Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a crucial part of our life. We have the joy of birth. We look for obstetrics and maternity wards. We look for all the things. It's part and parcel of where the human condition comes into the world, and we want the security of that. When you go to a new town in so many regional areas, the first thing that the wife, the lady, wants to know is: 'Okay, if I'm going to have a baby, where am I going?' And if you can't provide that, it becomes a real downer. It becomes a mechanism by which people say, 'I'm a bit scared about going to this town.'

Then, of course, there are the schools. People want the capacity to say: 'Where are my children going to go to school? What is the school like? Does it have the capacity to look after my child in such a way that gives them the best opportunity to go on with their life, whichever way that may be?' That becomes a big consideration.

Also, they ask if they're going to get a job and what sort of job they are going to have. Where are they going to work? What sort of job will their wife or husband or partner have? Those questions are so important when considering a town—and so too are hospitals, of course, for if you get sick, and then, later on, aged care.

Aged care is very, very important. Every person goes through that time in their life, if they're lucky, when they have to consider the welfare of their parents or of people that they've grown to love and consider how they will look after them when they are vulnerable and unable to look after themselves. This is where aged care is so vitally important. Going into aged care is very similar to going to boarding school. You're going to an area that is different; it is not your home. The very disconcerting thing is that it's a boarding school you're never going to leave. This is a time of fear in people's lives, and we have a role to make sure that we placate that fear and that we provide these people with the greatest dignity we can possibly afford them. This is why this accommodation payment security levy is part and parcel with providing that security.

In my area, I spend a lot of time, as all House of Representative members no doubt do, like yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker Lawrence, going to aged-care facilities. You bring joy to a facility by being there, sitting there for smoko, talking to people—you find out that one of them has a birthday and you cut the birthday cake with them, and they've got their makeup on, so you sit and have a photo with them. Once you give one a kiss on the cheek, you've got to give them all a kiss on the cheek, otherwise they get angry with you! It's great. You get a real sense of joy being there, because of the aged-care facility and what it gives back to that person.

Years ago, when I was a senator for Queensland, I was out at Boulia, which is—you go west from Longreach and go to Winton and then you go to Boulia and up north to Mount Isa or south down to Birdsville. I used to do a bit of work at Boulia. Now, we're spending money on a road to get from Boulia down to Laverton and to Western Australia. I hope the Labor Party continues with that incredibly important road. When I spoke to people in Boulia, their big town was Longreach; the big smoke was Longreach. I'd say, 'What do you want?' They'd say: 'I want the capacity to retire and die in Boulia, because that's where I'm from. I'm not from Longreach. I'm not from Winton. I'm certainly not from Mount Isa. I want to live my life out in Boulia.' This is why, as part of this debate, we've got to make sure that aged care fits the requirements of all regional areas.

I want to mention three in my electorate—Denman, Corindi and Emmaville. I went to Emmaville aged care facility. It's community run. That's when there was a birthday, and I had to preside over the birthday, and it was really nice. They grabbed me and sat me down and said: 'We are going to go broke unless people clearly understand we're a community based facility. We are a not-for-profit. There is nobody who owns us.' People in these regional towns, with the requirements that governments have put on them, say, 'I'm not going to make myself vulnerable or liable for the requirements of an aged-care facility for which I'm merely doing this as charity. I'm on the board as charity.' We've got to be careful. The requirements for a 24-hour registered nurse and all these things—we've got to understand that in Emmaville or Denman or Corindi, if their aged-care facilities close down, those people have nowhere to go. There is no alternative. They can't all go down to Tamworth and go into palliative care; there's just nowhere to go. It'll be dynamite. You literally, almost, have to put them back out on the street.

