Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I was wondering whether you would have a number as to how many people are on the national priority system as of 31 August?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've canvassed this in this chamber and also in committee hearings last week. As of 31 March, the number of people on the priority waiting list is 87,597.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. Yes, that information has been continually provided to us. I was wondering whether you could tell me how many people are currently on the national priority system as of 31 July 2025?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Senator Ruston. I'll refer you to my earlier answer.

Steph Hodgins-May (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator David Pocock?

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order on relevance. It seems to be a very clear question about a very specific number.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm just interested to understand why the advice that you're receiving is to not provide me with updated data? In just about every other situation when I've asked for this data, I've been provided that data within the following month. Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect that you would be able to provide information as to, at least, what the priority waiting list was on 31 July 2025. You gave me an answer from 31 March 2025. But, on the public record, the number is 108,924 on 31 July 2025. I'm keen to understand why you refused to provide me with that information in the previous answer.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think this was canvassed in the committee hearing separate to this bill but related to these issues on Friday. I understand that the advice provided to you at that time is that there are additional quality assurance checks that are made prior to publication and the data for which such checks have been undertaken and confirmed is the data that's already been provided to you.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Having been at the hearing on Friday, I will let the Senate know what happened. Senator Ruston and I were asking for those numbers. If I can quote the department, they said:

I will take it on notice to be able to provide it for Monday.

The official also said, to Senator Ruston:

I can take it on notice and I can provide it to you with the usual caveats attached.

I'm interested if the government is claiming public interest immunity on this, or what's going on, given we had questions on notice and an undertaking from the department to provide this information—which it has—which we were told was easily accessible and would be provided with caveats, and now we have a government that simply will not provide the information.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pocock, I'm advised that, at the time that the discussion took place that you're referring to in your question, officials were clear that there are some limitations on what can be provided, particularly given the timeframes involved and that there are challenges in relation to quality assurance around these numbers.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, what is the unconfirmed number that the department has that applies before quality assurance is undertaken?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Allman-Payne. This is, essentially, the same question Senator Ruston has just asked me, and I'll refer you to my previous answer.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are two parts to my question. The first one is that, in past practice—on 26 February, in estimates this year, I asked this question of the department, and the department gave me the data from 31 January. They were quite clearly prepared at the time to provide the data in the format in which you are now claiming you can't provide the data. I'm interested to understand what has changed between 26 February and today, as to why you, the minister, representing the government, are withholding the data today when it wasn't being withheld on 26 February. Is there something that has changed in terms of how the data was dealt with between then and now?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I've indicated to you, the government is keen to provide the Senate with good information that has been checked and against which the ordinary quality assurance measures have been undertaken. It's on that basis that we're providing you with the number we've provided both today and in answers during question time earlier in the week.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With the greatest amount of respect, I don't think that answers the question. You provided this data to me on 26 February in relation to data on 31 January. I am simply asking you why you were prepared to provide me the uncleansed data, as you describe it, in February but you're not prepared to provide me with the uncleansed data today. That's all I'm asking—what's changed? Why did you do it then and why aren't you doing it now?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've provided you with an answer about our reasoning on this occasion.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm really keen to understand why I have received official notification from your government that the number of people on the national priority system as at 31 July 2025 is 108,924. Can you confirm whether that is correct or not?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

McALLISTER (—) (): That is my understanding of the data, with all the caveats that we have attached to it both now and previously in talking about how this data is managed.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Without belabouring the point, why would you not give me that information until they provided it to you?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've repeatedly explained that the government's approach is to provide data to the Senate that is of a high standard and a high quality of which we can be confident. That's the approach we have taken now and up until this point. You have introduced a different number into the conversation. I can confirm that that is the number, but it has not been subjected to the quality assurance processes that we ordinarily subject this data to.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 6 June last year, the first assistant secretary provided me the waitlist as at 31 May. I will quote to you what was said at the time:

… very recent, not yet published, data … it's fresh data. We may not have the usual granularity around it.

