged care service was delivered;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) any other matter prescribed by the rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The System Governor must publish the report on the Department's website as soon as practicable after it is given to the Minister.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If this section commences during a quarter (but not on the first day of the quarter):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) no report is to be made at the end of the quarter; but</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the report made at the end of the next quarter is also to include the information about the duration of waiting periods for non-specialist funded aged care services that occurred in the previous quarter.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) In this section:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">local region</inline> has the meaning prescribed by the rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">non-specialist funded aged care service</inline> means a funded aged care service other than a service delivered under a specialist aged care program.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">quarter</inline> means a period of 3 months starting on any of the following dates in a year:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 1 January;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) 1 April;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) 1 July;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) 1 October.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Clause 601, page 559 (after line 20), after subparagraph 601(1A)(b)(v), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(va) the expansion of regular reporting on the duration of waiting periods for funded aged care services to cover specialist aged care programs;</para></quote>
<para>These amendments provide some structural transparency around waiting times in the aged-care system. Crucially, they would allow us, every quarter, to see how waiting lists are tracking across the country, from the time people put in an application until the first service commences. We know that this is an issue both here in the ACT and across the country in various communities, and up until this point the only way to find out about it was through the estimates process. It's my hope that more transparency will allow us to pick up on issues and provide them to the government.</para>
<para>We can't underestimate the toll that long waiting times for support can have on senior Australians. When we don't step in with timely support, people are at risk of losing confidence or injuring themselves. They end up in our hospital system or in residential care long before they need to. It's not a good outcome for anyone, but I accept that there is a lot of work to do to lower the waiting times</para>
<para>I thank the government and opposition. In particular, I would like to thank the team in Minister Wells's office and Senator Ruston's office for their advice with these amendments.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Pocock for moving this amendment. The government supports the amendment and appreciates the engagement we have had with Senator Pocock on this. It is aligned with our commitment to improve transparency and accountability in aged care and works well with the new reforms under this bill that hopefully will become an act soon. We are very happy to support this amendment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The opposition will be supporting the amendment moved by Senator Pocock because we believe that the information that Senator Pocock is seeking to be made publicly available on a regular basis is something that has been sadly lacking. We have seen quite extraordinary blowouts in the wait times and the number of people on the national priority system. Minister, I was wondering if we have any idea on the commencement of Support at Home, the anticipated number of packages from level 1 to level 8 over the first 12 months and two years of the system?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We have new entrants to Support at Home, a mix of people accessing new places and also people accessing existing places from people who exit care. There are 83,000 new packages. There are expected to be 90,000 exits and 173,000 total new entrants in 2025-26.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So you are anticipating there will be 83,000 new packages, accepting that of the 173,000 new entrants, 90,000 of them, sadly, will be replacing those no longer in the system. So we have 83,000 new packages. My calculations tell me there are only 30,000 new packages being released next year, so I'm interested to understand where those 83,000 packages are coming from.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The commitment from the government is 300,000 places over 10 years. There is not an annual allocation of 30,000. Releases will vary per year in line with some of the demand projections.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Okay, could you give us an indication then, on the basis of the calculations that have been handed to you from your officials of the 83,000 new packages for 2025-26, are all 83,000 going to be made available in 2025-26?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes. The projection is there will be 83,000—sorry, let me check my notes—new packages, which is what I said at the beginning of my answer.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Of the 300,000 packages you are estimating over 10 years, are you estimating 83,000 of those will be released in the first year?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So we've got 83,000 packages to be released in 2025-26, which, obviously, is going to leave us with 217,000 packages over the subsequent nine years. Have you got the breakdown of the estimation of those packages?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't believe that information is available. Obviously projections will be updated as the system rolls out and new packages are provided. You would expect that, I would imagine, to happen on an annual basis.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the costing for those 83,000 new packages contained within the financial envelope that has been released as part of this?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, it is.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In relation to the first year, obviously, because that's the one you have the information on, have you got a breakdown of those 83,000 packages and what will be in levels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 through to 8?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't believe so at this stage. It's dependent on assessments.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Obviously that's great news for older Australians, particularly those on waiting lists, that 83,000 packages are going to be released in 2025-26. I'm interested to understand what modelling you've done in relation to workforce capability to be able to provide those services.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I said earlier this morning, we have seen a number of changes with the aged-care workforce. Obviously the aged-care wage increases have significantly improved the aged-care workforce, both in retaining and in attracting people to the aged-care system. This is something that the minister has been working very hard on. Clearly, expanding services significantly can only be successful if there is the workforce to provide them, but the aged-care wage has been probably the single biggest important initiative, which, again, the minister fought very hard for. There is also the work that's been released—this professional framework to build and strengthen the aged-care workforce. I know we're not allowed props, but I'll just show you that one. And working with providers about their expectations is clearly part of it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I hope you are able to achieve that. I'm interested to understand: if you're going to release 83,000 packages in 2025-26, what was the rationale behind the decision to only release 24,100 in 2024-25?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That decision was essentially based on keeping the packages going out but knowing that the minister was leading these reforms to get the new system in place, which would significantly increase the number of packages. So it's essentially to continue to invest, build and make packages available knowing that this system, once this bill passes, will be implemented. As we said, there will be a significant uptick in packages for the 2025-26 year.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm still not quite understanding what you're saying in relation to this. My question was in relation to the 24,100 packages released in 2024-25, and you're saying 83,000 are going to be released in 2025-26. What changes proposed in this bill are going to substantially change the means through which packages are delivered that would warrant you restricting packages to 24,100 this year when somehow you've been able to find the capacity within the system for 83,000 packages next year? You're making it sound like the reforms that are before us, within this package of legislation, are somehow going to change the ability of the sector to deliver those packages.</para>
<para>I take your point around a previous decision in relation to wages, which has certainly seen a stabilisation of the exit of staff from the aged-care workforce, and I know that the aged-care sector is grateful for that intervention. But I'm trying to understand what is happening here or what changes you are referring to that would mean that you are releasing more than three times the number of packages in 2025-26 than you have 2024-25. What is the basis for that? To me, it has a very strange look of you restricting the release of packages in 2024-25. If the capacity exists in 2025-26 for more than three times the number of packages than were released in 2024-25, I would like to understand why you have restricted the release of packages in 2024-25.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There have been additional packages in 2024-25, and then, through the reforms in the Aged Care Act and the Support at Home program, we are building a more sustainable aged-care system, going forward, including more options for care through Support at Home, including co-contributions. There has been no restriction. There has been additional investment. Then, in 2025-26, when Support at Home would commence—as you know, there are different levels of packages that will come through there, with different levels of care and more choice and control for participants, including the use of co-contributions. It's around the whole purpose of this bill, essentially.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, what will be the amount of the co-contributions in 2025-26?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't believe that that is a number we can give, because it would be based on assessments and based on the choices of people coming into Support at Home—what options from the service list they want to pursue. I think it would be almost impossible to predict that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You made a comment about the reason that 83,000 packages would be able to be released into the market in 2025-26. You said it was the co-contribution, and it's interesting that you don't know what the co-contribution is to that. Nonetheless, I'm very interested. This program doesn't start until 1 July 2025. There are significant grandfathering provisions contained within this to make sure that anybody who's already on their aged-care journey is not going be negatively impacted. I still don't quite understand how we've gone from 24,100 to 83,000 in the space of one year, but, obviously, that's very good news for older Australians who are looking for access to government funded and supported aged care.</para>
<para>As I said, we'll be supporting Senator David Pocock's amendments in relation to transparency around wait times and waiting lists, and thank him very much for the really constructive way that he has engaged in this process in support of older Australians who are currently languishing on very long waiting lists and for very long wait times.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Since debate on Senator Pocock's amendments seems to have taken its course, the question is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 3097 moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move amendment (1) on sheet 3157:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Amendment (64), to be opposed.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I was going to withdraw government amendment (64) on sheet RY104 and, by doing so, I think Senator Pocock doesn't need to move his amendment on sheet 3157.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's my understanding. Senator Ruston.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm just seeking clarification: will item 64 remain in the bill?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, this is an amendment. It's not in the bill. It was on our amendment sheet which we are now not moving because it relates to the reporting and transparency that we dealt with Senator Pocock's amendment on sheet 3097, so I'm withdrawing that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So does Senator Pocock's amendment now stand in its place?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, we just passed his amendment on sheet 3097. I will withdraw that amendment.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If I can sum up, the minister has withdrawn the amendment (64) on sheet RY104, which means, Senator Pocock, you no longer need to move your amendment on sheet 3157. I ask you to advise the chamber that you're not intending to proceed.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm happy to withdraw my amendment on sheet 3157. I move the amendment, standing in my name, on sheet 3122:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 5, page 3 (after line 26), after paragraph 5(d), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(da) ensure individuals over the age of 65 with disability receive daily living supports and outcomes comparable to those that would be available under the National Disability Insurance Scheme to a person under the age of 65; and</para></quote>
