I wish to make some comments regarding the process that has followed the Greens political party and the coalition thwarting passage of an improvement to our generational aged-care reforms. As you know, this government is committed to improving standards, quality, accessibility and affordability of aged care, and we had to do it, because when we came to office in 2022 we inherited an aged-care system that was in crisis. It was the royal commission that demanded we draw a line under a coalition era that they titled as 'neglect'. With that, we began the hard work of generational reform.

It was in November of last year that the new Aged Care Act kicked off. This was a complete overhaul of the system. It was recommendation 28 of the royal commission that demanded we introduce a more streamlined assessment system for older Australians. Until then, there had been way too much duplication, inefficiency and undue complexity. In other words, it was onerous and burdensome on Australians, and, frankly, it was expensive for taxpayers. That's what happens when you have inefficiencies and duplication. And so, over a number of years, starting in 2020, the department started to craft an assessment tool that is now called the IAT, the integrated assessment tool, which has received a lot of press, not all positive, and there has also been a lot of mischaracterisation of this tool and the rationale behind having it.

We introduced this tool because we realised that there was imperfect decision-making happening by humans. Some people were getting too much in their home packages; others were not getting enough. If you were a man and you spoke perfect English, the chances are you were going to get a pretty good package, maybe overcompensated for your needs. If, on the other hand, you were a non-English-speaking migrant—a bit like my family, my dad—the chances are you were probably going to miss out and not have your needs met. In fact, that's what the data showed. We had $4 billion in unallocated funds that were sitting in accounts not being used. So something had to be done to deliver consistency and standardisation.

The IAT was developed over a number of years using very large datasets, using expert input. I won't go through all of that. It is in the Hansard from 1 April 2026, which lays out very clearly how this was developed. It basically then used about 13 different sections, including social supports, health issues and the home environment, to classify an older Australian into one of eight categories, No. 8 being the most severe category. With that, we also applied a prioritisation mechanism. We know the process is not perfect, and that was recognised by this minister very early on. And so we instigated what was called a rapid review into the prioritisation mechanism.

I'm going through this because the detail matters. It was a prioritisation mechanism that underwent a rapid review. The report is currently being considered by the government, but changes were made, and you have to be agile when you're introducing generational reform. Things never go smoothly. There are always roadblocks. There are always points of friction. We have tried to be adaptive as a government. And so it became clear very early on that patients with, for example, motor neurone disease needed to be escalated up in the categories. So they now have a categorisation of 'urgent', which means they get their care packages, their Support at Home care packages, within a month, as do other people in that urgent category. But we know that the prioritisation mechanism does need to be adjusted, and that is being considered right now.

What is disappointing, after weeks and weeks and weeks of testimony and hearings that I've sat through in the committee with my colleagues from the Greens political party and the coalition, is that, now, five minutes to midnight, as we are trying to fix this system and make it more responsive to the needs of older Australians, they basically have banded together to completely thwart this. They are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The point of contention is the escalation pathway. They are blocking passage of an escalation pathway that we want to introduce so that older Australians get the care that they need, the packages that they need, in a much faster, more streamlined fashion. Why? They want us to go back to the drawing board and tear up the IAT, the integrated assessment tool, because they say that it is an algorithm. God forbid we use an algorithm to deliver efficiency, consistency and standardisation! Humans are the best decision-makers! That is absolutely false. In medicine, humans are not the best decision-makers. Humans are assisted by similar clinical decision tools. We have a plethora of them in health care because we recognise that humans are biased decision-makers. And so, when we're dealing with thousands upon thousands of older Australians who need aged care, we must deliver consistency across what is a very diverse population terms of income status, ethnicity, language and values, as well. But we have to deliver equity and standardisation. And so it is beyond disappointing that this has been blocked by the coalition and the Greens political party.

In addition, I want to also mention that this goes contrary to several peak groups who provided testimony. Mr Craig Gear of OPAN described this escalation pathway as, I quote, 'an important interim reform' and argued:

Older people need an accessible correction mechanism while longer-term reform goes on.

And that's what they're blocking. They're not happy. They want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. 'Get rid of the IAT,' they say, but in doing so they are stopping us from actually improving the system, stopping government the from being agile and responsive to the needs of older Australians. They're going contrary to these peak bodies, who are actually saying: 'Get on with it. We know that it's not perfect, but get on with it.' Then we have Mr Irlam of COTA Australia, who said that further work on the assessment process, quote, 'should not delay fixing the immediate problem affecting older people'. Ageing Australia similarly supported the escalation pathway proceeding while broader work on the process continued. Mr Symondson from Ageing Australia said:

If we go right back to the drawing board now, how many people are going to fall through the already gaping cracks that we have in the system while we get that right? Which is why we do support the amendment …

We have a range of stakeholders—peak groups—urging this parliament to get on with it and deliver on this significant reform, which is an escalation pathway, which does put in the human so that we have a practical safeguard that is designed to improve the prioritisation mechanism for Australians who feel like they haven't been heard or haven't been properly assessed by the IAT. We think that number, based on data from earlier this year during estimates, is about 0.5 per cent. But, over a large number of people, that's a lot of people. We recognise that it's not perfect, and we are trying to fix it by introducing an escalation pathway with a qualified assessor. They're making that judgement, responding to the issues raised by older Australians and their families.