They provided me with that data with those caveats, with full transparency, six days after the actual data was collated. So I am still at a loss to understand why your government has been so keen not to provide this data, given it has provided it every time before. The department has indicated it is happy to provide caveated data, yet you're not. We know now that the waitlist is in excess of 20,000 people more than it was on 31 March 2025. We know that the waitlist is now in excess of 80,000 people more than it was 24 months ago. We know now that the average wait time for a package has blown out: 24 months ago it was one to three months, and it's now between nine and 12 months. Minister, I'm keen to understand why your government is withholding this vital information, particularly given the absolute crisis that is facing the aged-care sector and that has befallen the sector over the last 24 months.

But, clearly, the public record can now state that the government has provided data—even though they failed to provide it to their minister who is managing the bill in this place, which seems a little incredible—that 108,924 older Australians have been assessed by this government as needing a level of care, and that care has not been provided to them and has not been provided to them for a much, much longer period of time than has previously been the case. So, Minister, I'm keen to understand, if you would like to put it on record, why your government thinks it is reasonable not to provide this publicly important information and why you have withheld this information for nearly six months now.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ruston, I simply don't accept that the government has withheld information. We have been engaged in a series of public discussions, in committee hearings and in the chamber, about the approach that we are taking to the reform of the aged-care sector. I think everyone in this chamber acknowledges the significance of that reform. We were very pleased to work with the opposition to bring the reforms through in the last term, and I think that is because there is a commitment here to improve outcomes for older Australians.

These issues have been canvassed through a legislative inquiry, which some of the senators here chose to participate in. They have been canvassed, additionally, through a references inquiry, which had its first hearing on Friday. We have had debates during various parts of the program in the Senate and, as I understand it, in the other place, and we have had questions asked in question time. This has been a very public debate. And the government's every purpose in reforming the aged-care system is to make sure that we produce better outcomes for older Australians. I will add that it builds on the work that was done over the last term to improve the performance of the system and the quality of care that's available to people.

A lot of work was done in the last term that, frankly, could have been done in the previous decade when the Liberal Party and their coalition partner, the Nationals, were in power. But it wasn't done, so a great deal of work had to be done over the last term to get us to this point. It included a $5.6 billion reform package that reformed care minutes to deliver registered nurses onsite in aged care more than 99 per cent of the time, which allowed more direct care to over 250,000 older people in aged-care homes. We have invested $17.7 billion in support of award wage increases for aged-care workers so that we have the aged-care workforce ready to implement the improvements in quality that older Australians rightly expect.

In December 2023, only 54 per cent of aged-care homes had an overall star rating of four or five stars. Now, 74 per cent of aged-care homes have such a rating. And now, under the leadership of Minister Rae in the other place, we are committed to implementing the Aged Care Act. As I think senators understand, it will expand aged-care support to hundreds of thousands of older Australians, it'll lift quality and it will lift the range of aged-care services that older Australians can access in their final years of life, and that is no less than they deserve.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I'm just trying to square up your comment that the government hasn't withheld information. Several minutes ago I asked you if you could give us the unconfirmed number. You said you couldn't. Senator Ruston gave you a number, and you immediately said that you could confirm that that was the number. I'm trying to understand why you couldn't give me that number when, clearly, you have it.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Allman-Payne, I've really clearly explained the approach that the government has taken to this. We want the Senate to have good-quality information. That's been assured; that's the approach we have taken. Senator Ruston has in her possession information that has not been subject to that process and may be subject to change as a consequence. She asked me about it directly; I confirmed it. But our preference is to work with data that has been quality assured, and that's the approach that we've taken through this debate up to this point.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3413 (revised):

Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Page 171 (after line 30), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 4 — Release of 20,000 home care packages

Aged Care Act 1997

1 At the end of section 23B-1

Add:

(7) The Secretary must make such determinations under subsection (1) as are necessary to ensure that before the commencement of the Aged Care Act 2024 there are available and released to recipients a number of home care packages under the Australian Government framework known as the National Priority System that is equal to or greater than the number worked out as follows:

(a) the number of such home care packages available and released to recipients immediately before the commencement of this subsection; plus

(b) 20,000 such home care packages.

