Pat Conaghan (Cowper, National Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges that the Government is failing older Australians with the transition to the new Support at Home aged care program;

(2) recognises the widespread criticism from providers, advocates, recipients and their families;

(3) notes the:

(a) algorithm in the integrated assessment tool is unfit for use and is putting vulnerable older Australians at risk, and is:

(i) producing questionable assessment outcomes such as assigning lower levels of support than needed, including for high-needs people, or assessments of ineligibility where there is an obvious need for funding;

(ii) being too rigid, with little or no capacity for assessors to override the results despite clear care needs; and

(iii) resulting in disputes, reassessments and review processes further delaying access to care; and

(b) lack of adequate funding in the 2026-27 budget for additional Support at Home packages to address the long wait times for assessments, approvals and service commencement, which have resulted in unmet care needs for over 200,000 older Australians;

(4) further acknowledges concerns that 60 per cent interim funding arrangements are leaving recipients on partial funding for months and months, with limited access to essential services and adequate supports during the transition period;

(5) further recognises that the removal of regional loadings and rigid pricing structures may reduce provider viability and limit availability of services in rural, regional and remote communities;

(6) calls on the Government to:

(a) increase the number of packages and reduce waiting times for assessments and approvals;

(b) implement oversight, clinical input, and review mechanisms in the integrated assessment tool; and

(c) treat older Australians with the dignity and respect they deserve.

This government's bizarre bureaucratic bungles have led to a systematic failure to provide effective care for older Australians most in need of our assistance. Since the latest 'flick of a pen' changes to My Aged Care were quietly implemented in November of last year, the number of requests for urgent assistance that have been funnelled through my office have increased tenfold, and the severity of the issue within each individual request has escalated along with them. I say 'quietly implemented' because these disastrous updates came into effect with little to no consultation with providers, recipients or their families.

On the My Aged Care website, the following is stated:

We are making positive, lasting changes to aged care to put your rights, wishes and needs first.

The new Aged Care Act (also known as the new Act) started on 1 November 2025 and puts the rights of older people at the centre of aged care. The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission and Complaints Commissioner will work with registered providers to ensure they deliver care that upholds these rights.

These changes are important for everyone in Australia. We all want to feel confident that we can access affordable, safe and suitable support as we age.

In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, we've seen a systematic erosion of a system that was designed to provide dignity but now provides anything but.

I want to read directly from an email I received from one of my constituents, Stewart Mellor, whose mum sadly passed away last month. He says:

My 89-year-old mother was first assessed in October last year. This involved an assessor coming to our home to ask Mum and I questions about her medical conditions and functional capacity. Mum was in poor state of health, and she needed funding for speech pathology, dietitian and a registered nurse.

A few months after the assessment, I called My Aged Care to find out what was happening. My Aged Care advised they had a backlog of assessments, and it takes on average 8 months to assess applications for funding. I explain to My Aged Care the turnaround time was unacceptable, and my mother and many other elderly Australians would probably pass away before their funding was approved.

On March17th, Mum received classification 5 and was provided with interim funding of only 60% of full funding. This was 6 months after Mum's initial assessment. By this stage, Mum's health had significantly deteriorated, and I asked she be reassessed.

Mum's full funding under classification 5 was never granted. Mum was reassessed due to her declining health and received a classification 8, the highest classification. She was reviewed by a neurologist who stated her life expectancy was 3 months or less.

On May 1st, Mum again received interim funding of 60% of full funding. This was 8 months after Mum's initial assessment. How can only 60% be allocated to someone who is in critical need of support!

Mum's full funding under classification 8 was never granted. On only one occasion did a registered nurse come to our home. Not for treatment, but as part of an assessment.

Mum passed away in hospital on May 3rd due to myriad health conditions. She had no dignity in the last few months of her life. Mum wanted to pass away at home. She was deprived of that option due to inefficiencies and inadequacies of My Aged Care.

Stewart's example is just one of hundreds that I've personally received, yet, in this latest budget announcement, we see a complete lack of adequate funding for the additional Support at Home packages to address the long wait times for assessments, approvals and service commencement which have resulted in unmet care of over 200,000 older Australians.

This can't continue. I call on the government to immediately increase the number of packages and reduce waiting times for assessments and approval. We must also urgently implement oversight, clinical input and review mechanisms in the integrated assessment tool to reverse the disastrous consequences of ill-conceived decisions made in the Canberra bubble. (Time expired)

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Health) | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Rowan Holzberger (Forde, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Referencing the contribution from the previous speaker, it is heartbreaking to hear those stories. As local members, we all hear those stories. It shouldn't happen. This government has a commitment to review how the system prioritises people, so it's not as if this is just set-and-forget by any means. I also noticed the contribution there said that these reforms were introduced quietly in November last year. They were supported by the coalition back in 2024, so I don't think there's been anything quiet about it.