<para>The aged-care royal commission made a powerful statement that people with disability receiving aged care should receive daily living supports and outcomes equivalent to those that would be available under the NDIS. That's clearly not happening currently. As I spoke about yesterday, I had the pleasure of meeting two Canberrans for whom this inequality is a reality on a daily basis: Lorraine, who suffered a spinal cord injury over the age 65, and Peter, her husband, who supports her every single day.</para>
<para>Peter is 86 next month, and he worries that he will soon no longer be able to help his wife get into bed in the evening. But he's got no choice because, through the home-care system—which is soon to be the Support at Home system—they cannot get the support Lorraine needs in the evening. My amendment on sheet 3122 won't mandate that people receive the same supports as they do in the NDIS but sets the objective that it is something we need to take seriously. It also recognises that the aged-care system is the system for people who become disabled over the age of 65. Currently, that's not entirely clear, but, in practice, it is the system and has to deliver for older Australians with disabilities like spinal cord injuries.</para>
<para>Minister, I have a couple of questions before we get to a vote on this amendment. What is the government's position on recommendation 67 of the aged-care royal commission? Does the government accept the recommendation? If so, how does the government intend to see it implemented?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I was just seeking further information to check in terms of the response to the royal commission—I just don't have that information available at my fingertips—but the government certainly recognises that people over the age of 65 who require additional support, particularly with home modifications or assisted technology like walkers, wheelchairs and other equipment, should have these provided. Under the Support at Home scheme, we believe there will be a significant improvement and an increase in care and support that will be able to be provided to people over the age of 65 who are participants in the Support at Home scheme.</para>
<para>If I talk to your amendment at the same time as trying to answer your question, the Support at Home scheme will include more tailored support with those eight ongoing levels all the way up to $78,000 a year. There will be support for home modifications with up to $15,000 to make homes safer. There will be fast and better access to assisted technology. There will be a new equipment loan scheme. And if someone needs assistive technology or equipment over the $15,000 cap then it can be prescribed and provided. So assisted technology is practically uncapped if a person is in need of that extra support. We recognise this has been a difference between those under 65 and those over 65, and we believe the new Support at Home scheme is a significant improvement and increase in the care and support that will be provided to people at home. As such, we won't be supporting your amendment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. I appreciate the extra investments for home modifications and assistive technology. This is obviously very welcome and will go a long way to helping people with disability over the age of 65. But what I'm hearing that people are struggling with is, quite literally, getting hours of personal care support in their package. A person with quadriplegia needs help showering, needs help getting into and out of bed, needs help getting changed. None of that is solved through home mods and assistive technology. It's solved through personal care workers providing the valuable support that they do.</para>
<para>We were just talking about Peter's case and him doing that. That's my question here. This is something that Peter and Lorraine don't have. It was recommended by the royal commission that people over the age of 65 with a disability have these sorts of supports. What can we do about this? How do we not just kick this down the road and say, 'Well, you'll have more technology,' if care hours are actually the problem here?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry; I should have touched on that. At the moment, under homecare packages, there's only levels 1 to 4. This is increasing the number of classifications, from one to eight. If you are on one of the highest care packages, which pays for those hours, there will be an increase of almost $20,000 in the package, which translates into those extra care hours.</para>
<para>I do believe that the Support at Home program, if you are a high-needs person, and it sounds like the folks you were talking to would classify for that, there would be additional hours of care provided through the package but even utilising the package and then some of that assisted technology and equipment would hopefully mean some of the care being provided would be more effective and efficient and supportive for her as well.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 3122 moved by Senator David Pocock agreed to.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The opposition amendment on sheet 3077 relates to the complaints system. I'm keen to get some information from the minister for the time based obligations put around complaint determinations. Minister, we've been getting a number of calls to my office, as I'm sure everybody has to their offices, in relation to this.</para>
<para>Yesterday, my office was contacted by a woman in South Australia. Her mother had a homecare package, but she had to go to hospital because she had a stroke. The daughter contacted the homecare provider that was providing her homecare package and advised that her mother was in hospital and sought to have her package services cancelled for the duration of time that her mother was in hospital. This didn't happen, and, according to the constituent, the services that were contracted to the provider continued to be provided by that particular provider for the three months that the lady who'd had the stroke was in hospital.</para>
<para>There are a couple of questions here. First of all, after continuous complaints to the provider, the services were eventually stopped, after three months. She complained to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission some time afterwards. Not only did they continue for three months but the money was taken out of her package for the services over that period of time, so a quarter of her annual package was taken during that time. The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission said it is only possible to ask an aged-care provider to make those changes; it cannot force them to make those changes. Under the new provisions that exist in this bill, in relation to the Complaints Commissioner, how would this situation have been resolved, and how would it be any different to how this appears to have been dealt with under existing complaints provisions?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Under Support at Home you'll only pay for the services you receive, under the new system. I think that's the first thing to say. In relation to the complaints, I'm advised that the aged-care rules will outline a requirement for any complaint or feedback to be acknowledged within three days of receipt and for the commission to keep complainants and other relevant parties updated on a regular basis throughout the complaint resolution process. The rules would also provide specific guidance on reviews by the Office of the Complaints Commissioner, noting that this is to include specific timeframes for reconsiderations and reviews as well as specifying the decision-maker for a decision or a review or reconsideration of a decision to be providing that advice. I think there are some significant changes under the new arrangements that would apply, although it is difficult to talk about individual circumstances. I think those, in a general sense, would be the main changes.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. You responded that, going forward, you'll only pay for the services you receive. In a technical respect this person did receive services, because, despite asking for them not to be provided, they were provided. What would be the mechanism in this situation going forward? The provider continued to attend the home of Mrs X, who was in hospital. What obligation is there on the service providers when they attend the premises? Clearly, she wasn't there for three months. According to the constituent that spoke to me, the services—cleaning and gardening—continued to be provided, despite the fact nobody needed to clean a house that nobody was living in. What are the obligations, and how does the complaints mechanism work? Clearly the commission was made aware of this particular issue, and it has advised that it's only possible to ask a provider to make changes. Under the new provisions that are contained here, what are the powers? The commission has said it can only ask them to make changes; it can't enforce those changes. What is in the bill that makes that enforceable?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm not aware of the case. I've heard what you've said. I think it is very difficult for me to go further into what could be done. I've told you that people will only pay for services provided. I acknowledge your response to that. I have told you that complainants will be required to have their complaint acknowledged and feedback provided within three days of receipt, which goes to some of your constituent's concerns around trying over a period of time to have this matter dealt with. If I can provide more information about whether or not the complaints commissioner can compel a provider to stop providing care, I will take further advice on that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I raise this as an example. I'm not specifically talking about this example. If somebody makes a complaint about something, what are the kinds of complaints that the commissioner has no power to take action on?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Your question is: What areas can't the commission involve itself in or determine? Is that right?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes. In this particular instance, the lady has said that the commissioner said that they could only ask the provider. They couldn't force the provider to do this. In terms of the powers of the commissioner, what are the powers of the commissioner in enforcement of something, and what don't they have powers for? As this lady pointed out, it seems very odd, when you're asked not to provide a service, that you actually refuse not to provide a service and continue to provide that service, even though that service is completely unnecessary and unneeded. Yet the commissioner says that they have no power to do that. Is there a framework in terms of the powers of the commissioner about what they can enforce and what they can't?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The commission has to enforce the law. I think your question is a slightly different one. I think—if you'll forgive me—we should take that and perhaps have the department write back to you about the circumstances in which the commission could compel a provider to not provide care. Is that okay? Yes? Okay.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the interests of trying to get my head around this, when I was at the ACCPA conference—the aged-care providers annual conference—a question was asked of a panel which included the aged-care commissioner and the complaints commissioner. The question, which went to the complaints commissioner, was: what would be different under the new provisions that are contained in this act in relation to the receiving and actioning of complaints compared to the current situation? The complaints commissioner actually said that there would be no difference. We asked the commissioner at estimates—I think you were there, Minister, when we asked the commissioner—and she made reference to the fact that that probably wasn't correct; there would be things that would be different. Throughout the inquiry process, there were concerns raised about the timeliness not just of reporting but of the actioning on reporting.</para>