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendments (1) and (2)

Amendments (1) and (2) are framed as requests because they amend the bill to provide for the release of 20,000 additional home care packages in accordance with the Commonwealth aged care system.

This will increase the amount of expenditure under the appropriation in section 96-10 of the Aged Care Act 1997.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant   .to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendments (1) and (2)

If the effect of the amendments is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 96-10 of the Aged Care Act 1997 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendments be moved as requests.

Minister, I'm interested in the government's approach to this, given that yesterday I was effectively told by Minister Farrell in question time, when asking about the secrecy of the Albanese Labor government—which is the second most secretive in the last 30 years, if you look at FOIs, OPDs and the claiming of PII—that you are a very transparent government. Yet when we have a question about a number, which you have in front of you, which the department said they could give us on Friday, with all the usual caveats, as they do at estimates, you haven't given us that number. How is that transparency from a government?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have answered this question in different forms, in answering questions from Senators Ruston and Allman-Payne, and I refer Senator Pocock to those answers.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are there any contributions that senators would like to make?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Returning to the issue in relation to packages, I indicate that the coalition is absolutely delighted to support Senator Pocock's amendments for the immediate release of these packages. The cold, hard reality that the government seems to be failing to accept is that the sector is capable of delivering these packages, the department is able to deliver these packages, and there are budgeted amounts within the budget for 2025-26 for these packages to be funded, yet the only thing that seems to be standing in the way of older Australians getting access to the care that this amendment seeks to deliver for them is that the minister is actively—intentionally—refusing to release any aged-care packages. To that end, Minister, how many new aged-care packages have been released this financial year?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This was canvassed in the hearing on Friday and explained very clearly to senators who were present at that time.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the interests of providing full transparency for the Senate, can you tell me what the answer was, Minister?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When both the minister and the officials at the table spoke to you, they were very clear that we have continued to release packages throughout this financial year and that the government has been preparing for the release of new and additional packages which are intended to commence with the commencement of the act.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, could you please answer the simple question: how many new home-care packages have been released this financial year?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've answered your question twice now, Senator Ruston.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you haven't answered the question, Minister, and I don't know why you're not prepared to actually be honest and transparent with the Senate and the people of Australia. There have been no new home-care packages released by this government this financial year. That is the sum total of none. You refer to the reallocation of existing packages. These are packages that become available when older Australians on a package either go into residential care or they die. These are the only packages that are currently being released by the government.

Minister Rae last week said that there were 2,700 packages on average per week being released. Yesterday or maybe Monday, the minister said that the number of packages being released was 2,000 packages a week on average. Could you please confirm what is the average number of packages released per week? Is it 2,000 or is it 2,700? If it is 2,000, what's happened to the other 700?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The advice that I have is that the number varies, and it's an average. But the advice I have before me is that we are releasing an average of more than 2,000 home-care packages every week, and that number, as I indicated, moves around.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I confirm that when Minister Rae said on national television last week that there was an average of 2,700 packages released a week that figure was incorrect on the basis of the advice you've just received from officials?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, Senator. It depends on the timeframe, I gather, over which the average is calculated. That's the advice that I have in relation to your question.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would it be possible for you to provide us with the timeframe when the average of 2,700 came into play and the timeframe of when it was an average of 2,700 and now is an average of 2,000? Finally, on Senator Pocock's amendment—I was wondering what is the reason, if there is a reason, why the government has stopped releasing any new home-care packages this financial year?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As you know, the government, over the period that we've been in office, has continued to release new packages, but the focus since July has absolutely been preparing the system for the significant influx of packages which we expect to occur on the commencement of the act. That involves consideration of the ability of the sector to absorb those packages, and our every focus, to be honest, has been on getting the system ready for what is a very substantial change to the aged-care system, which we are very excited about.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I'm really keen to unpack what you've just said. You have just told the Senate that your government's priority over the period leading up to 1 November is to get the system ready. Your priority has not been the 108,924 older Australians that, on 31 July, had been assessed as needing a home-care package and haven't received a home-care package. Your priority has been getting the system ready.