We've got to be very mindful in how we do this and understand that it's not all the aged-care facilities of Lane Cove or Maribyrnong; it's aged-care facilities in little regional towns. There's got to be that nuance in this where you let these people come in, and you understand that, when they walk in the door, you're talking to people who are doing this for charity. It was the same in Corindi—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives

Sitting suspended from 12:15 to 12:31

As I was saying, it's issues about how aged care and aged-care policy understand the requirements of community based facilities in small regional areas for which, if those community based facilities are removed, there is no facility; there is no alternative. If I take Emmaville for instance, we are seeing people come in from an unfortunately long way away from Emmaville to an obscure little town called Emmaville because there's no alternative closer to where they're from. We also see the same thing at Denman. At Denman, there are people from Merriwa, from Singleton and from all around that come to the Denman community aged-care facility because they have no aged-care facility in their town. We've really got to make sure that there is a nuance in the policy structure that understands this.

I'll give you a classic example of where a nuance is causing massive problems, and I'll go back to the Denman facility. In the Denman facility, we have fought for and received a $9.2 million grant. I thank the government for a $9.2 million grant—exceptional! We have people lined up to get into this community aged-care facility which also has palliative care, end-of-life care, in the Hunter Valley, where people have lived all their lives—an area which provides all the coal and the resources that have propped up our nation. They're good people who work there. Before I was a member, it used to be in Dan's seat, and then I took over.

I went to the league and the nurses there said: 'We've got to catch up with you. We've got some issues with what's happening in the aged-care facility.' So I caught up with them, and they drove me up there, and I went and had a yarn with them. Just listen to this: they have a 10-acre paddock for expansion on. Your old style western suburbs block was a quarter of an acre. This is a 10-acre paddock. It's not big. There are a couple of trees on it and a little bit of a gully with an old stock fence surrounding it. There is nothing spectacular about this at all. It's in the middle of the Hunter Valley, so we're not in the Amazon jungle or in Alpine areas. It's just a paddock with a couple of trees on it that is proximate to where their aged-care facility is, which is where they have to expand to because they're blocked in where they are. They have to pay a carbon offset to build on that paddock.

Listen to this carefully: to build units for aged-care people and for people in palliative care so they can move out of their houses and into aged care and therefore free up the houses for other people to live in—that's another part of the equation—it is going to cost that aged-care facility $3.51 million to pay the carbon offsets to some greaser out there for the paddock they own. That's $3.51 million for carbon offsets that has to be paid by an aged-care facility to some carbon trader.

Now, let's just turn that on its head, on the virtue side of it. Where would that money better be spent? I'm going to make this crazy assertion that maybe, if they didn't have to pay it to some greaser who is probably a multimillionaire and who's basically buying and selling nothing that's called 'carbon offsets', they could build more aged-care units, they could look after more people, they could create the mechanism for more people to be treated with dignity in their lives, they would be able to shorten the waiting time to get into the Denman aged-care facility and, by so allowing people to go to the Denman aged-care facility, we would have more free houses for people who do not have a house to move into, because the grandparents will have moved out of their houses.

This is insane. I've put it on Facebook, I've put it around and I'm talking about here in the chamber. This is something that the government should get on to. It's something where the minister should say, 'What on earth's happening there? Billy, go find out if that bloke's talking a load of garbage. Just find out if that's the truth. Chase that up for me and then come back.' 'Minister, we've made a call to the Denman aged-care facility. Unfortunately, it's the truth.' 'Okay. I'm going to fix this; I'm going to fix this today. I'm going to do something splendid for the people of the Hunter Valley and for Australia in general. I'm going to ring up the other minister and say, "Can we scrub this craziness? Have you got a ministerial discretion? Good! Use your discretion right now, ring them up and say 'Congratulations! We've just landed you another $3.51 million that you can now spend on units,' which is what we want in aged care. And say to the greaser who thought they were in line for $3.51 million off a community aged-care facility and community members, 'Unfortunately, it was a bad day in the office for you, because you're not getting your money.'"' That's the sort of thing we—not we but the government—can do.