<para>There were also concerns around the fact that the complaints commissioner was embedded within the commission for two reasons. One is what difference would that make from existing provisions, and the other is what happens if the complaint was actually about the commission in the first place. Unpacking those two issues, I ask: what are the substantive changes in relation to the role of the complaints commissioner that are contained in this bill that don't currently exist?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Ruston for the question. I think one of the main differences will be the restorative justice approach to complaints handling, bringing people together to resolve complaints. I think that would probably be the most significant one. I'll see if there's anything further that I can add. The complaints processes will be contained in the rules. It will be in the final tranche of the rules. I think that they are coming out in four blocks. I think the first block is out; the second block is almost out. I understand from discussions with the minister that the harder bits were coming out first so that more feedback on all of that could be done. So complaints handling and processes would be in the final tranche of the rules.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just in a broadbrush response, do you expect that there will be a significant change in the remit of the complaints commissioner in the new rules?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Not in the sense that they would be given jurisdiction to enforce the law, as they currently do as an independent statutory office. I guess, in some of the approaches to complaints resolution, you could see changes to that and, again, with that early intervention and bringing people together to try and resolve complaints earlier and sooner in a collaborative way, and that would be outlined in the rules.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just finally on this one, unless other senators wish to make a contribution, I'm keen to understand this: what happens if the complaint is about the commission itself? It seems a bit like they are somewhat judge and jury in this respect. If somebody like the lady I was just speaking about had made a complaint to the commission and now wants to make a complaint about the fact that the commission is not able to do anything about her complaint, what further opportunity has she got for redress on this issue?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm advised there is an internal complaint handling process for the commission that is on their website, so a person could lodge a complaint about the commission.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ruston</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>To the commission?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They would have an internal process of dealing with that, as most agencies do. As far as I know, if you wanted to make a complaint about the Department of Finance, they would look at—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ruston</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No-one ever makes a complaint about the Department of Finance.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I wouldn't be so sure about that. Finance has a set of procedures about how to handle those complaints, measured on the seriousness of it, but also the Ombudsman is the relevant authority should someone want to escalate or not pursue it through the internal grievance procedures.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Minister. I want to put it on the record that we heard a significant amount of concern expressed around the lack of robust change that was being proposed, but as you rightly point out we are yet to see the rules in relation to this particular part of the bill. We will wait to see those and look forward to the scrutiny that we will be able to have over that, given that we have got the agreement of this place for scrutiny of the subordinated legislation. On that basis, I commend this amendment to the chamber.</para>
<para>I move the amendment, standing in my name, on sheet 3077:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 361, page 365 (after line 30), after subclause (1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the rules must provide that if a complaint is made to the Complaints Commissioner about:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the compliance of a registered provider or a responsible person or aged care worker of a registered provider with this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a registered provider acting in a way that is incompatible with the Statement of Rights;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the Complaints Commissioner must, by the end of the period specified in the rules:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) deal with and resolve the complaint; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) prepare a written statement (a <inline font-style="italic">complaint determination</inline>) setting out:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) what action (if any) the Complaints Commissioner took to deal with and resolve the complaint; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) what action (if any) should be taken by another person to deal with and resolve the complaint; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) information relating to the review or reconsideration of decisions made under the scheme; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) give the person who made the complaint a copy of the complaint determination.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the committee is that the amendment standing in the name of Senator Ruston on sheet 3077 be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [16:57]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>43</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>16</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the opposition amendment on sheet 3080:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 23, page 49 (after line 34), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) An individual has a right to access, at any time the individual chooses, a person designated by the individual, or a person designated by an appropriate authority.</para></quote>
<para>This amendment seeks to make sure that no person in aged care can, in the future, ever be denied access to see the person that they designate, or the person that is designated under the appropriate authority. We need to make sure that, if we're going to embed choice, control and rights for older Australians into this act, one of the most fundamental rights of anybody is to be able to get access to the people they love.</para>
<para>We know we have to ensure the safety of everybody in a workplace, but you have to remember that the workplace we're talking about when we refer to residential aged-care homes is the home of the person. We believe that it is absolutely essential that never again older Australians are denied access to their loved ones for any reason whatsoever. We believe that every home in Australia should be able to provide for a situation where, no matter what the circumstances, an older Australian can always get access to their loved one. To be denied access to see somebody that you care for or love, in the final days of your life, is, we think, completely unacceptable. Therefore, we are moving this amendment to make sure an individual always has the right to access, at any time, the person that they choose, a person designated by them, or a person designated by an appropriate authority, if that individual is unable to make that decision for themselves. I would highly commend this particular amendment to the chamber.</para>
<para>It was certainly something that came up during the inquiry, and it really related to older Australians being able to have the dignity of risk. If older an Australian makes the decision that it is their preferred situation to see a loved one, even if that loved one has got the flu or something that potentially may be harmful to that individual, they should have the dignity of risk to in choosing whether they see them. I would absolutely commend this particular amendment to the house.</para>
<para>I want to put on the record a piece of evidence that was received from Margaret. Margaret was one of our lived-experience witnesses during the inquiry, and she made a comment that really struck home to me. And if we are really, really serious about making sure that we are giving choice and control back to older Australians—and that's the fundamental premise of why we're standing here all day today talking about the details of this bill; it's about making sure that older Australians and their rights, their choice and their control are at the centre of the framework that delivers aged care in Australia going forward—then I think the words of Margaret are really important. Margaret is 76 years old, and this is what she had to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The ongoing elephant in the room is the perceived dichotomy between duty of care and dignity of risk. If people were encouraged to spend their whole lives, from babyhood, cocooned in their own homes, never opening the door and venturing into the outside, they might be physically safer; however, we know that would mean they would miss out on most, if not all, of the joys and challenges that risk brings, that life brings—the mental and psychological health that we all aspire to… We want to have the option to choose the right to take risks according to our own priority, not to be wrapped up irrespective of our own. Too often, as people age, they are perceived as having higher and higher needs for priority to go to care rather than to activities and options that give them some entertainment or even joy.</para></quote>
<para>We believe part of that fundamental right and that dignity of risk is for them to see the people they love when they want to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government will not be supporting the amendment. The Aged Care Bill already addresses the issue raised by Senator Ruston. Part 4 of chapter 1 establishes the role of supporters in the context of decision-making. Chapter 3, part 4, division 1, clause 156(1)(a) and 156(1)(b) establish, as a condition of registration, a registered provider must allow and facilitate access to persons including supporters, advocates and aged-care volunteer visitors in accordance with any requirements prescribed by the rules. Chapter 1, part 3, division 1, clause 23(12) also provides:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(12) An individual has a right to opportunities, and assistance, to stay 24 connected … with:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) significant persons in the individual's life and pets, including through safe visitation by family members, friends, volunteers or other visitors where the individual lives and visits to family members or friends …</para></quote>
<para>The rules pertaining to clause 156(1)(a) and 156(1)(b) are under development, and requirements for access for the stipulated persons will be considered through that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, you make the comment that you believe this is contained already. We don't believe that it's already contained in there. There are a whole heap of conditional words that are used within the various sections that you talk about. Also, we have yet to see the specific rules. Are they available?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No, they are not available yet.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question to the government is: what is the harm in putting something into the legislation that is really concrete and underpins the absolutely fundamental basis of what we're trying to achieve here in terms of the rights of older Australians? We haven't seen the rules, so we don't know what's in them, but, if you say that everything that we are trying to achieve by this very simple amendment—all the amendment says is to add a clause saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(13) An individual has a right to access, at any time the individual chooses, a person designated by the individual, or a person designated by an appropriate authority.</para></quote>
<para>It is not a convoluted amendment that has a whole heap of potential unintended consequences. It's pretty straightforward. I'm really keen to understand: what is the basis on which the government would not be allowing older Australians this basic human right?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston, I acknowledge your right to move the amendment. We agree to disagree on this. We think it is already contained in the bill and will subsequently be further provided for in the rules. So we are opposed to the amendment but accept that you have moved the amendment.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the committee is that the amendment on sheet 3080 as moved by Senator Ruston be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [17:13]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>40</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>17</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the amendment on Sheet 3142:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Page 173 (after line 23), at the end of Division 1, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision J — Condition relating to residential care homes</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">165A Residential care homes</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) It is a condition of registration that a registered provider in the residential care category must ensure that at least 20% of the beds in each residential care home covered by the provider's registration are reserved for supported residents.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) In this section:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">supported resident</inline> means an individual:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) in respect of whom a registered provider is eligible to receive an accommodation supplement; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) who may be charged an accommodation contribution.</para></quote>
<para>Minister, within every region of Australia there is a minimum requirement for providers in each of those regions to preserve a percentage of those beds for Australians who may not have the means to pay a $750,000 refundable deposit or pay the $172-a-day accommodation payment. It's 16 per cent in Brisbane and North Queensland, it's 40 per cent across the regional Northern Territory and it's 19 per cent here in the ACT. That's today's law—that there must be beds set aside for those who may not be able to afford them. It protects against people who live in an area being priced out of that area. We all know this too well; we have areas where people have lived there their entire lives but they have now become very expensive and we're seeing people priced out of their neighbourhoods.</para>
<para>My amendment here would add back a minimum thresholding mandating that 20 per cent of beds in each facility must be for supported residents. It is far below the current national average of 40 per cent, but it will send a signal to the sector that they may not build an aged-care home exclusively for people with the means to pay high fees. We don't want this two-tiered system to develop. While I recognise that the rules may incentivise those who choose to accept supported residents with a higher accommodation supplementation amount, the lack of a clear floor means that future aged-care providers can build nursing homes that most financially disadvantaged people would be locked out of.</para>