You also made a comment around being focused on making sure the sector is ready. The sector quite clearly told us last Friday that they were ready. The sector told us they could absorb these packages in a very, very short period of time. In fact, they told us that they were already geared up and had staffed up to be able to start delivering those packages from 1 July. And yet the government has just told this place that its priority is getting the systems in place. This is tantamount to having a reform in the hospital sector and saying to Australian patients who need hospitalisation, 'Sorry, we're not taking any new patients into our hospital because we're getting the system in place.'

I am absolutely floored that the government would prioritise a system rebuild over delivering the care that older Australians have been assessed by this government as needing. They're prioritising the system over their care. I find this quite extraordinary. So far we've had the government and the minister blame older Australians. They've blamed the sector. They've blamed their own government departments. They have blamed their own reforms. And now the minister has actually belled the cat that their priority in this process is to get the systems in place.

What I would say to you is that you weren't there on Friday, but Senator Allman-Payne and Senator Pocock were, when Margaret told her story. Her husband, Tony, was assessed as needing a level 4 home-care package, the highest level of package. He waited nearly 18 months to receive that package. The really cruel irony of what happened to Margaret and Tony was that Tony was taken to hospital on 4 May this year. Tony's wife received notification from the department, nearly 18 months after they were set up for assessment, that Tony had been assessed and his home-care package was going to be delivered to him. Tony passed away on 9 May this year and Margaret said she didn't have the heart to tell Tont that he had got a home-care package. So Tony passed away not even knowing that he had a home-care package. This wasn't an isolated situation. We heard of hundreds. I'm sure Senator Pocock and Senator Allman-Payne have other stories of a similar nature where the human face of the tragedy of the waiting list is told around Australia. So, Minister, I have to say that I am quite astounded that you have actually put on the public record that system readiness is your priority, not the delivery of home care.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ruston, that is an unhappy, disingenuous mischaracterisation of the discussion, which is intended to be conducted in good faith. Actually, the reforms to the aged-care system are incredibly significant and they cannot be separated from the outcomes that we are seeking to deliver for older Australians. The reforms that were agreed to by your party—not by the Australian Greens but by your party—seek to, in a really essential way, reorganise the way that care is delivered and provided to older people in a complex system. It is a system that involves providers, workers and, of course, older Australians themselves. It is worth getting this reform right. It's on that basis and because of our determination to deliver a very good outcome for older Australians that we took the decision to defer implementation.

At the time, that decision was endorsed by you personally, Senator Ruston, and by your party. But it was also endorsed by the sector. For example, Ageing Australia said:

We applaud the Government for listening to the concerns of the aged care sector and putting the needs of older Australians first.

…   …   …

This is a win for the 1.4 million older Australians, who rely on aged care. We need to do this reform once and do it right.

The CEO of Anglicare said:

Taking the time to get this right will lead to stronger outcomes for everyone, especially older Australians who rely on quality care and support.

UnitingCare said:

UnitingCare Australia welcomes today's sensible decision to delay the commencement of the new Aged Care Act, recognising the opportunity it provides to ensure a well-prepared and effective transition.

Given the scale of change—particularly in the Support at Home program—this extra time will ensure the foundations are in place for a seamless implementation.

Catholic Healthcare said:

We strongly support the reforms enacted in the Aged Care Act but this delay is needed to ensure a smooth transition that avoids unintended negative consequences.

So you can hear in the voices and words of those organisations and those people who care daily for older Australians the significance of getting the system ready and getting the sector right.

We make no apologies for leading on this reform, Senator Ruston. And what is actually surprising to me is that you don't seek to associate yourself with it. You supported the reforms. You supported the deferral. I think, Senator, that you do sincerely understand the need to provide care to older Australians and older people.