But the Greens, in their wisdom, and the coalition have said, 'No can do.' Start again, government. To all those years of work in trying to come up with a more efficient, standardised, better process in response to recommendation 28 of the royal commission, they say: 'It's not good enough for us. We want to go back to the old system—' because the old system was perfect. What nonsense. It was not perfect; $4 billion tells us of unallocated funds—unallocated meaning not being used—because the assessments were wrong. It tells us that the old system was not perfect. We are trying to improve this system, and you are standing in the way as usual. The Greens political party put the perfect in front of the good. They are not pragmatists. They do not have the interests of older Australians in mind.

This reform also introduces the Aboriginal aged care commissioner. This is not a point of contention, but it is urgent that we deliver on this reform, because older Australians, particularly those of Indigenous background, have woeful health outcomes. ABS data from 2022 put the life expectancy gap at nine years for men and eight years for women. However, if you live in a remote or very remote community, life expectancy is 67 years for men and 71 for women. It is much, much worse.

We know that older Indigenous Australians have a much harder time gaining access to aged care, for a range of reasons. Of course, the tyranny of distance is one of them, but they find the system hostile. They lack trust in the system. This is the legacy of colonisation. So recommendation 49 from the royal commission said that we should consider appointing an Aboriginal aged-care commissioner in order to be responsive to the cultural needs of Indigenous Australians right around this country, because they don't feel like they have cultural safety in the current system. They need an advocate. They lack the self-efficacy and the ability to advocate for themselves. So an interim commissioner was installed by us in 2024, and we now want this enshrined in legislation going forward.

Very good idea. We support that.

I'm glad you support it, Senator Ruston. I do accept that.

And so do you, Senator Allman-Payne. However, I am disappointed that we are being thwarted in delivering what are much-needed and urgent improvements to the assessment system. We know that generational reform is never easy. We're going through it right now with the NDIS. That's going to be a bumpy road. No-one's pretending that delivering generational reform in aged care is going to be simple. We all accept that there are going to be bumps on the road. But what we don't need, as a government and on behalf of the Australian people, are parliamentarians turning the needs of older Australians into a political football. We've got to rise above this, folks. There's too much at stake. There are people out there suffering.

I have some lived experience with that, with my 86-year-old father, who didn't actually wait that long to get his IAT done—but it was on us. We as a family probably did not make that decision to actually seek help early enough. So to older Australians out there: I urge you to not leave it too late. If you think you need an assessment, get the assessment done, while we bat it out in here and try to deliver on this escalation pathway so that we can, in those instances where you feel like you have not received a satisfactory assessment, escalate it, get it amended and ensure that you are heard through a proper process. Instead, we sit here wasting time instead of serving the nation, playing politics with the needs of older Australians. It's disgraceful. The Greens political party should hang its head in shame. There is no point crying tears on committees. Get in here and actually act. (Time expired)

I think I've got Senator Stewart.

Thank you.

I haven't even called you, Senator Ruston. It's not question time, where you can just interrupt. Yes, Senator Ruston?

I just want to raise an issue in relation to the convention in this chamber that normally, after one party has spoken, the call is rotated around the chamber, and I would—

Senator—

Could I finish? Would that be possible?

No, I understand the rotation. I've heard enough. I have just taken over the chair. I was informed by the previous chair that the next speaker was Senator Stewart. That is why I called Senator Stewart. I haven't been in here. I don't know what the rotation has been. I'm simply acting on the advice of the previous chair. I've called Senator Stewart, so I'm going to give Senator Stewart the call.

Thank you, President.

Order! Senator Lambie, resume your seat. I haven't been in here. I was instructed by the previous chair that the next speaker was Senator Stewart.

How would you know? There's no list.

Order! Come to order, Senator Allman-Payne! Senator Stewart, please continue.

I rise to talk about the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026. Given that the substantive part of this piece of legislation is an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander aged-care commissioner, I would appreciate the opportunity to speak, if that's okay.

So would we, so share it around!

Let the Indigenous senator speak about Indigenous affairs.

Order! Order!

It's actually a really important matter that I want to speak on.

Senator Stewart, address your comments to the chair.

Senator Allman-Payne, come to order or leave the chamber.