There you go; I've told you again. People sit back and go, 'Who could dream this rubbish up?' I didn't believe it. I thought, 'You're having a go at me.' I've done it on a Facebook post. She actually said, 'Okay, Cyclone, here's the documentation,' and there it was. They were talking about $3.5 million or $3.51 million and said, 'We might be able to get this down a bit.' For what?

We need to be more dynamic in dealing with aged care across all sectors and able to say, 'Okay, we need a policy for community based aged care in small regional towns. We need to understand. We need to have a proper audit. What do we actually need to do, not to put more costs on you but to help you so that you can stay open and grow, because there are more and more people?' The baby boomers, as we know, are going into aged care, and we've got to try and become more dynamic so that these people have got somewhere to go. My daughter is a doctor. In Tamworth they do not have the room in palliative care for anybody. There is no room, so the idea that you would close down an aged-care facility is dynamite, because there literally is nowhere for these people to go. So we've got to keep these facilities open. To go back to their homes means the families have to look after them. If we botch this—and it's 'we'; it's everybody in Canberra—then probably the only place they can go is back into their homes.

I am very, very lucky. I've got a big old Catholic family out in the bush. We've got a big heap of us. We looked after both my mum and my dad until they died. Dad died at 98½. Mum had a serious stroke, and we still looked after mum after her stroke until she died. My brother's a doctor. Pat looked after her down at Wollongong. So we're very blessed. Why do I bring this up? It's very expensive to look after your parents in your home. It's probably a minimum of $2½ thousand a week. That's about what it costs. If we don't have aged-care facilities, there are very few families that have $2½ thousand a week per parent. You've got to have nurses 24 hours a day, or you've got to have family members who are nurses and who are doctors to look after them.

In closing, can we please have a close look at and nuance the regional facilities—especially the community based ones—and can you, Minister, please ring up the Denman community aged-care facility and say, 'We want to talk to you about how we scrub this $3.51 million that you've got to pay for a carbon offset.'

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In representing Mayo, the oldest electorate by median age in South Australia and among the top 10 oldest in the nation, I have the privilege of assisting my constituents with their aged-care issues and other issues they and their loved ones experience. I wish to lend my voice to support my older constituents as we consider the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025.

This bill will provide for technical and consequential amendments to give effect to the Aged Care Act 2024. It aims to ensure the act's smooth implementation through transitional changes from the old to new act, including ensuring correct payment of aged-care subsidies; provision for interim services to be provided in high-demand periods; allowing access to unspent funds; clarifying information-sharing between the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing and Services Australia, which will be very important; provision of substantial penalties for misuse of personal information; and requiring five-yearly reviews of the Aged Care Quality Standards.

The bill refers to aged-care rules, the final version of which are not due to be tabled until October. I hear of a 1 November start date. This seems to be cutting things very fine for providers, who will need to prepare for implementation, and for recipients of aged-care, who need to know what to expect. I understand the bill includes a time limited rule, making power to enable the government to move more quickly to address emerging issues following the implementation. This is highly unusual and concerning, and I do not think this place should write a blank cheque by providing the minister with the power to make rules which could alter and override rights, entitlements and obligations set out in the act. That is the express intent of the parliament, without parliamentary consideration. That's the purpose of us being here.

This bill also includes automatic processes to support decisions on the classification level of aged care to which a person is entitled, the prioritisation and allocation of aged-care places and means-testing to calculate how much a person should co-contribute financially to their care. Automation warrants real concern and caution, in my view. That's particularly so given the sobering example of robodebt and the unfriendliness of online systems for older members of our community and those for whom English is a second or third language. I therefore urge the government to guarantee improved availability of services to assist older people with that transition.

Over the last 12 months, my constituents have reported sporadic difficulty and lengthy waiting times on the Services Australia aged-care line and My Aged Care. People will need quick, easy access to these supports and to aged-care service offices to address any questions or problems that may arise out of the implementation of the new act. I note the bill avoids substantive changes to the Aged Care Act passed late last year. Unfortunately, this means some worrying policies, such as charging increasing co-payments for personal care, will not be revisited. I remain concerned that increasing co-payments or personal care may be detrimental to older people, who may feel they cannot afford the care they need.