We were pleased to work with the opposition on this question. Our purpose is to improve things for older Australians. That's why we've done the work that we've done. And we are very grateful for all of the people who've joined with us, in what is a very substantial endeavour, in a spirit of goodwill. We are looking forward to the implementation of the new act and the positive changes that we expect it will bring for older people.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the minister is conflating the desire of the sector to defer the start of the Aged Care Act with the delay in the rollout of aged-care packages, because the minister has referred to both Ageing Australia and UnitingCare. I was at the hearing on Friday, and both Ageing Australia and UnitingCare said they supported the delay in the commencement of the act. They did not support a delay of release of home-care packages. And, across the board, the sector said that they are ready to roll them out.

The minister has said that they are preparing for a significant influx of people on home-care packages on 1 November. Well, I put to you, Minister, that you wouldn't have as big an influx on 1 November if you continued to roll them out from 1 July until then.

Five thousand people died, in the last 12 months, waiting for a home-care package. Is the government seriously saying that they're prepared to watch more people die than is necessary in that four-month period, over systems? Is that genuinely what you are saying to older Australians out there and to their families—the over 200,000 of them? We've had to work hard to get those numbers out of the government. And is it any wonder that you didn't want to give them to us? Are you seriously saying to them, 'Because we want to change the system, you lot can wait for months'?

We heard clearly on Friday that eight weeks is a massively long wait for an older person, and that having to wait three or four months or longer is catastrophic. You had senators get up here, in their speeches on the second reading, saying that the royal commission report was titled Neglect and we shouldn't be neglecting older people. Well, what is more neglectful than stopping rolling out home-care packages for four months?

Senator Ananda-Rajah said that lives were hanging on the balance. You bet they are! And yet, for four months, you are not rolling out any additional care. Those 200,000 that you keep talking about—those aren't new packages; those are packages that are being reallocated when people go into residential aged care or they die. Senator Ananda-Rajah talked about the large influx of older people into hospitals. Well, of course they're going into hospital, because they're not getting the care that they need at home. She talked about carer stress and the disproportionate amount of care that is falling on women in particular. Well, we could reduce that carer stress if the government invested in sufficient home-care packages so that people could actually get the care that they need at the time that they need it.

The royal commission said: 'Stop rationing care.' Not only are you rationing it still, you're refusing to roll it out! Talk about neglect!

Providers have told us that they can manage this. Senator Ananda-Rajah talked about the wage rises that Labor has rightly given aged-care workers and that have stemmed the egress from the system. It's working, and the sector is saying that they have the workforce to provide additional care. So why on earth would the government stop rolling out additional care for four months? Labor senators said, 'The government is trying to fulfill the wishes of older Australians to stay at home.' My questions to you then are: Why are you waiting? Why are you making 200,000 older Australians wait for care that could be rolled out now? We now know that the care that you are proposing to roll out on 1 November is going to be wholly inadequate—83,000 home-care packages for a waitlist of over 200,000. We've see no modelling on how you're going to reach that target. We've seen no modelling on how you're going to get to three months. Given the level of refusal to give information today unless figures are actually put to the government, I'll be surprised if we get that too.

Labor senators also talked about the fact that the government doesn't want anyone to fall through the cracks. I'd say 200,000 people waiting for care is a pretty big crack. Again, I ask the government: why won't you act to close that gap by rolling out new home-care packages now? Labor senators in their contributions in the second reading debate also talked about how care needs to be timely, that people need quicker access. If you are asking 200,000 people to wait an additional four months before you will roll out any new home-care packages, how on earth is that timely or quick?

Minister, my questions to you and the government are: What do you have to say to the 200,000 or more Australians who are desperately waiting for the care that they need for themselves, older parent or grandparent? What do you say to them as to why you are making them wait four months without any additional release of home-care packages?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, you've incorrectly asserted that there are more than 200,000 people waiting. That's simply not accurate. I understand the basis on which you arrived at that number, and I think it's been put to you previously that that is not an accurate way of assessing the demand in the system. However, the government understands that further resources are required in this sector because we don't want to see people waiting for too long. When we hear the stories—and we have heard many stories—we hear many stories about what people need at home, and they are very moving. All of these stories reinforce the need for reform of the system.