<para>Minister, I am keen to ask a few questions. I know everyone is keen to get on with things. How many residential aged-care facilities currently do not have even a single supported resident? If possible, how many facilities have fewer than 20 per cent of beds filled by supported residents?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand 42 facilities across the country don't have any supported residents. Forty-four per cent of residents across the country are supported. Was that your question?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. How many facilities have fewer than 20 per cent of their beds filled by supported residents?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We don't think we have that information with us. On your amendment: the difference under the new act, the new arrangements, will be that, instead of the supported resident arrangements that have been provided by region, the place will be provided to the individual. That's why we don't believe we need that existing 20 per cent, which is an average across the region, to continue. Also, facilities will get a supplementary rate.</para>
<para>The government won't support the amendment. Providers are given a financial incentive to have more than 40 per cent supported residents, and that supplement rate is 25 per cent higher than it is for homes with less than 40 per cent. Our commitment is there for supported residents; that does not change under this. It's just that the financial support or the incentives have been changed so that that 20 per cent average across a region is no longer required. Sixty-three per cent of facilities get that payment and have over 40 per cent supported residents.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, aged care is a Commonwealth program. Providers receive taxpayer funds and it seems to me there is a social contract that comes with that. It's the responsibility of each provider to take their share of Australians who don't have the means, to give them a dignified safe experience in the places they own and manage. Does the government believe every residential aged-care facility should cater for supported residents?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are only a very small number that don't; the vast majority do. We strongly support the idea that individuals requiring residential aged care should be provided that care regardless of their income or assets. I think we're in furious agreement here; the disagreement is over the mechanism used to provide that extra support through the funding. Your position is: keep it the way it is now, with a 20 per cent average per region. We're saying we want to allocate those places to individuals and we want to incentivise, and the aged-care industry at the moment clearly indicates that, with the receipt of those additional payments, by far the vast majority are providing supported resident placement and getting the financial incentive to allow that to occur.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just following on in relation to the questions Senator Pocock has been asking in relation to the amendment he's moved around supported accommodation residents: at the moment, the Department of Health and Aged Care website requires that there are mandated ratios per area in terms of how many supported residents a particular aged-care home in an area is required to have. I am interested to understand: does the department keep a record to make sure that, currently, those ratios are being met?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, the department does, and those ratios are exceeded.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Have they ever not been exceeded?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Not that my expert box full of smart people can say! But I don't believe so.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Is there any intention that supported residential mandates will be in the rules, or is your previous explanation to Senator Pocock that it will now occur because of the way residential aged-care packages are allocated or provided to the individual? I'm somewhat confused about how that might actually work in practice. Could you unpack that a bit for me?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The allocation of the supported place would go to the individual, regardless, rather than being allocated to a region. That's, again, in line with the act, which is all about providing for that person at the centre of the care. Then there's the incentive payment, or supplement, that will be paid to those providers that have greater than 40 per cent of residents in that category.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Am I to read into that that you're relying on the 25 per cent additional higher payment for supported resident supplement for over 40 per cent of residents being supported—you're relying on that 25 per cent, or you're relying on the supported supplement?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Gallagher</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The allocation of the places—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, but what I'm saying is: if you're allocating an aged-care residential place to someone in aged care, if they go into an aged-care home that has got in excess of 40 per cent of supported residents, am I reading into that that the home that has them will be paid a 25 per cent premium, as they currently are, so there's no change in terms of the support of government in terms of incentivisation around supported—</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I just say that one of the things that the opposition has consistently said, throughout hearings and throughout the committee process, is that we believe this is a fundamental flaw in the whole system and in the bill, and we certainly understand what Senator Pocock is trying to do by moving this particular amendment, because there is no doubt whatsoever that the opposition absolutely supports the idea of equal access for individuals who need aged care, regardless of their income or wealth, and that includes ensuring that people with lower means continue to be able to support the aged-care services that they need, and, most particularly, that they need within their local community.</para>
<para>There is one thing that we heard time and time again during the inquiry, particularly when it related to areas in regional Australia. As an example, both of the nursing homes that gave evidence in Port Lincoln said that they were at capacity; there were many older people from Port Lincoln or surrounding districts who were currently in the Port Lincoln hospital; there was no capacity for them to be accommodated within the nursing homes in Port Lincoln, so these people were being forced to move hundreds of miles away from their community, their families and their loved ones, just to be able to get access to care.</para>
<para>The point I think Senator Pocock is trying to make here, and I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong, is that, currently, the accommodation supplement paid for by the government, the accommodation contribution made on behalf of an individual who is supported, if they receive the 25 per cent incentive payment because the home that they're in has more than 40 per cent of residents as supported residents, is $68 a day. If you then make a comparison to that, as Senator Pocock did, in terms of a higher value refundable accommodation deposit, the amount that the home would receive, as an example, from a daily accommodation payment would be $172 a day. The government is paying $68 a day; the home is charging, under commercial means, $172 a day, because that is what they are allowed to charge based on the MPIR. So, essentially, what we've got here at the moment is a situation where residential aged-care providers are covering the accommodation costs, or a significant proportion of the accommodation costs, for supported and partially supported residents, and, in doing so, are most likely charging higher costs to those people who aren't supported in those payments. So we have a massive discrepancy between what the supported accommodation payment is, even where it has received the 25 per cent increase or bonus that the minister was talking about, and the daily accommodation payment, the difference being, as I said, that the supported accommodation payment is $68 a day and the daily accommodation payment is $172 a day on the maximum current refundable accommodation deposit calculation, where the person is paying a daily accommodation payment.</para>
<para>One of the things that we were really pleased about was that the government accepted the recommendation of the opposition to move forward the accommodation review, because these pricing structures that currently are in place are completely and utterly unfair. We have three different means by which people are paying for their aged care. One is obviously supported by the government, and the other two are through a refundable accommodation deposit or through a daily accommodation payment which is based on the price of the accommodation deposit. We think that this review is absolutely essential to try to remedy this structural flaw. We believe that accommodation should have a room price and that room price should be consistent. You should not have three different prices—or, in the case of a ratio under 40 per cent, four different room prices—for exactly the same room. So we are very pleased that the government has listened to calls from the opposition. Once again, I give a shout-out to COTA for their very strong advocacy on behalf of some of the people they represent—those who are most vulnerable and particularly those who are suffering financial hardship—about the agreement to put more explicit hardship provisions into the bill.</para>
<para>Senator Pocock, while we're not in a position to support your amendment, I want to put on the record that we absolutely understand where this is coming from. We believe there is a bigger issue to resolve here than simply putting in another number or ratio. We think there is a far greater fundamental flaw in how accommodation is charged in the aged-care sector in Australia as we're standing here. So we would say we want to go to this review as quickly as possible to make sure that we have got the whole issue resolved, even though we absolutely support the intent of what you're trying to move here.</para>
<para>I'm keen to understand the changes that are being proposed at the moment that are in the rules. Currently, they're determined by location. Am I correct in assuming that in the future there will be no location requirements in terms of the ratios that you're talking about here, so it won't matter where you are but it will just be a blanket determination that, if the supported resident ratio of a particular home is over 40 per cent, you'll get $68 a day and, if it's under 40 per cent, it will be $52 a day? I'm not quite sure what the actual figure is, but is that correct? So it doesn't matter where you are—whether you're in the most remote part of Australia or the middle of a capital city? The 40 per cent rule is just a blanket one-size-fits-all, with no regard for the nuances of the vastly different statuses of those markets?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That's right. There are a range of grants and supplements available under the system, as you know, and the allocation will be to a person, not to a region. I can see Senator Wong is bribing you, Senator Ruston—with chocolate frogs, I might add.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  Okay. Just as an example, the mandated ratios vary significantly depending on the region at the moment. I take it from what you've just said, Minister, that—even though we know that, in places like Alice Springs and the Barkly, the ratios are much higher and they're different depending on where they are—you have no concern about any unintended or adverse consequences of no longer being a little more specific about the targeting of the requirement for supported residents. You're actually removing it altogether. There is no concern that we're going to see potentially some places where homes will make the decision not to take any supported residents at all?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Not worried.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much. I must say that I am particularly surprised that the government is not concerned about the most vulnerable in our community being potentially adversely affected by the fact that there is no protection left in here until such time—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Gallagher</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We've been going so well, Senator Ruston. Don't verbal me.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! You'll have your chance.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>as we are able to have the review. The only comfort that I suppose I take from all that is that the government was accommodating in bringing forward the review into accommodation to July 2026. Hopefully we'll be able to get a resolution that will be able to provide much more transparency, equity and fairness when it comes to the payment of accommodation component of people's aged-care payments when they're in residential care. I commend Senator Pocock for his amendment and look forward to working with him over the coming months to make sure that we get this accommodation review resolved so that we can get that fairness into the system.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't want to delay the Senate, but I just do want to put on the record that that is not what I said. The government does care and is very focused on the needs of vulnerable older Australians. That is why the proposal is that, rather than allocate supported places to a region, they are going to be provided to the individual. That is appropriate with the person centred care approach of the Aged Care Act.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm sorry for prolonging this, but I'm really keen to understand. At the moment there is a mandated requirement in relation to the percentage in relation to the supplement that's paid to a home for supported residents. You are taking away one part of that but not making any change to the other part of it. There is no change at the moment. The actual payment follows the person, but the reality is that there is actually no change. There is just no safety net anymore in relation to the requirement for there to be supported residents.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm advised that the mandated arrangements are 10 years old. They are substantially exceeded. This is an appropriate way under the new objectives and principles of the act to allocate support for individual older Australians. As you said, there is a review that's coming forward, and obviously we will watch and manage any concerns that come with this, but we strongly believe this will provide the support for the individuals who need it in a system that has been supporting much more than the mandated levels of supported places.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>For the record, I hope you're right, Minister.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the amendment on sheet 3098:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 308, page 304 (after line 18), after subclause (4), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4A) A registered provider must not deduct a retention amount from a refundable deposit balance in any one year period if the sum of all retention amounts deducted from the refundable deposit balance in that period is equal to or greater than 2 per cent of the refundable deposit.</para></quote>