I don't think there's been any lack of consultation. I think that fundamentally there has been a commitment across the parliament to make this work, and that is because of the sheer scale of the issue that is confronting us. I heard the health minister the other day mention that in Australia we need to build a new residential aged-care facility every three days for the next 20 years in order to meet demand—every three days for the next 20 years! He also made the point that that back in around 2011, 15,000 Australians turned 90. Next year, 90,000 Australians will turn 90. The need for the Support at Home program and aged-care support is on an utterly unprecedented scale. If the opposition want to start pointing fingers, I think they need to take a hard look at the mess that they left this government back in 2022. As somebody who's been working in the community for a long time, the stories that the former speaker mentioned are not new. They're not some things which have just emerged over the last few years. We've got to get this right. I know that, across the parliament, we all want to get this right for a generation that has built this country. I think that scoring political points to do that is really unhelpful.

The motion collects a few really misguided grievances and bundles them all into a political attack. I'd just like to say that, as local members, we all work with people in our community. There's a couple that I work particularly closely with, Heather and Allen, who are residents in Forde. Allen's got dementia. If it weren't for Heather being such a strong advocate for Allen as he navigates the healthcare system, he wouldn't get the help he needs. Working at that grassroots level with people, like Heather and Allen, is about identifying the problems and fixing these problems. As I said, this government has not just got a 'set and forget' attitude to these changes. In fact, that probably is best exemplified by the fact that, where the agreement had been to put showering and continence care and some wound care in that middle category which attracted a co-payment, the decision by the government was to shift that into clinical care, where people will get those really quite essential services for free from October. That was a decision only taken as part of this budget. There are many reforms which this government is obviously considering as part of this continuous improvement to this essential program.

I'd just like to finish off on talking about the Integrated Assessment Tool, because I think it's important to really get that message out into the community that this is essentially—in fact, I sat through an assessment the other day of a constituent who had sought my assistance. I sat there as this really quite expert clinical practitioner went through an extensive set of questions to determine what the actual needs of the person having the assessment done were. This person was an expert, a human being—it shouldn't need saying. Let's just look at what this integrated assessment tool was actually designed to fix. Prior to it coming into place, something like $4 billion in unspent funds sat in people's plans because they had been categorised as needing more care than they could spend. I condemn the motion. I urge people to vote against it and to support the work of this government. (Time expired)

Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Health) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support this motion from the member for Cowper. It's not a political attack. It's not a motion that should be condemned. It is us doing what we need to do in this place, which is give a voice to those who are voiceless and who are telling us a system is not working and telling us to put pressure on the government to get it working. I urge those opposite to do the same thing. Camp outside the minister's office if you need to. The system is clearly not working for Australians, and it needs to.

Across Australia, families are telling the same story. Our aged-care system is no longer providing care. It is providing delays, bureaucracy and despair, and it is getting worse. I flagged this speech ahead of time, and I'd already received a lot of correspondence in relation to this, but, when I flagged that I was going to speak on this today, I was swamped with emails and messages, and they paint a remarkably consistent picture. People feel the aged-care system is no longer delivering timely care but is instead creating delays, confusion, stress and financial hardship. The overwhelming sentiment is one of frustration, fear and disappointment. We're not trying to ramp that up. It's what we're hearing from our constituents, and everyone in this parliament should be working hard to make sure that the system improves.

Older Australians are not receiving the care they need. They are being assessed, reassessed, placed on waiting lists and left to struggle while their health deteriorates. One aged-care worker described elderly Australians waiting months for basic items like shower chairs, toilet seat raisers and personal alarms because they require additional assessments and approvals. Another reported older people being denied recommended clinical services because an AI system—an artificial intelligence system—decided they did not qualify. In some cases, assessors recognised the decision was wrong but had no power to override it.

A young woman caring for her husband with advanced dementia waited six months simply for a reassessment, only to be told it could take a further 11 months before funding became available. Unable to cope any longer, she was forced to send him to hospital, where he remains occupying a bed because no suitable aged-care placement exists. A spinal injury patient assessed at the highest level of need is ready to leave hospital yet cannot return home because the funding required for his care will not arrive for months. His family is paying thousands of dollars out of pocket for modifications that the system should be supporting.

Many Australians are also shocked at dramatic fee increases under Support at Home. Families describe service costs increasing by 40 per cent or more, mowing fees doubling, nursing costs escalating and savings painstakingly accumulated under previous arrangements rapidly disappearing. Yet transparency remains elusive, with providers unable or unwilling to explain where the money is going. Regional Australians face even greater challenges. In many places, including my electorate of Nicholls, approved services simply do not exist. People are receiving referral codes but cannot find providers with capacity. OTs, allied health professionals and support workers are in short supply.