System reform, as people in this chamber I think should understand, required legislation, and it requires an injection of resources, new resources which we intend to deliver. It also requires a reconfiguration of the way that people work—with each other and with the older Australians that they support and care for. All of those things are significant changes to the aged-care system as it currently stands. They require significant thinking, working with the sector and preparation, and that is the work that our government has been doing.

I made this point earlier in the debate. It's work that could have been done in the 10 years that the coalition were in power. But it's work that wasn't done during that time. That task has been left to this government, and that's a very great shame, because there are many people that would have been better off had the reforms that were necessary for the aged-care system been undertaken much, much earlier.

It is heartbreaking, Senator Allman-Payne, to hear of people experiencing distress in any way, and my thoughts are with families who have experienced difficulties, particularly those who have lost a loved one. But that is why we are getting on with this job of delivering the change to the system. We know that older Australians have worked all their lives and that they have cared for their families and their communities, and they deserve the very best. That is what motivates our government, and it's why we did all that we did over the last term and why we intend to do it in this one.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you talk about it being heartbreaking hearing about people experiencing distress, waiting for home-care packages that they've been approved for. Yesterday in my speech on the second reading I read out half a dozen stories from over 100 that my office has received from Canberrans who are desperate for more supports so that their parents or they themselves can age at home with dignity. Imagine if the government was actually in a position to do something about it. Imagine if you could change the lives of 20,000 older Australians before 1 November, which we heard on Friday there's capacity to do. I urge the government to support my amendment to release 20,000 home-care packages now, given that there is a great need for them and there's capacity to do so.

I understand that for you this may be a cost. You want to balance the books. But I put to you that it is Australians, families, communities, and the states and territories that are bearing the cost. One of the stories I read out yesterday was from a local Canberra GP who has had to go to part-time work to care for her elderly parents. We have one of the lowest ratios of GPs to population in the country here in the ACT. Another story we hear about is how Canberra Hospital is full of older people. So every Canberran is copping an extra $100 healthcare levy because our hospital is bursting at the seams. Yet we have a Labor federal government that is happy to balance the books on old people.

We could do something about it now, and I certainly hope you will when we vote on these amendments. I urge you to back them. But what I'm hearing is that you actually just want to balance the books on old people who desperately want support and who we have deemed worthy of support. They have qualified for a home-care package, and yet we're going to make them wait until November. So I urge the government to support these amendments, and I commend them to the Senate.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Pocock. You're right. There are important investments that we should make. You spoke about cost. The government understands the importance of investing in older Australians. I spoke earlier in my contribution about the $5.6 billion that the government is investing in the aged-care system, because we know it needs to do better. You won't find an argument with us about that proposition. We understand the human stories that sit behind every family—about seeking to support another person, whether that person wishes to be at home, whether that person needs to be in a residential aged-care facility or whether that person needs hospital care. The government is in fact making very significant investments to support those people and to support their families.

We have throughout this period ensured that older Australians assessed as a high priority continue to receive their packages within a month. We look forward to rolling out further resources, as has been clearly signalled by both Minister Butler and Minister Rae over a long period of time. Over the last five years we have gone from having 155,000 people accessing in-home care to over 300,000 people. In part that's due to our additional investment in the last term of $798 million. This matters.

I think you will understand, Senator Pocock, from your engagement with people in the ACT, that Australians increasingly want to be at home. People want to be at home for as long as they can, and many people express a preference to spend their last days at home. One of the important aspects of this reform is it will provide a pathway for people to obtain the resources they need to do so. These are incredibly important, significant reforms. They have been achieved through discussion with the opposition. We are looking forward to implementing them.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move that the question be put.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pocock, you can't put the question on your own motion, but some other senator can.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

A division having been called and the bells being rung

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I have just been advised—I can't remember all the words, but we will cancel the division because we have a set time limit and a cut-off. We will come back to questions. The bill is being considered under a guillotine. I know you're all looking at me weird; you're not the first people to do that, I can tell you!