<para>This is around the two per cent cap—the ceiling. There's clearly a different standard of parliamentary scrutiny when it comes to legislation versus delegated legislation and a potential disallowance. I think that this sort of thing should be in primary legislation. We have the habit, it seems, of putting a lot of pretty important, consequential matters in delegated legislation, which doesn't have the same level of scrutiny. I think, if this two per cent were to change, this would require parliamentary scrutiny and debate. If it made sense, I'm sure, as we are seeing today, there'd be good-faith negotiations and contributions, and we'd come up with a new plan. But I don't think this should be in delegated legislation. This would significantly impact the finances of older Australians if it were raised, and that's why I'm proposing this amendment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to put on the record that the Greens will be supporting this amendment. Our position is that the retention rate should be zero per cent, but this amendment is an important cap on stopping a future government from increasing the rate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We won't be supporting this amendment. The Aged Care Bill introduces a new requirement for providers to deduct and retain a small amount from a RAD. The retained amounts are intended to provide immediate improvement to sector financial viability. This change also applies to the refundable accommodation contributions, or RAC, which are used by residents that receive support for some but not all of their accommodation.</para>
<para>There is provision in the bill for rules to prescribe the rate of retention, when to deduct retention amounts from a refundable deposit and any other matters relating to the retention amounts. Once the laws are enacted, the rules will prescribe a RAD retention rate of two per cent per annum and will be capped at five years to protect residents who remain in care for a long time. Retention will not apply to the RADs or RACs of residents who enter aged care before 1 July 2025. These changes are in response to the final report of the Aged Care Taskforce.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendment on sheet 3098 as moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called and the bells being rung—</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Can we stop the bells. Senator Gallagher has indicated that a division is not required and that the government will record its opposition. Is that correct?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Gallagher</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We record our opposition to that amendment.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, I will try and make this as quick as I can in the interest of time. I want to confirm your timeframe and some of the risks associated with the timeframe. If I understood you correctly, you said that the discovery and design gateway will be finished this month and that the build and testing, and going to contract, will be between January and June next year, to go live 1 July.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't believe I said any of that. I said we were at the point where we had all the information we needed for design of the system and that it was undergoing that first gateway review. I am advised that all of the IT requirements that need to be in place will be in place by 1 July 2025.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I know it's a differentiation, but it is an important one. You said that the design is ready. Once the legislation is through, the legislation won't impact on the current design specifications that you have, and you don't need the regulations. It's ready to proceed once this legislation is through because you've got the information that you need, including any of the amendments that have gone through.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Clearly any that impact on that will be dealt with once the amendments have been finalised. A lot of work has been done on that design in the lead up to this—on the principles and the direction we're heading in with the agreement—with the opposition. The digital road map is being finalised and will be tested with the transition taskforce next week. Obviously, by then they'll have information on what the amendments are as well.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In terms of a just-over-six-month timeline, there are significant risks. Having looked at a litany of audit reports, a six-month timeline for such a large project, even if you do have the design specifications almost ready to go now—does that mean that between January and June next year you will be going through the building and testing of the system? Do you already have a contract in place to do that, or do you now have to go out to contract? Is that another thing that needs to be done over those five months?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm not fully across the contractual arrangements that are required. I guess the assurance I'm giving you with this legislation—we did have officials a week or so ago at estimates who would have been able to answer these questions—is that the work is being done. It's a combination, I think, of a new build and managing existing systems, and the integration of those. It will be ready on 1 July. I am aware of how difficult IT projects can be, so of course this will be closely managed and monitored by the government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In relation to that oversight and monitoring, and the high risk that is associated with that, the department of health's monthly assessment from October 2023 to February 2024 was that this had a very high risk. In fact, it was rated as 'red' in terms of risk and went down to 'amber' in March. My understanding is it went to amber because at that stage the legislation was imminent; the legislation would be in by midyear. Are you able to advise where the department of health now has that risk? Has it gone back up to red?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the finalisation of the gateway there will be an assessment of the traffic light colour. In answer to your earlier question, I'm advised that contracts are in place for the work that is needed between now and then.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>REYNOLDS () (): Thank you, Minister. That doesn't actually answer my question, because the department of health does rate its ICT projects every month, and the last one, as I said, went from red to amber in March. So even before the gateway review there would still be a current rating. My question is: is that still amber, or has that gone back up to red, in terms of the risk of the project?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's nothing further I can answer on that, Senator Reynolds. I don't have that advice in front of me. I can say that we are acutely aware of the risks, and there is close management and monitoring of this project. We understand the importance of having things in place by 1 July. I'm really not sure I can provide any more information. I don't have those officials who are managing that project here to assist. I have officials here to assist with the legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I partially accept that, but this is one of the most important implications of this legislation: can it actually be implemented? Clearly, this is going to be very high risk, not only for the department of health and Services Australia to deliver this but also for all of the providers that now have to do system changes. Minister, in relation to support for service providers, you said, as I understand it, that there were going to be more requirements—or was it the other way round? For at-home support providers, do they have more or fewer requirements than the residential care? How will both be supported? You said $10,000. How do they apply for that? When can they apply for it? Also, what guidance will they receive, and when will they receive guidance in terms of the system changes they need to make to be compatible with the changes your departments are making?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I answered all of these questions at about 10 past nine this morning. But, to run through that quickly, there are grants of $10,000 that will be targeted at Support at Home providers. The program has a maximum cost of $10 million. It is expected that the Support at Home providers are the ones that will have the most significant change requiring any IT program changes. The guidelines are being finalised for that. It's imminent, so there would be advice coming out, I think, in the next few weeks or so on the grants of $10,000. Yes, they've only been announced this week, so the grant guidelines will have to be done. Obviously, once we've finished with this bill, further advice and information is going out to providers. There's the transition taskforce that's been established, and that will have its first meeting next Thursday. I have no doubt the issues around preparedness, capability, functionality and all of those matters will be considered by the transition taskforce.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In relation to the transition taskforce, given this is a tier 1 DTA project, which means it's at the highest risk level—of high risk but also high importance for the nation—what is the task force relationship with DTA? Is DTA on this transition taskforce?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There will be close cooperation with the DTA. Obviously, DTA are our expert advisers on IT. They provide regular updates to ERC around assurance reviews and what's happening with all IT projects across the government. So, yes, they will be closely involved. They are not on the taskforce, but I read out the membership of the taskforce about eight hours ago. It's a mix of government stakeholders, community sector stakeholders, providers, unions and independent representatives. But if the taskforce were to want advice from the DTA then they would be more than able to ask for that and have the DTA participate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am a little surprised. That's why I wanted to confirm that DTA is not part of the task force, given it is a tier 1 project. After you mentioned that this morning, I went and checked. The DTA for the Essential aged care information and communication technologies system maintenance and enhancements (Future Aged Care ICT Platform), their latest assessment in Delivery Confidence Assessments—in how confident DTA is that it can be delivered on time, on spec and in accordance with the procurement rules—was medium to low. Minister, I appreciate your confidence in the advice from the department. But all of the indicators and the experience in delivering these projects, including DTA's and the department of health's own assessments of the ability to go through all of that on such a large program—after you talked about that this morning I had a look at what DTA has said and looked at previous audit reports for health and the Digital Transformation Agency and there is nothing there—given it is a such a short timeframe and their own assessments, what gives you confidence that they can perform something that I don't think has ever been done before in five to six months?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm the minister responsible for the DTA, so obviously I come at this from that point of view as well and I have asked the DTA—and department of health is aware of this—to work closely with health, on all of their projects, mindful of some of the assessments from the DTA and some of the reports you cite. So yes.</para>
<para>As I said, I am not diminishing the risks or the challenges, but the advice I've been provided is that the system will be functional and ready to go on 1 July 2025. I look forward to standing here and welcoming that when that happens. We are not diminishing it.</para>
<para>Part of the risk rating and risk assessments from both health's point of view and the DTA, and I am not seeking to shift any responsibility here, is getting the legislation finalised. Again, I am not having a go at that point, but that has contributed to some of the reviews and assessments of whether this can be done.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. I think we all in this place hope you are standing up here next year and reporting on the—as to today—impossible task.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Whish-Wilson</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Are you capitulating the next election?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, the minister did say 'early next year' and I don't have a crystal ball as to when the election is going to be.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Interjections are disorderly.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>But amusing.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Gallagher</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We're reaching that point.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We are reaching that point. Again, on that point, I do admire the minister's confidence in the advice that she has, but I would just make the point, in conclusion: with such an accelerated timeframe, history shows that where these projects go wrong in such short timeframes is that ICT procurements often fail to meet value-for-money criteria due to poor governance oversight and lack of compliance with your own CPR rules. There are significant probity risks in ensuring integrity and transparency, with such a compressed timeframe. There's a possibility of lack of competitive processes. I know you have said that there will be contractors engaged. It doesn't leave much time, if they have not yet been engaged, which we haven't got clarity on today.</para>