The human toll of this is really troubling. The elderly spouse is exhausted, the adult children overwhelmed and the carers burnt out. It's just not good enough. We owe elderly Australians a whole lot better than they're getting at the moment. One affected family member told me:

I am staggered at the shemozzle involved in trying to help and care for our aged.

This motion says it is time for the government and the aged care minister to increase the number of packages and reduce waiting times for assessments and approvals. It is time to implement oversight, clinical input and a review mechanism in the integrated assessment tool. It is beyond time that this government treated older Australians with the dignity and respect that they deserve.

I really wondered what I was going to hear from the government speakers on this bill. What I would like to hear is a serious acknowledgement of the problem and the fact that this is not working. The members in Labor seats must be getting the same emails of absolute frustration that I'm getting. Pressure needs to be brought to bear on the minister to significantly improve this system and make sure it is delivering, because these older Australians shouldn't have to wait and shouldn't have to go through the bureaucracy of the assessments that they're going through to get the care that they deserve.

Fiona Phillips (Gilmore, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I want to recognise the incredible work being done by our aged-care workers, from personal care workers and nurses to chefs, gardeners and fitness instructors. These dedicated and compassionate people are on the front line, caring for our loved ones and helping to deliver the Albanese Labor government's historic aged-care reforms. Today I thank you for the incredibly important work you do caring for older people in my electorate of Gilmore and right across Australia.

Located on the New South Wales South Coast, Gilmore has an ageing population. In fact, we have 28,000 aged pensioners—one of the highest numbers of any electorate in the country. I am acutely aware of the many issues facing our older residents and have always strongly advocated for my senior constituents, who deserve dignity, respect and quality care. Almost every day my office receives emails and calls from older constituents or their family members seeking support for their aged-care needs, whether that's arranging meals, lawn mowing, help around their home or access to health services, or assisting with their transition to residential care.

Under those opposite, people in my electorate could wait up to 18 months or two years to receive the care they deserve. I'm pleased to say that, since the new Aged Care Act was introduced on 1 November 2025, the wait times in my region have halved and the number of inquiries from frustrated seniors has slowed significantly. There is certainly more to do, but, because of our changes, we are turning things around. We are delivering safer, fairer and more transparent care for older Australians that puts their rights and their quality of life at its heart. Our additional Support at Home places mean our older residents—our parents, grandparents, other family members and neighbours—can remain independent for as long as possible, and our new Aged Care Act ensures people can stay connected to their families and friends, remain involved in their communities and enjoy enriched lives in their twilight years. A higher level of care available at home means that more older Australians will be able to get the support they need without going into a clinical setting. Importantly, it means they'll be able to stay at home as they recover without bouncing back into hospital.

We're working closely with the states and territories, who manage our hospitals, because we know too many older people are spending far too long in hospital when they should be in a more appropriate care environment. This has been an ongoing issue in our aged-care system, and the pressures are being felt, particularly in regional areas like Gilmore, where hospital beds are sometimes the only care options for our elderly. But I must say I was disappointed when the New South Wales state government knocked back our offer of additional federal funding specifically to help with the backlog of aged-care beds. However, I am pleased that the Albanese government stepped up and has made a record investment to increase the supply of aged-care beds, with the Illawarra to share in $115 million through the Aged Care Capital Assistance Program, which will rapidly increase access to residential aged care on the South Coast. We're encouraging providers to build and open more beds within two years to help address immediate delayed-discharge pressures on hospitals.

The South Coast is a sea change hotspot for retirees. However, the growing ageing population has put pressure on our aged-care services. I'm delighted that a number of new aged-care facilities are now underway in Gilmore, which will pave the way for more aged-care beds. I recently visited the expanded RFBI Berry Masonic Village, which boasts 14 additional beds, and work has commenced on IRT's Milton Faire aged-care community, which will offer 105 residential care beds and 244 independent living homes. Plans are also in the pipeline for a new IRT development at Moruya, which will accommodate around 473 residents across its independent living and aged-care facilities, and our recent federal budget will see a record $45 billion into aged care next year, including more aged-care packages, more aged-care beds and more support at home. It is Labor that is taking steps to bring about real reforms that will change lives now and for future generations to come.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Cowper for moving this important private member's motion. Graham Crossan is a member of the Kooyong community. Graham is 80 years old, and he has motor neurone disease. Graham requires 24-hour-a-day care. He is ventilator dependent, and he can't stand. But the integrated assessment tool found that, despite Graham's condition, he's not eligible for the highest level of aged-care support in the community.