As a Mutthi Mutthi Wamba Wamba woman, this bill speaks to something that's really important for our community, and it goes to the importance of elders, and the respect for elders and the place that we hold elders in, in our community. For so many of our community members, the burden of taking care of our elders has been mostly borne by our families, like so many families. That is for a number of reasons, and certainly a big one is that the institutions and the mainstream services that are out there, that are supposed to take care of our elders, are not seen as safe places for our community members. That is because of past practices and policies in this country, where our elders have been institutionalised. So the idea of going into another institution in your older years can actually be really triggering for our elders.

So having a role such as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner is really important. It will be a position, a person, an opportunity, for our elders, when they are having challenges with the systems or the services—somewhere where they can raise their voices and be confident that the person on the other end understands their circumstances and has the understanding of their lived experience of being an Aboriginal person in this country that really only comes from having a shared experience of growing up black in this country. I think it's really important that we get the opportunity to have this conversation in the Senate and put the case for why it's important and why we should not play politics with something like this in this place.

Our elders are our teachers, our storytellers and our knowledge holders. They are the people who hold all of the information about the generations that came before us. It is one of the many reasons they are so esteemed in our community. They carry language. They carry culture. They carry our family history. I've certainly got people in my family who are like walking family trees. I'm not one of those people! But certainly our elders carry the responsibility of holding that knowledge for us and of handing it down.

Aged-care services aren't just about services. They are about giving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elders the dignity, the care and the respect that they deserve. There are so many services that our community access that don't treat them in the way that the rest of Australians get treated, and aged care is another one of those places where you can see the impact that that has on our elders. I know that dignity and respect look different depending on who you are, and that is right. If you are from a different multicultural background or from the broader Australian community, your idea of what good care looks like—at what dignified care looks like—is going to be different to what the care for an Aboriginal elder might look like. For us, it means being close to your family. It means staying connected to country and being around people who understand you and how you've grown up and that shared experience.

It's important that you get cared for by people who understand you. Especially as you get older, you might end up with something like dementia. It means there may be a whole bunch of things in your environment that trigger you, that bring back some trauma and some memories and make a place feel really unsafe for you. The stakes are even higher for elders when they go into services, and they should have the opportunity to feel safe and loved and understood and cared for. As they age and become more vulnerable, it's really important that we look after them in a way that they deserve. That's for a multitude of reasons. Our elders are people who have contributed to their families and to the community. They've contributed to our national economy over their lifetime too. They've been taxpayers. They deserve to have dignity in care as they get older. This bill really does take an important step towards delivering that for our elders. It's an important step that we're taking in the parliament today.

The other part of this is that it was an important recommendation of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. The case for it is really clear. We know that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are more likely to need this type of care earlier. I could rattle off all the statistics on all the ways that we are struggling in health outcomes and determinants. All those things mean that we're more likely to need the services that aged care has the ability to deliver earlier in our lives. So it is important that we do this.

When people aren't engaging in aged-care services, it's not necessarily because they don't need to. It's because they don't feel like it's safe. That means that the delaying of care, treatment or the services they need actually makes their health worse. It costs the system more. Not that it's all about dollars—this is about actually caring about the human at the other end of the service—but the putting off or the delaying of care because you're worried about how you might be treated or about someone's ability to understand you and your needs should be concerning for all of us. Too many elders have been asked to leave their communities to receive that care and to be separate from their families, isolated from culture and receive services from people who don't speak their language.

I think it is really important that we have a position like this aged-care commission position, one that can hear the concerns that people have and advocate for them in the kinds of places that can be really intimidating—places like this or broader forums of aged-care services. There's also, of course, all the intricacies of all the different bits and pieces of legislation, regulations, policies or funding that people might not know about. It's important that there is a role that people feel they can go to, to have their voices heard in a way that's safe and that sees them.

A position like this is an important marker, too; it acknowledges the history of our country in terms of some of the reasons people might not feel safe in the aged-care system. This position takes a step in acknowledging that really harmful history we've had in this country by saying that we need an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and that the services and the engagement that we might need to undertake or deliver for Aboriginal elders might look a bit different. The advocacy might look a bit different, and that requires a role, in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commissioner, so that we can deliver for our communities. It recognises that cultural safety isn't just a box-ticking exercise; it's something that we need to be able to do and deliver. It's really fundamental to delivering good care. It's not just—

Thank you, Senator Stewart. You'll be in continuation. It being 11.15, the debate is interrupted.

President, I would just seek that you review the decision you made at 11 o'clock about how you awarded the call, because I believe that it wasn't in the normal practice or convention of this place. I'd like you to review that and come back to us, please.

Senator Hanson-Young, as I explained to the chamber, I take the advice that I'm given by the previous chair. The previous chair indicated to me that Senator Stewart was speaking. Therefore I made that decision. I am well aware of conventions. As you know, I wasn't in the chamber. I didn't know who had spoken or hadn't spoken. It is important for me to back in the temporary chairs, and that's what I did.