While help with a daily shower is not clinical care, a person's health can decline quickly, necessitating clinical care if they, for example, suffer an infection or a fall in the shower due to receiving inadequate personal care. I've asked advocates from the Council on the Ageing, COTA, National Seniors Australia, the Older Persons Advocacy Network, known as OPAN, and provider peak, Ageing Australia, for their comments on this bill, and I thank them for their ongoing feedback on all things aged care. I regret, as do these well-respected bodies, the delay in commencement of the new rights and protections for older people under the act but understand the need to defer the commencement from 1 July this year to 1 November this year to enable providers and older people alike to properly prepare for change.

I was pleased when the government heeded our calls by making a pre-election commitment to fund an additional 83,000 home-care places from 1 July to address the huge number of people waiting a year or more for their approved home-care packages to be allocated. The government's decision to defer delivery of these additional packages until after the new act starts on 1 November, rather than 1 July as promised, is a great disappointment. This will do one of two things. People will either end up injuring themselves and going into hospital or, perhaps prematurely, into an aged-care home—that is, of course, if they can get a bad; or, indeed, they will die at home, perhaps prematurely.

The peak bodies are also very concerned. National Seniors has pointed out that, every time we refer to a backlog of the 87,597 packages, we are actually talking about nearly 90,000 people. These are people, not packages, who are not getting the care that they need and so rightly deserve. During that year of waiting for care for their approved level of care, their health will likely deteriorate. They may have to be hospitalised or, as I said, relocate to residential care. And, as I said, some will pass away.

Last year, I asked the former minister for aged care how many people had passed away or entered residential aged care during the 2023-2024 year while waiting for their approved level of home care. I was informed that 3,383 people died and 7,380 entered residential aged care while waiting for their home-care package that had been approved but was still not with them. These people had expressed the desire to receive help at home, preferred by them and cheaper for the taxpayer, and applied for this, but, in the end, they didn't receive it and their wishes were thwarted. The government's choice to continue this state of affairs when they have the power and the budget to address the delay in delivering home care is unkind to our most vulnerable citizens. I would say it is unjust.

Advocates share these concerns, and they have also called for the release of the additional packages per the government's pre-election commitment. Sadly, this has not been heeded. Delays are exacerbated by lengthening the wait times for aged-care assessments at the start of the process before someone is approved to go in the national priority system waiting list for home care. The government previously advised that the introduction of the single assessment system for aged care would help streamline assessment processes and clear backlogs. My constituents and peak bodies tell me that this is having the opposite effect. While it may slow the growth of the actual waiting list—those numbers waiting for packages, those people waiting for packages—it inadequately reflects the buildup of unmet demand, which continues to rise.

My constituents Valerie and Peter have been trying since April to secure a reassessment for Peter as his needs have changed markedly since his initial aged-care assessment in 2021. Despite growing urgency, their family's concerted efforts to contact My Aged Care and the assessment provider every week or two and support from my office, they've only just secured a telephone reassessment for Peter this week, three months later. It's unreasonable for families to have to advocate to this extent simply to secure an assessment date. We're not talking about the actual package; we are talking about someone conducting the assessment on a person, particularly when their needs change. Peter's family say there were advised by My Aged Care to book respite care for Peter in October without having an assessment conducted and approval in place. This was not tenable since they were told it would be costing $600 per day, compared with $40 to $60 per day if he had an assessment and approval for respite.

Advocates advise that they are hearing from many older people seeking assistance with long assessment wait times. Some aged-care assessment providers are resorting to telehealth to address the delays. While this may seem quicker, telehealth aged-care assessments are unlikely to deliver the best outcomes for older people, particularly those with more complex needs. Some carers report being asked by the assessor to comment on the abilities of the person being assessed without having the training to accurately describe this, all in the presence of the person that's being assessed. So, after waiting three to six months for an assessment, and then up to a year—and now it's over a year—for the home-care package, when they finally receive care, older people will be paying more for it under this new system.