Graham's story is only one of a swathe of recent concerning stories I've heard in my electorate about the aged-care sector. The integrated assessment tool is now under investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and I commend my colleagues in the Senate for their scrutiny of the IAT at Senate estimates on 2 June. What emerged from estimates on that date was deeply disturbing. We now know that aged-care assessors had the ability to override the algorithm used by the Integrated Assessment Tool until as recently as May 2025.

In March 2026, I wrote to the minister asking a straightforward question: was there consultation before that human override capability was removed? It took more than three months for the minister to respond, and, when he did, his answer provided no certainty. Questioning at estimates confirmed that the capability for assessors to override the IAT algorithm was stripped out without consultation, without engagement with the aged-care workforce, which would be using the tool, and without due consideration of what that change might mean for the people who are being assessed. That raises a serious question. Why was the minister unable or unwilling to provide that information when I asked about it earlier this year?

Senate estimates also confirmed that the algorithm was developed internally and that it wasn't independently tested as part of the 2023 IAT trial. That was the same trial that the minister has repeatedly pointed to as evidence that the algorithm was tested. That is an extraordinary admission. The department also admitted that, under the previous system, people were overclassified, up to as many as 50 per cent. There has been no equivalent acknowledgement that the IAT might now be underclassifying people. I would argue that Graham Crossin's case demonstrates that this is happening.

The numbers speak for themselves. During the 2024-25 financial year, there were 170 requests for reviews of IAT outcomes. By 31 March 2026, that number was 989. Just remember, reviews aren't easy to get. They require a written application sent by mail. Older Australians, many of whom are vulnerable, many of whom have cognitive loss, have to submit a physical letter to Adelaide to request a review. So I'm worried that we don't know the true scale of cases like Graham Crossin's. But you know it's bad when the outgoing Inspector-General of Aged Care, Natalie Siegel-Brown, has said that she is 'struggling to understand how some of the results that are coming out are coming out'. That's on page 102 of the transcript. I suggest that the minister look that one up.

I acknowledge the government's recent changes to the priority pathway for motor neurone disease. These were pointed to by the minister in the House when I asked him about Graham's case. But they do nothing for somebody like him, who is already in a system which is actively denying him the support that he needs and which, on review, comes back again to the same cruel answer—because its settings are intrinsically wrong. That's something that the minister knew but failed to acknowledge when I asked him about this in the House.

I support the private member's bill introduced in the Senate last week by the shadow minister for health, Senator Anne Ruston, and by crossbench senators Penny Allman-Payne and David Pocock. That bill would restore assessor discretion. It would enable qualified professionals to adjust or override the algorithm when their clinical judgement demands that they do so. It would also improve transparency by requiring decision notices to explain how both the tool and human judgement are applied, and it would allow anyone assessed since November 2025 to request a fresh assessment. We have to restore professional judgement, clinical knowledge, fairness, common sense and generosity to the aged-care assessment system. Older Australians deserve nothing less.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Since coming to office, the Albanese Labor government has invested billions in additional funding and made vital structural reforms in the aged-care sector. Our new Support at Home program began on 1 November, and we've seen waiting times come down across high, medium and standard priorities and every person assessed as urgent continues to receive their funding within a month. We've changed the prioritisation system so that people assessed as high or medium priority can get a place faster and get the care they need. We've announced a rapid review of how the integrated assessment tool, or IAT, prioritises care places to make sure the system continues to put aged-care people first.

We've delivered 83,000 additional in-home care places, and, in the budget, we announced our plan to deliver another 32,000 places next year. These extra packages continue to take pressure off the national priority system. Once we've rolled out these additional places, by the end of 2026-27, 420,000 older Australians will have access to Support at Home. That's almost three times the number of older Australians who are receiving care, compared to the coalition's Home Care Packages program back in 2020. We're providing $1 billion to change the treatment of personal care services, like showering, to make it free of charge through the Support at Home program, alongside clinical care.

It took the coalition 32 minutes when they were in last in government to cut $1.2 billion in aged-care funding to workforce development supplements. They cut dementia supplements. They cut veteran supplements. They cut $3 billion in budget funding when they were last. I know this. I was the shadow minister for ageing at the time. They also cut $1.2 billion over four years through changes to the scoring matrix of the aged-care funding instrument, which determined the level of funding paid to aged-care providers. The interim report from the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety was titled Neglect. It is not good enough for the coalition to come into this place and criticise us when they have monumentally failed when in office. So all the sanctimony and tears over there mean nothing because those opposite failed to care for older Australians when they were last in government.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Sitting suspended from 13:30 to 16:00