<para>Just the contract management of such a large project will make it, if the department manages to pull this off—to deliver the system in time to go live on 1 July—it will be I think the first by any government department pulling off such a miracle in such a short period of time.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move amendment (3) on sheet 3075:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The transitional rules may provide that this Act, or any instrument (legislative or otherwise) made under this Act, has effect with any modifications prescribed by the transitional rules.</para></quote>
<para>The effect of this amendment is to put in place transitional arrangements that would allow for the continuation of services provided under the current act that had been not given a service category within the proposed legislation at no additional cost to the consumer to maintain the no-worse-off provision. It allows homecare providers to deliver services at cost rather than at the national efficient price, which remains unknown, and to mitigate the legitimate risk of exit from the sector as a result of the change to Support at Home from Home Care Packages. So I would certainly recommend that the government consider supporting this to be able to provide that guarantee of the no-worse-off principle, which I know that we all want to have embedded into the legislation because we want older Australians to feel comfortable that there will be a no-worse-off provision. These transition arrangements require the government to make sure that there are transitional rules in place to make sure that is effected.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government will not be supporting this amendment. We're confident the sector will be ready for commencement of the new Aged Care Act on 1 July 2025. The new system needs to commence on that date, and this amendment could prevent that from happening. The implementation of a separate transitional service category that includes elements of the old provider-focused 1997 Aged Care Act would affect the entire architecture of the bill and would open constitutional and other legal issues, including requiring a rewrite of the Support at Home rules, which are already public.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is anyone else seeking the call? I will put the question that the amendment on sheet 3075 be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 3076 together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 547, page 508 (line 4), before "A disclosure of information by an individual", insert "(1)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 547, page 508 (line 12), after "a registered provider", insert "who is covered by subsection (2)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Clause 547, page 508 (after line 19), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) An aged care worker of a registered provider is covered by this subsection if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the aged care worker has agreed, in writing, to receive disclosures that qualify for protection under this section; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the aged care worker has not withdrawn that agreement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Clause 550, page 511 (line 3), omit "paragraph 547(c)", substitute "paragraph 547(1)(c)".</para></quote>
<para>This particular amendment is in relation to who within an aged-care setting is authorised to take disclosures. We heard throughout the inquiry process that many providers were particularly concerned about the whistleblower provisions that were contained in this bill, which referred to absolutely anybody and everybody who is an employee of an aged-care facility. We've seen that the government has had to come back as part of their amendments to change who is actually classified as an aged-care worker, simply because it was such a broad brush. It could have been that the guy that came to clean the gutters was considered an aged-care worker. What we've sought to do is narrow the disclosure provisions so that the individual who is authorised to take the disclosure is more clearly defined within the remit of what type of aged-care worker would be required to take a disclosure.</para>
<para>We do acknowledge in the process that there was some concern expressed by the unions in that they feel that the person would need to make a disclosure to someone that they feel comfortable with. But we also believe, given the seriousness of whistleblower disclosures as opposed to just general disclosures and the legal complications that are involved in whistleblower provisions, that the person who would be taking such disclosures needs to be appropriately trained. The need for everybody in an organisation, down to the window cleaner, to be trained in taking whistleblower disclosures we believed was complete overreach and hence the reason that we are moving this particular amendment. I'll read a comment from a provider:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We don't think it's possible, across Australia, to train thousands of people to take these disclosures and know how to act on them appropriately and swiftly … these are really important disclosures, and the people that take them need to understand very carefully how to manage them appropriately.</para></quote>
<para>We took that advice on, and it is the reason that we have sought to make some changes to these particular provisions in the bill. We also believe that it is really important that, if somebody is feeling uncomfortable and doesn't feel that they are able to take a disclosure, that worker should have the right to say, 'I don't feel comfortable,' or, 'I don't feel that I have the capacity or ability to be able to take a disclosure,' and not have to do so. This is the reason that we're moving this amendment, and I would absolutely commend this amendment to everybody in the House, to make sure that we strike the right balance between making sure that older Australians have got the capacity to make whistleblower disclosures in aged care and making sure that we also have the appropriate training to take such serious disclosures.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In relation to these amendments, the Greens oppose any watering down of whistleblower protections. The royal commission showed us that people must feel safe to speak up when something is wrong, particularly in a sector like aged care. The widest number of people should be protected by whistleblower protections. This means participants and workers should feel safe to disclose to whomever they feel most comfortable. For these reasons we don't support the narrowing of these protections. We won't support these amendments.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We will not be supporting these amendments either. The whistleblower protections under the new Aged Care Act are drafted so as to protect older persons and their families and representatives from victimisation or breach of confidentiality should they make a disclosure to any aged-care worker, acknowledging that older persons are likely to preferentially make disclosures to aged-care workers they trust. It's not clear how a disclosurer would know which workers have agreed and which workers have not agreed to receive whistleblower disclosures.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—Could I have my position recorded, please.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—Could I have my position recorded as well, as opposed.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3150:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 7, page 30 (after line 25), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">System Governor</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">telehealth consultation</inline> means a consultation conducted (other than in person) by videoconference, telephone or other technology.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 175, page 181 (after line 20), after paragraph (2)(a), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(aa) the System Governor determines that the registered provider intends to provide the highest level of clinical care with the available workforce, which may include measures for the support of clinical care by enrolled nurses and through telehealth consultations with registered nurses; or</para></quote>
<para>What we're seeking to do with these amendments is to recognise the shallowness in markets—particularly rural, regional and remote markets—around workforce and make sure that we are providing the best possible care for older Australians within the resources that are available within a community. Of course, nobody wants to see any older Australians not being able to get the care that they absolutely deserve at the highest possible standard, but we are recommending that greater flexibility in the use of care minutes in residential aged care can often deliver individuals fit-for-purpose care that still ensures the highest possible care is delivered.</para>
<para>Just quickly, Minister, I have a couple of questions on this one before we go to a vote. How many aged-care homes have an exemption for 24/7 RNs at the moment?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are 20 services, and there is a registered nurse onsite in aged care 99 per cent of the time.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Outside of the exemptions, how many nursing homes themselves are not meeting the 24/7 requirement, excluding the 20 that have the exemption?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't have that information available, but I'm happy to take that on notice. I do have information that registered nurses are onsite in aged care 99 per cent of the time, across facilities. I would say—just to respond to your moving the amendments—the government strongly opposes these amendments which seek to undermine the recommendation of the royal commission to ensure that every single aged-care home has a registered nurse onsite 24/7. If this amendment were to be successful, we believe it would seriously undermine the broad concept of quality standards, and the fact of having a registered nurse onsite is important for the provision of clinical care to older Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am interested to know, how many nursing homes have applied for a 24/7 exemption and been rejected?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will need to take that on notice too.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That is fine. How many nursing homes are availing themselves of the 10 per cent they are now able to use of their uplift from 1 October in terms of the required RN minutes that were supposed to come in on 1 October that are now able to be used as EN minutes? How many nursing homes are using the extra 10 per cent as ENs?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't think the data is available yet. I'm not sure it has been collected.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Is there any consideration being undertaken by the department to expand the 10 per cent?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Has the department done any analysis around potential pathways through which people who have had a lifetime of lived experience of caring may be able to be streamlined into the care workforce to meet the care workforce demands we know we will have in the future?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Obviously, there is the provision of care through personal care workers and then through nursing minutes.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We heard throughout the inquiry and through many discussions over the last few years that there is a huge number of people who have spent much of their life caring, so they have extraordinary caring skills, but do not actually have the qualification they would necessarily get through TAFE et cetera. I am wondering if any work has been done around trying to harness that extraordinary workforce? They are often women who have been caring for parents or maybe for a child or someone with a disability et cetera and they no longer find themselves needing to care for that person. They have some of the most extraordinary care skills. Has there been any consideration in trying to find a mechanism through which they may be able to be harnessed to deal with the current workforce challenges we're facing across the entire care sector? It is a broad question. Have we done any work on harnessing those people?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't believe so. I don't fully understand whether you mean a recognition of prior experience and learning to provide the EN type care. Is that what you are talking about?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I just mean as a care worker.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just care work? In terms of personal care workers, I would think most providers are looking to employ people who have experience and skill in providing care to people.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I mean, obviously we have a mandated minimum requirement for care workers—certificate III or IV. Has there been consideration in terms of training requirements to fast track access to a group of people who have extraordinary caring skills? Nobody would need to teach them how to care; they would just need for them to understand what is required to work in an environment like aged care. It is a very broad question, whether we have looked at that as an option to be able to supplement our workforce in a speeded-up way, bearing in mind there is a ready-made workforce, particularly women, who sometimes struggle to find work? Has any consideration been given to tap this workforce? It is a very broad question.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am missing the point a bit, but you don't have to have a certificate III or IV to be a personal care worker, so I would think there is ample opportunity for individuals with those skills to seek employment, not just in aged care, but across the care economy.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think what we're to get to here is: is there a way to fast track these people because they already have experience? Do we have a fast-tracked way of getting them through rather than them having to sit through their certificates? If you are coming out of a job but you don't actually hold a qualification, we fast track people. We do shorter courses. I think that is what we are trying to nail down here.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, but my point is that they don't have to have a certificate to be a personal care worker. That's probably a matter for the Minister for Skills and Training about recognition of prior learning for equivalency of a cert III or IV. I'd have to raise that with the Minister for Skills and Training.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Opposition recorded.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I make my statement known that I oppose the amendment?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, we've recorded that you oppose it. You don't need to make it known, because I called it for the noes.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the amendment on sheet 3081:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 284, page 281 (line 32) to page 282 (line 2), omit subclause (5).</para></quote>
