Rebecca White (Lyons, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Women) | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the second reading be considered immediately".

On the last sitting day prior to the winter recess, the Senate sent a clear message about putting older Australians first, and it's now time the House of Representatives do the same. The bill that is the subject of the motion is about one fundamental matter: ensuring that humans, not computers, make decisions when it comes to our elderly. This is critically important because elderly Australians are deeply concerned at the moment with the way that the aged-care system is treating them. They do not want a faceless algorithm determining their outcomes when it comes to aged care. They want this matter addressed immediately because, if it isn't, what we're going to see is more and more perverse outcomes for elderly Australians. We're also going to see backlog after backlog after backlog, because people will seek review after review after review of the decisions that these algorithms are making.

I have to make the point that those opposite, who are now in government, made a huge fuss about anything being automated when they were in opposition, yet here they are, using algorithms to determine outcomes for our elderly. We say enough is enough, and we would like to bring the debate and the discussion on so that we can make sure that this is fixed. If this bill can pass the parliament today, if this bill is considered immediately, then we will be able to address this issue, and we will go a small way to add in some sort of comfort to elderly Australians. There are still a lot of issues under which elderly Australians are buckling because of this government, but this is one thing that we could address.

That is why we want to see this brought on and why we think it is critical that it is brought on. I'll look forward to hearing from the government as to why it shouldn't be, because there is no real reason why it shouldn't be. We have ample time in the chamber to make it happen. If the government votes to not allow this to be considered today, each and every one of those members of the government who votes accordingly should be able to go back to their electorates and explain to their constituents why they're happy for an algorithm to do the work when it comes to our aged-care system. That's what they all should be prepared to do.

My hope is that constituents right around Australia will be going to their local member and saying, 'How did you vote when it comes to this?' There is no question whatsoever that people are worried about our aged-care system. The government made a lot of noise about our aged-care system and how they were going to fix it. I remember—this is going back now a little way, because they've been in government for four years—in the lead-up to the 2022 election, the government made a lot of promises when it came to our aged-care system. But I don't remember one of those promises being about using algorithms to fix the system to determine outcomes for our elderly. I just cannot recall that, so I'm looking forward to that being explained by those opposite, those in government. Where was it in any of your policy platforms? I know you've just had your national conference. Where was it at your national conference that you highlighted the fact that algorithms would be embedded in our aged-care system and in making determinations in our aged-care system? That is what we need to hear from the government on.

At the moment, all we're hearing—and this is becoming far too common from the government—is just denial. They just say point blank, 'Oh, that's not happening.' We've seen the Prime Minister do it on numerous occasions. He just denies anything's happened: 'I deny I fell off a stage!'

An opposition member: Down an escalator.

'I deny I tripped down an escalator. I deny I said this before the budget. I deny I said this before the election.' Well, they seem to now be denying that the algorithm is doing the job, yet there is proof that it is doing the job. That's why the government need to address this, and the best way they can address it is to bring on this debate now. There is no good reason why they shouldn't.

Speaker, you will recall that, before we went into the winter recess, we raised this as a serious issue, so the government has had five weeks to consider what it needs to do. That is why we think the bill is urgent and should be considered today. There's plenty of time for the House to debate it today, and there is no valid reason why the government shouldn't.

Let's be very clear. Those of us who have been in our electorates for the last five weeks—members from both, I'm sure, the government side and, I know, the opposition side—will have heard that the system is failing. More and more we're getting people coming to us saying, 'What is going on?' I heard a particularly bad case from a resident in Casterton in my electorate just on the weekend. She is the wife of someone who needs urgent help, urgent support. They are being messed around, and it did seem like an algorithm was being used, because every time they approached the aged-care sector to say, 'Surely we can get help nearer our community,' they were told, 'Well, we'll have to see.' I don't know how the checks or balances work, but they kept being told they had to go over an hour and a half away to get that assistance when the help was right there in their local community. Even though they kept raising and saying, 'That's going to cost more,' it seemed like the request just went into the system, and the algorithm spat out the outcome, which said, 'No, you've got to drive over an hour and 20, an hour and a half to have the support services that you need.' That's why this needs to be fixed. That's just one of numerous examples that I've heard in my electorate, and I'm sure everyone, over the five weeks of the winter, has heard something similar.

That is why I have moved that we should now bring this on, debate it and deal with it—because if we don't, sadly, we're going to see more and more examples like the one I heard recently from a constituent in the town of Casterton. We want to make sure, on our side—and I'm sure, on the government's side, they don't want elderly Australians suffering. But that is what's occurring because of the problems the system is facing today, especially when it comes to a system that seems wholly and solely reliant on algorithms and not wholly and solely reliant on humans putting a human face to decision-making and making sure we get the right outcomes, the whole time, for elderly Australians.