Increases in the hourly rates for personal care and domestic assistance of up to 100 per cent have been flagged by some providers in Mayo. These increases are proposed to commence from 1 November. Some increases are above the indicative price guides that have been issued for Support at Home services. This will dramatically erode the care that people will receive from their package money, even for those guaranteed to be no worse off in terms of personal co-contributions. Charging twice as much per hour will only reduce the amount of care and services received.

My constituent Beryl was provided with spreadsheets from her home-care provider. They showed that, if she were to maintain her current hours of personal care and domestic assistance following the introduction of Support at Home in November, she would have a funding shortfall of nearly $1,500 per month. Further, Beryl's funding would no longer cover the services she has received for years, including continence aids, Webster medication packaging, occasional meals, emergency alert monitoring and more.

Despite receiving aged care since 2020, and thus being no worse off in terms of co-payments, this price hike would create a stark deficit in Beryl's care from 1 November. It is clear that she would be worse off in so many measures. Fortunately, Beryl has since been approved for a high-level home-care package. Rather than increasing her care as hoped, a significant proportion of this additional funding will be absorbed by increased hourly rates for core supports and trying to maintain some of her other pre-existing services. Government assurances sent to Beryl in May that there were measures in place to ensure reasonable home-care fees appear empty, given the price hikes that she is going to experience. I'm concerned about the cost of this new system for our older generations who have built this country, raised younger generations and paid their taxes to support others in times of need.

I also recognise the many benefits of the reforms, including an independent complaints process, safeguards for decision-making, protections for whistleblowers, enhanced quality safeguards and a rights based aged care system. However, we are not doing right by older Australians in terms of the current waitlist for home-care packages and the enormous unknown volume of people just waiting to be seen.

In conclusion, while I support this bill, and despite a royal commission, there are still many failings in how we deliver aged care in our nation. Overall, we need to do much, much better by our older Australians.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. I note the contribution from the member for Mayo, and I'd like to note her extraordinary commitment and knowledge of aged care and her advocacy in this space. We all learn a lot when we listen to the member for Mayo.

The response to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety required a rebuild of our aged-care system. It was ambitious for the government to implement the long-awaited aged-care reforms to commence from 1 July. For the dignity and safety of the older people that our aged-care system supports, for their families and for workers across the sector, I understand that reforms of this magnitude must be implemented in a considered and effective way. But that ambitious start of 1 July became unrealistic, and the commencement of the new act has been delayed until 1 November. These delays are not without consequence, and we're seeing an impact of the delay in the delivery of services that help keep older Australians at home for longer.

This bill legislates a myriad of technical amendments to give effect to the aged-care reforms. Many of these are minor in nature but still important to ensure that provisions like the 'no worse off' principle can be applied for people who are already in aged care. I support these changes for the smooth implementation of the new aged-care system, but there are two changes in particular that I wish to highlight today. First, this bill includes a new rulemaking power that allows the minister to make rules modifying the operation of the Aged Care Act we passed last year without passing legislation.

This is a broad power of delegation. According to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, provisions such as these may limit parliamentary oversight and subvert the appropriate relationship between the parliament and the executive. They're the types of provisions the Scrutiny of Bills Committee is particularly concerned with. While I would usually prefer powers such as these to remain within the parliament, in this case I support the inclusion of these delegated legislation powers because I support the intent behind them—that is, to ensure that continuity of care is maintained for older persons in the event of unforeseen or unintended consequences arising during the transition to the new act.

I'm also comforted by the safeguards in the delegated legislation powers. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee will continue to provide oversight, the powers will only operate for the first two years of the act and any rules made by the minister which change the act will be disallowable by the parliament, allowing for some scrutiny. I urge the government to ensure that any changes the minister makes to the act under this power be communicated to the parliament and to the community more broadly. It's crucial that, as we move into this new system, consultation with organisations like the Council on the Ageing and the Older Persons Advocacy Network does not stop. This is a once-in-a-generation change. We must get it right, and to do so involves constant reflection and taking on board feedback from the people most affected.