<para>In moving this amendment I draw to the attention that, even though it wasn't a recommendation of the Aged Care Taskforce, agreement for additional services must not be made until after a resident has moved into aged care. Whilst, on the surface of this, it probably appears to be quite innocuous in terms of its recommendation, the coalition or the opposition is really quite concerned that this may have an adverse effect on future builds, particularly in providing the services that some Australians may well want.</para>
<para>We're not talking about additional services like a glass of wine with dinner. We're talking about additional services that are structurally built into the actual build of the facility. It might be a hydrotherapy pool, a gym or a swimming pool. There are a whole heap of services that many aged-care providers seek to provide to their residents on the basis that they are of additional cost to the resident, and the resident has a choice as to whether they go into a home with those additional services.</para>
<para>We think that this should be removed from the bill until such time as it is more thoroughly investigated. It was another addition to the bill that the sector hadn't been fully consulted on. We spoke to a lot of older Australians who were living in aged-care homes. Some of these homes are quite extraordinary, and the people who live in them obviously have to have quite significant wherewithal to afford to do so. But they've worked hard all their lives and can afford to do so, and should be able to make those choices during their aged-care journey.</para>
<para>We think this has not been thought through very well. We're not suggesting that there may not need to be changes in relation to this, but it hasn't been thought through. There was a divergence of views around this, and we think that the government should remove this particular provision out of the act. It can always be reintroduced at a later date, after further consultation has taken place on it, but we would seek for the government to remove it. It has clearly been underconsulted, and nobody has taken into account the unintended consequences over the choice and control of older Australians.</para>
<para>I reiterate, once again, that the main purpose of this bill was to give choice and control to older Australians. By doing this, the unintended consequence is that we may well be taking away some of that choice. If providers are not building the facilities in the way that they would build under the existing arrangements, it will deny older Australians the ability to access some of these additional facilities that are currently being provided, because the government has not thought through the consequences of this particular provision.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government also strongly opposes this amendment. The protections are important for older Australians who have shared lived experience of feeling pressured by providers to agree to an additional service fee in order to secure a place in a facility, even if they did not want the services on offer. The higher everyday living fee arrangements will prescribe that the fee can only be charged for additional or higher quality items and services, and can only be charged where a person has agreed to, and can, make use of those services. For example, a person who can no longer swallow cannot be asked to pay for a hot breakfast each day. Essential allied health services would not be eligible for a higher everyday living fee, except where a resident wished to use services beyond those considered essential for their care.</para>
<para>Capital items are expected to be funded through accommodation prices, although access fees could form part of a higher everyday living fee. This is a change from the extra services fee, which included a capital component. Providers will be able to provide information about the services offered for a higher everyday living fee to residents before they have entered care to support consumer choice around their preferred facility. This includes advertising higher everyday living services available at a facility on My Aged Care.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ruston</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I ask that the opposition's position be recorded.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We will record the opposition's support.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 3090 together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 152, page 161 (line 15), before "It is a condition", insert "(1)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 152, page 161 (line 17), before "comply with the worker screening requirements", insert "subject to subsection (2),".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Clause 152, page 161 (line 19), before "ensure that aged care workers", insert "subject to subsection (2),".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Clause 152, page 161 (after line 28), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) do not apply to a registered provider if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the registered provider has made an application (a <inline font-style="italic">worker screening exemption application</inline>) to the System Governor for an exemption from the conditions mentioned in those paragraphs; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the System Governor has accepted the worker screening exemption application.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The rules may prescribe requirements relating to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the making of a worker screening exemption application by a registered provider; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the consideration of the worker screening exemption application by the System Governor; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the acceptance or refusal of the worker screening exemption application by the System Governor; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the review of a decision by the System Governor to accept or refuse the worker screening exemption application.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Without limiting subsection (3), rules made for the purposes of that subsection may prescribe:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) how a worker screening exemption application is to be made by a registered provider; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the information that must be included with the worker screening exemption application; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the matters the System Governor must take into account when considering the worker screening exemption application, including (without limitation):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the geographical location of the registered provider; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the available workforce in the local community of the registered provider; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) whether the registered provider has taken reasonable steps to provide the highest level of clinical care with the available workforce.</para></quote>
<para>These particular amendments came from some very, very strong testimony that we received during the inquiry. They relate to worker screening provisions, and I will put on the record that there is nothing more important than making sure that the workers who are working in our aged-care sector are fit and proper people to be working with some of Australia's most vulnerable people: those people who are in aged care.</para>
<para>The committee heard evidence that the worker screening requirements that were prescribed in the bill could have quite significant consequences in Indigenous communities. Mr Bricknell, the chair of the Aged Care Workforce Remote Accord, made a very compelling statement during his testimony. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… in remote areas, the discretion to make final decisions regarding worker screening should remain with local service providers. This is essential for maintaining culturally safe care, especially for First Nations elders, where community knowledge and lived experience play a significant role in determining who is best suited to provide care.</para></quote>
<para>It is for this reason that coalition senators are recommending that the screening provisions be amended to ensure that there is a level of flexibility, particularly as it relates to Indigenous communities. We believe that there need to be very significant protections around this flexibility and discretion. That's why we're saying the system's governor should be the one who makes the determination in relation to any exemptions in relation to worker screening.</para>
<para>As I said in my opening remarks on this amendment, we need to make sure that the people who are dealing with older Australians are absolutely fit and proper to do so, but we also need to make sure that we recognise the sometimes quite unique needs and circumstances that are found, in particular, in remote communities, as was very clearly highlighted by Mr Bricknell in his evidence. I would highly recommend that the government consider availing itself of this provision, which gives a very, very strictly controlled flexibility that would enable the government to make determinations that may not be strictly in line with the worker screening provisions contained in this bill. This would allow the flexibility to support the culturally appropriate use of staff, particularly in Indigenous communities.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government does not support this amendment. Worker screening is important to protect the health and safety of older people. It's also important to professionalise the aged-care workforce. Worker screening will ensure that people who've been convicted of murder and attempted murder, serious or sexual assault against a vulnerable person, child pornography, abduction or bestiality will be excluded from working in aged care. The government believes it would never be appropriate for individuals who have committed such offences to work in aged care. The provisions in the bill are designed to align with the NDIS worker screening scheme to maximise safety for consumers and mobility between sectors.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to make it very, very clear: the coalition absolutely does not support what the minister has just stood up and said, and that is not the intent of this amendment in any way, shape or form. We absolutely support the exclusion of people with a criminal history, as outlined by the minister. I'm somewhat offended that she would suggest I would be thinking they would be fit and proper people to work in aged care. This particular provision is nothing more than allowing the systems governor within the department to make an exemption if an Indigenous community thinks it is culturally appropriate for them to give an exemption to the person they would like to work in their community. Consideration is given to additional circumstances put forward to the systems governor. I absolutely want to put on the record that the coalition does not support and would never support the suggestion the minister just made that the type of people she outlined are people we would think appropriate to work in aged care.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The opposition record our support for the amendment.</inline></para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3082 together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3082</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 58, page 80 (line 5), omit "; and", substitute "; or".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 58, page 80 (after line 5), after subparagraph 58(a)(iii), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) has care needs that can be met in the most effective way by a funded aged care service; and</para></quote>
<para>What this seeks to do is reflect evidence we heard throughout the hearing in relation to people who are under the age of 65, and this has particularly been driven by evidence around people with early onset dementia. We know that the great bulk of specialised dementia care services, staff and resources are currently in our aged-care homes. I think it is appropriate to give a shout out to some of the most extraordinary dementia care institutions in Australia's aged-care facilities, particularly organisations like HammondCare, who have actually specialised in dementia care. This is where the resources exist for people with dementia to get the best possible care, because these are the places where people have the skills and experience to be able to manage it.</para>