Cameron Caldwell (Fadden, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Housing) | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and give credit to the Manager of Opposition Business for raising this amendment today. It really shouldn't need to be the business of the opposition to drag the government, kicking and screaming, to deliver the basics in aged care that Australians deserve, but that is exactly what we are seeing today. The opposition stands here ready to bring on the Aged Care Amendment (Restoring Human Override for Aged Care Needs Assessments) Bill 2026 that the Senate saw fit to pass before the winter break commenced. We should do it right here and right now. I say that because our inboxes as MPs are getting overloaded with stories from Australians whose families are being let down by a horribly failing system.

The minister, I think, sets the right tone, but he's completely lacking in substance to deal with these issues that are arising in his portfolio. This particular issue of computers not being able to have any sort of human override in the absolutely critical decision-making process of the way in which our elderly are cared for in their final years is an indictment of the way in which this minister has carriage of this portfolio.

Just before we went into the winter recess, I asked a question of the minister. At that point we knew that this bill had passed the Senate, and we knew the minister could see that there was a willingness from the opposition to deal with this issue in a humane way for older Australians. In answer to the question I asked in question time just prior to the break, the minister went on and on and on but failed to acknowledge that we have lost the humanity and the human element in these decision-making processes. We could fix that today. If I were to go home to my electorate at the end of this week and tell people in my community that we had the chance to fix this issue in Canberra this week but that the government wouldn't even deal with it, they would be flabbergasted. I suspect that is exactly what we are going to see today—a complete unwillingness by the government to acknowledge that they are in any way to blame for the failures in this system.

The question that I asked of the minister just prior to the winter recess related to a constituent in my electorate, in fact, a constituent who lived just around the corner from me in my home suburb of Hollywell. His name was Dudley Austin. Dudley and his family are examples of why the government should come in here, support our motion to have this bill dealt with immediately and support this legislation that's been brought through the Senate. The Senate have seen fit to pass this bill because, over in that other place, they know that this could easily be fixed, and they know that it should be fixed. Yet here we are today, with the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care happy to bat it off and kick it into the long grass, but older Australians deserve better than that. These examples are becoming far too numerous. The case of Dudley Austin that I dealt with locally is just one of many where this aged-care system, under this minister and under the Albanese Labor government, is failing our older Australians.

The crux of the legislation that was passed in the Senate is so incredibly simple. It is to merely give humans the opportunity to review decisions that are being made by computers. I wouldn't have thought that that was a particularly controversial piece of legislation—that, in the end, human oversight should be restored to our aged-care system. The fact that that is, in any way, vaguely controversial for this Labor government shows that their priorities are all wrong. Today, the first sitting day back after a few weeks back in our electorates, this Labor government should do the right thing. They should step up to the plate and they should fix this issue now.

The case of Dudley Austin is a stark reminder of how this system is failing Australians. Dudley was 98 years of age and had had a life-threatening fall in his home, but the assessment of Dudley, aged 98, was one of no urgency and no priority. Because the computer said no, he was left at home without the care and support that he needed in what turned out to be the final days of his life. This story is being repeated all over the country. Every older Australian deserves to get the best out of the government of this nation. What's happening right now is that they are being left to wither on the vine. The waiting lists are too long. The decision-making process is completely flawed.

Today, this Labor government has an opportunity to right a wrong. They have been bleating on about aged care for four years, making out that they are some sort of guardian of the older Australians, but they're not. They are dramatically failing older Australians. This bill could be a goodwill gesture from this government that they have had a winter of remorse and that they have seen the error of their ways. But they won't, will they? I suspect they won't, because they won't be happy unless they are playing politics with people's lives. The concept of us as an opposition walking in here and saying, 'Let's do this today,' is completely unacceptable to them. It wasn't their idea. They wouldn't want to admit that there's any wrongdoing, but case after case of older Australians being failed by this system would suggest that there are major problems. Today, let's just take a simple step in trying to address that.

The Senate has done all the legwork, so all the House members have to do is roll in here today and support this piece of legislation. That's not a difficult task. In fact, I think that's what Australians would expect of the government in this place. They would expect that, when there are issues that are of this level of urgency and importance, the members opposite would roll in here, get the job done and fix the problems that they created. Older Australians are the ones that we should be looking out for, for having given so much to our country for so many, many years; for having paid taxes; and for having lived through pandemics and wars and worked their buts off for their families. They deserve to be given the best treatment, not the beta treatment from some computer. I urge those opposite to please pack away the politics for a few moments. Come in here today as a gesture of goodwill to older Australians, and vote to deal with this today so that we can restore human care in our aged-care system.

Milton Dick (Speaker) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Milton Dick (Speaker) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.