Second, this bill clarifies that, under Support at Home, gardening and cleaning services will no longer be capped at specific times. This is a measure I welcome. When I spoke on the Aged Care Bill 2024, I noted the concerns from my electorate of Indi about whether package funding would be enough to meet the real costs of these domestic services. I'll be watching closely how it works in reality as home support transitions into the new home-care packages. Travel costs remain a major challenge in regional and rural Australia. Impacting service availability puts pressure on an already stretched workforce, and these costs are often higher than they are in our cities. Packages must account for this and not disadvantage regional Australians.

I support this bill, but I take this opportunity to highlight serious deficiencies in the current home-care system, which my constituents are so very much relying on, before the new Aged Care Act and support-at-home system commences. Home-care packages make a life-changing difference for people across in my electorate in north-east Victoria. For older Australians, getting help with basics like cleaning and gardening preserves their ability to stay in their home for longer. For their families, it provides the peace of mind that their loved ones are getting the care and support they need when they need it. But, while the benefits of these packages are clear, the reality of getting an assessment leaves too many older people languishing on waitlists; we've just heard graphic descriptions of this from the member for Mayo.

Workforce shortages across the aged-care sector mean older people in more remote parts of my electorate of Indi can struggle to receive services, or they receive a lower level of service with funding swallowed up by travel costs instead of care. In delaying the full rollout of aged-care reforms—a move the sector acknowledges was necessary but frustrating—the government has also delayed the rollout of its promised 83,000 new home-care packages. This has caused real and growing concern. For those older Australians simply trying to live independently, this delay risks making an already difficult situation even worse. For their families, it means that they have to juggle providing what care they can and navigating the system—and that this is drawn out for even longer.

The crossbench, alongside aged-care advocates, made a clear, compassionate and practical plea to the government to fund 20,000 new home-care packages under the current scheme and then transition those packages into the new Support at Home program when it begins. Yet, while more than 87,000 Australians remain stuck on a waitlist, the government has provided no explanation—none—as to why it won't act on this. This gives no comfort to my constituents and it gives no comfort to me as these people, these hardworking older Australians, are trying to secure assessment or services. As National Seniors Australia said, when we are talking about packages we are talking about people—people who physically cannot shower themselves, mop their floors, mow their lawns, clean their gutters or prepare their meals. These matters are some of the most common and also some of the most heartbreaking stories that my office deals with week in, week out. I promised the people of Indi that I would hold the government accountable on services such as these, and I'll keep up that fight; this is way too important not to do that.

I welcome the establishment of a Senate inquiry into Home Care Packages, initiated by Senator Pocock. This inquiry will examine the impact of delaying the Support at Home program and the withholding of the new home-care packages in the transition. The crossbench continues to ensure that there is oversight and accountability of the government. This is always important, but it is especially so for services that are critical to preserving the dignity and quality of life of our older Australians.

With four months until the lights go green on the new aged-care system, our aged-care system must, as the final report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety emphasised:

… assist older people to live an active, self-determined and meaningful life in a safe and caring environment that allows for dignified living in old age.

To the government more broadly: please, make sure that this is our focus.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In regard to the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, it is important to put on record some of the concerns the coalition has in relation to aged care. I just listened to the member for Indi very closely. She is concerned about some changes whereby the minister would have all of the say over changes that would previously have been legislative. You'd expect a crossbencher to say that. I think we do need to allow ministers to be ministers. They have oversight of departments and of secretaries of departments, and I would actually like to see, in one sense, ministers not just be a tick and flick for departments and for secretaries. I think that is occurring way too much.