<para>I will just put on the record a personal experience of a friend of a very, very close friend of mine, whose husband, at the age of 61, has been suffering from early onset dementia for the last nine years. He is still at home because of a mechanism that prevents him from being able to go to aged care. She is caring for him at home with quite an amount of support, but she knows the best care for him will be in aged care. She is seeking for him to be able to go into aged care, because she believes the care could be improved on by his being able to go into aged care. As this bill is currently written, he would potentially be denied access into aged care. We think that, under circumstances where it can be absolutely demonstrated that the care needs of the individual under the age of 65 can be met most effectively and efficiently and in the way the person and the carer wants those to be met through a funded aged care service—and only under that particular and extreme circumstance—people under the age of 65 should be granted access to aged care.</para>
<para>It is in the interest of the unfortunately many Australians now with early onset dementia—we're seeing an increase—receiving the best possible care that we provide this very strict and tight exemption criteria to enable those people to access the best possible care that they can, because we know that care is currently embedded in our aged-care facilities.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I was trying to get some advice, because I understand that situation. In a previous life, back in the nineties, I was part of a team that worked to get young people out of nursing homes where it was inappropriate. So I do understand this issue and absolutely the appropriateness of an aged-care facility for some who require that high-level care. I guess, since that time, we now also have the NDIS to provide support to people under the age of 65. We don't support this amendment, Senator Ruston. We believe it would reverse measures taken since the royal commission to limit entry of younger people to residential aged care. The intent of the bill is that there would be prescribed categories for those under the age of 65 accessing aged care through the aged-care assessment process, also with the requirement that the individual has been informed of alternative service options and elects to be provided with aged-care services. Our view is that it is necessary to provide clarity on the categories of people who may be considered for younger entry to aged care and that this clarity both provides certainty to those individuals about the eligibility and avoids the current situation where, in the absence of a legislated definition of exceptional circumstance, aged care can become a service of last resort in situations where it's not appropriate.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ruston</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—could we have our position recorded.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Your position is recorded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3091 together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 143, page 157 (after line 16), after subclause (2), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2A) The Commissioner must not impose a condition unless the condition is of a kind that is prescribed by the rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2B) Subsection (2A) does not apply to a condition covered by subsection (3).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 143, page 157 (line 17), omit "The conditions may include, but are not limited to,", substitute "The conditions covered by this subsection are".</para></quote>
<para>These are the final amendments that the opposition will be moving in relation to this significant package of reform. The reason that we're seeking to do this is that, during passage of the bill through the necessary procedures through this place, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee raised some quite significant concerns about the powers of officials to create offences that are the subject of severe penalty. Most particularly, the bill actually delegates the power to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner to make conditions of registration and the power to impose penalties in addition to those authorised by the parliament. It also appears, as it's currently written, that there will be no requirement for the commissioner to provide evidence of the breach of the condition of registration.</para>
<para>Coalition senators are very concerned, as clearly was the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, that powers of this nature undermine the sovereignty of the parliament. We cannot have people who are working in government agencies making decisions around actions that are likely to incur severe penalties without them firstly having a reason to do so, but we also believe the sovereignty of the parliament is paramount and that anything that is going to attract a severe penalty requires the oversight of the parliament. What we've sought to do with this amendment is to make sure that any of the conditions that are imposed are of a kind prescribed in the rules and that they cannot be imposed without the scrutiny of this parliament by some form of instrument or regulation. I highly commend these amendments to the chamber because I don't think that any of us in this place want to undermine the sovereignty of this parliament.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Ruston, you've convinced me, and the government will be supporting this amendment.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Now that we're at the end of the consideration of amendments, I just want to put on the record that this bill is very important. The reason that the opposition has been keen to support it—despite the fact that we obviously have outlined our many concerns around the errors, the inadequacies and the shortfalls of this bill—was that the most important thing was to make sure that older Australians got certainty around the framework through which they're going to receive their aged care going forward. The choice, control and power of how they receive their aged care going forward are now—hopefully, with the passage of this bill in a few minutes time—going to be vested in the hands of older Australians from 1 July 2025. That was such a significant recommendation of the royal commission. However, I want to put on the record that we still hold grave concerns that many parts of this bill are going to still have unintended consequences. We put on the record that we're still very concerned about the government's preparedness to be ready in time for a smooth transition that will enable the sector to meet the demands of older Australians in a way that we think is appropriate. Obviously the dignity of the care that older Australians receive is absolutely paramount in everything that I think everyone in here wants to achieve.</para>
<para>We're pleased with what we have been able to achieve, through our good-faith negotiations with the government over the last few months, despite being shut out of negotiations initially. We very much welcome the opportunity to have worked with the government over the last few months. I put on the record that Minister Mark Butler has been fantastic in his engagement with the opposition to make sure that we could get this bill through this place to provide that certainty to older Australians.</para>
<para>We were very pleased that we were able to achieve a number of changes that we think have made this bill better, most particularly to make sure that we delivered a fairer deal for older Australians other than they were previously going to get, particularly around things like grandfathering, putting in place caps, making sure that taper rates were not so steep as to be really impactful on Australians and making sure that we got a fairer deal for rural, regional and remote Australia. That's most particularly in the $300 million of additional funding that will made available to rural, regional and remote aged-care homes for capital grants, for upgrades and for new builds, understanding that it's very difficult to find the financial wherewithal to be able to build new facilities in rural, regional and remote Australia. We were also pleased with the uplift in the AN-ACC funding that came through in October so that modified Monash areas from 3 to 7 have received significant increases in their AN-ACC funding, recognising the financial impact of shallow markets.</para>
<para>We will continue to prosecute this bill. Today is only the first step of the passage of this bill. We know there are still another three tranches of rules to come through that require scrutiny, and, as is often the case, the devil will be in the detail. We will continue to scrutinise this delegated legislation as it comes through. We'd also like to thank the hundreds of people who put in submissions to the inquiry. Those submissions were immensely helpful. I say to many of you who did that that many of the amendments that were successfully achieved today—whether they were put forward by the government, the opposition, the crossbench or the Greens—have often been as a result of the evidence that you put forward and the testimony you provided. To those of you that actually came to the hearings—once again, a shout-out to Hannah and all the other lived-experience witnesses who put their real-life experience on the record—we thank you for that. Hopefully this bill is slightly better as a result of the evidence that you have given.</para>
<para>In saying that, the opposition will be supporting the passage of this bill because we fundamentally believe that older Australians need the certainty of a rights based act. That's what we will be supporting.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On the amendment that we just passed: I neglected to ask that the Greens opposition to 3091 be recorded. I seek leave to have the Greens opposition recorded.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>With the failure of our earlier amendments to re-insert the criminal penalties and to take out the unfair funding chapter, we won't be supporting this bill.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I won't delay the Senate. I accept that it has been a long day and that people are wanting to get away, but I would just like to place on the record my thanks to the colleagues, the Senate, for such intense scrutiny of this bill and work over the last months on the bill, including negotiations with the opposition. This is significant reform. For many it has been years of work. In this place we pass legislation that changes the lives of individuals, and this law will be one of those. I am hopeful, and we are already seeing the changes that have been made since the royal commission's report on improving the aged-care system. It is no longer a system described as one of neglect; it is person centred, is rights based and provides new standards of care and choice for individuals who use it.</para>
<para>I acknowledge the role of the opposition in supporting this bill. It is hard to progress reform in this country. It's not an insignificant reform and it requires compromise; I think that has been reached, through many intense sessions of negotiations! I earlier acknowledged the Senate committee. The Senate committees do incredible work. The number of hearings, submissions and destinations that committee went to in a short period of time should be acknowledged. I thank Senator Marielle Smith, Senator Urquhart, Senator Kovacic and others who attended those hearings.</para>
<para>I acknowledge the department, particularly the officers here today who have done an incredible job advising me and supporting me so that I was in a position to answer questions and who have worked tirelessly for a long time in the area of improving aged care. I also acknowledge the Aged Care Taskforce; I know the minister would want me to acknowledge them and the work they did. They put their shoulders to the wheel to provide us with a blueprint for legislative reform.</para>
<para>I acknowledge the ministers. Minister Anika Wells has led this reform. She is an incredible, competent and capable minister with a very bright future, and the fact that she, along with her senior ministerial colleague, Minister Butler, has been able to land this reform is not an insignificant achievement in her career.</para>
<para>Overall, to all of us who participated in this debate: we have done good work today to make sure that this bill will pass. A new aged-care system will be in place that has older Australians front and centre and, importantly, provides a sustainable pathway for aged-care provision into the future. Thank you to everyone.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">A division having been called and the bells being rung</inline>—</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Waters has requested to cancel this division.</para>
<para>Bill, as amended, agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Waters</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I ask that the Greens' position of 'no' be recorded.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Greens' position, of 'no', is recorded. The question now is that the bill be reported.</para>
<para>Bill reported with amendments.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Waters</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I ask that the Greens' position of 'no' be recorded.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We will record the Greens' position of opposing.</para>
<para>Report adopted.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>109</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the bill be read a third time.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [18:48]<br />(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Sullivan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>27</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Birmingham, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>6</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J. (Teller)</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bill read a third time.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to order, the Senate will now adjourn without debate.</para>
<para>Senate adjourned at 18 : 50</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
</hansard>