In this government I think we have a lot of ministers who are very cautious and careful about the NACC and about the ability for a person to make anonymous a complaint about a minister who doesn't abide by the wishes of their secretary or their department. Therefore, they are nervous about making a decision and very nervous about a referral to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. I think we elect ministers to be ministers. Secretaries will never have their names on a ballot paper, nor will faceless officials or bureaucrats. Ministers are there to be ministers, and I think this is going to be so important.

Now, when it comes to aged care, I represent a lot of aged-care centres and, whether they're in Cootamundra, Cowra, Harden-Murrumburrah, Junee, Temora, Young or even a large centre such Wagga Wagga, they are really struggling at the moment. I know the interim report of the royal commission into aged care had 'Neglect' in its title, and some of the examples that were exposed and came to light because of that investigation were horrendous—there's absolutely no question about that. But the government then, in a kneejerk response, adopted that recommendation to just have registered nurses 24/7 for each and every aged-care centre. This has placed so much pressure on aged-care centres in rural and remote Australia, and they are closing at far too rapid a rate. We need them to be opening, not closing.

Let's just take a little facility such as one that I know of within an easy drive of Wagga Wagga. It had around 20 clients, most of whom did not require the sort of care that would need a nurse on hand 24/7, but all of a sudden they have to provide that around-the-clock supervision by an RN. Now, for an aged-care provider such as this, it's not just one person. When we take into account annual leave, stress leave, maternity leave, domestic violence leave—all the sorts of leave for an RN that is part and parcel of any workplace these days—you need about five people to cover that one position 24/7. Obviously, people can only work a certain number of hours each day—preferably around eight—therefore, you're going to need three people a day to cover that 24-hour around-the-clock supervision. You can't just have those three people working all year around. You need about five or six people.

When you've got those little centres looking after 20 people who are pretty healthy, it does provide a huge impost on their finances. They can only afford to charge as much as they can. What we then end up seeing is a lot of the little aged-care providers closing down—and they're often in little towns—and then people cannot age in place. So what happens is that a person who has lived in a little town all of their lives all of a sudden gets packed up and shipped off to a large rural hub in a regional city, and then they don't get the visitors. They don't have their family close by. People cannot visit them. All too often, we see this happening across regional Australia. It's an unintended consequence, I appreciate, of what I guess was a well-intended recommendation of the royal commission, but it is placing such a burden on aged-care providers in regional Australia, which were already struggling to make ends meet. In the main, they were doing a wonderful job. They really were. Yes, you're always going to get examples of bad eggs doing the wrong thing and putting the making of money first and the provision of health care for our vulnerable aged people second. But, in the main, particularly in regional Australia, our providers are doing a great job.

I visited a centre at an aged-care provider at Boorowa recently, and they're doing a fantastic job. I pay great credit to them. I know that Mayor Rick Firman OAM, who is actually in parliament today, is still keen to see the $3.7 million that was allocated by the coalition government to Whiddon homes in Temora see the light of day. They made changes to the infrastructure that they were going to provide. It was COVID. There were a whole lot of other factors that came into play, but now they're still waiting and wondering where their money is, and they're not seeing any gratification from the Labor government, which says it's going to be a government for all and leave no-one behind. Well, unfortunately, Temora is being left behind in this regard. I would urge and implore the aged-care minister to pay attention to that request by Whiddon homes in Temora. Temora, like many of our regional cities, towns, villages, hamlets and districts, has an ageing population, and particularly so. We want to see people be able to age in place.

The Coolamon aged-care centre recently reopened a wing of around 10 to a dozen beds, which had been closed because they couldn't find staff, and that's another big problem. I appreciate, Deputy Speaker Payne, that you're from Canberra. It wouldn't be the issue for the aged-care centres in your electorate that it is in the Riverina. My electorate now shares a common boundary with yours, but that line on that map—there's a big difference between the haves and have-nots, let me tell you. It's more than just a line on a map. At Coolamon, they couldn't find staff. They had to go and get special provisions to get staff in from overseas so that they could reopen that wing. Let me tell you, the beds were filled very, very quickly. Coolamon is not that far from Wagga Wagga, but, even in Wagga Wagga, the aged-care beds are all taken up very, very quickly.

With the passage of the Albanese government's Aged Care Act 2024 in the last parliament, the coalition upheld its commitment to a rights based act for older Australians to guarantee a world-class aged-care system into the future. We are absolutely going to be needing a world-class aged-care system into the future because we're all getting older, and the older we get, the more that aged-care centre looms. We should all be very nice to our children, because I think it's ultimately them who are going to make the decisions about where we go and when we go! Through our coalition's persistent negotiations on the act, we were able to achieve significant improvements to the government's reforms—albeit proposed at the time—to protect the interests of older Australians and future generations.

I know a lot of our aged-care centres in rural Australia often community-led, community-run and community-supported organisations. They are locals who form committees and trusts, and run these places not for profit, and, by gee, they do a remarkable job. One of the most critical outcomes of our efforts was the introduction of grandfathering arrangements. These arrangements guarantee that Australians who are already in residential aged care on a home-care package, or are assessed as waiting for their allocated home-care package, will not see any changes to their existing arrangements. That is important. I know the member for Indi talked about the number of Australia who are still waiting for their home-care packages to come through, and this delay is not helping matters.

One of the situations with the staffing arrangements in rural Australia is not helped by the number of people who are now going to work on the National Disability Insurance Scheme and getting out of aged care. I appreciate the government—and I do appreciate it, I mean that in every sense of the word—has increased the pay for aged-care workers and I commend the government for that. They are doing a wonderful job for, in some cases, Australia's most vulnerable. But it still doesn't equate to some of the money being earned in the NDIS space, and we have lost a lot of good workers, people who had qualifications, people who went to TAFE and elsewhere to gain those qualifications and are now leaving the aged-care sector and going to work in the NDIS space because they can earn a lot more money. Their skills have been lost by aged care, and that is a great shame.

It's no surprise that in the first week of the 48th Parliament the government has introduced this bill to amend 325 items of Labor's own legislation, passed just months ago. That's why we seek to have this bill set to committee—to ensure appropriate scrutiny is placed upon the proposed amendments. I say that, even though I do believe ministers have a responsibility to not just tick-and-flick the in-tray proliferation which secretaries and departments sometimes put in front of them. I know—I've been a minister. I know how this is the case.

We remain increasingly concerned and disappointed by the lack of transparency this government has shown during the process of reform. Those 325 changes to Labor's own legislation is not an insignificant number. And 197 repeals to Labor's own legislation is also not an insignificant number. Many of these are a result of Labor's lack of consultation with older Australians and the broader aged-care sector. When ministers and even bureaucrats are making these sorts of reforms, they really should reach out, particularly to those NFPs I mentioned earlier to see these community-led and community-run organisations and what they're doing, and ask: 'How is this going to affect what you do? How is this going to affect your bottom line?' They are not making riches, trust me. What they are doing is putting in place measures to keep the lights on, keep the doors open and keep the beds for people who are seeking to go into aged care and who have lived in those local communities all of their lives. It is simply not right that they are left high and dry because of decisions made in this city which affect their lives. They then have to be packed up and shipped away to far-off aged-care centres in communities they are not familiar with, with people they do not know. Whilst I appreciate that they were still provided, hopefully, quality care, it's just got to be more than that. We have to be more empathetic and more sympathetic to the needs of our aged-care residents and also our aged-care providers in regional, rural and especially remote Australia.

We won't seek to delay the passage of this bill, Australians deserve better than broken promises and more procrastination and delay by this Albanese Labor government—I understand that—but these changes have to be scrutinised to ensure the process of reform can be implemented in the best way possible, because, at the end of the day, our society is ageing, and we need to provide the very best quality of care. But, for want of a better word, there that also needs to be the quantity of care, and, in regional Australia at the moment, it's tough. It's tough for these providers to make ends meet. They do a grand job. I take my hat off to them, and people, like those who are running the centre at Gundagai, are doing it really tough.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.