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I seek clarity?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Sure. We're at a stage where the bill is under a guillotine. We cannot call that to an end. We will continue because there is a set time. I'm taking the advice of the Clerk, with the greatest respect, colleagues. You're welcome to ask any questions, but I'll put the Clerk's advice before anything else.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to be very clear, the government are now playing funny buggers because they don't want the Senate to pass a bill with these important amendments. That is what is going on here.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, resume your seat. The government is not doing whatever you're accusing the government of doing. I have taken advice from the Clerk, and, as far as proceedings go in this place, I will take the Clerk's advice before any senator's.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In going through this legislation, I'm interested to look at some of the other elements. I totally respect the pieces of the legislation that my colleagues have raised this morning and earlier through the week. Some of them are deeply critical and important areas. What I would like to go to is some of those other areas which, while maybe not as deeply critical, are important and important for us to understand.

I would like the minister to step through for us the element within the legislation that is about the reimbursement to individuals for the cost of sourcing own consumables. There are some elements of that that I'm not particularly clear on. I wonder if the minister would be so kind as to step us through why this particular amendment is required. From my own experience of talking with aged-care providers, I know there are often some challenges in how the structure of the aged-care provisions work and how they actually access the appropriate care and the appropriate services in all and many circumstances. I wonder if the minister could take us through why this amendment is particularly required.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Grogan. You're right that, from time to time, there are circumstances where individuals may wish to directly purchase an item, so this amendment introduces a new subsection into the act. It, effectively, provides that a registered provider will be taken to have delivered a funded aged-care service. The technical language is 'even where that service was delivered by one or more associated providers of the registered provider'.

What it will mean is that an individual can directly purchase an item—it might be a continence product; it might be a low-cost assistive technology—and then receive reimbursement from that registered provider. It will also mean that individuals could be reimbursed when paying provider invoices as part of self-management. In that scenario, the registered provider would remain responsible for the services being delivered to the individual and for the aged-care workers delivering those services. There are a wide variety of consumables that people might be seeking to purchase under this system. It might be things like assistive technology devices that help with mobility, communication or daily tasks; or barrier creams to protect skin and maintain skin integrity. People might need to purchase wound dressings for managing or protecting wounds, continence pads to support bladder or bowel management, or catheters. These are important features of care, and this is a small but consequential change to the act.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's very helpful. The other element that I would like to understand better is the transition of unspent funds, not only why the amendment is required on unspent funds but also how long that transition of funds will be managed. We know that there are a lot of challenges in the aged-care sector. I know that when we were previously in government we made a significant amount of change. I was honoured to have been involved in that, working for the minister at the time. It is such a deeply complex area and such a deeply complex portfolio.

Of course, we're dealing with such challenging areas involving older people. We often see a decline in health and a decline in cognition. That impacts not just the person themselves but also their family and friends. The decline we see—maybe post stroke; maybe it's just a natural decline—can be really challenging to people's sense of themselves. My family are dealing with this ourselves. The challenge of being able to source exactly the right service that you need at the right time is not just a difficulty for government in terms of the volume of service provided but also the challenge of the right service in the right place to suit people, whether that be, as the minister very kindly outlined before, the issues of consumables and reimbursements and how that actually plays out, or those other services, particularly when we're talking about more remote or regional areas. There are many aspects to the challenges we face in the aged-care sector not just for the individuals but also for their families.

The transition of unspent funds is something we also need to have a solid understanding of. Minister, could you outline why this amendment is required and how the transition of funds will be managed? That would greatly help me.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're right that there are, again, technical amendments that are before the chamber in the form of this bill. They will assist in the transition of unspent funds. Notional home-care accounts will be established for all eligible persons transferring to Support at Home from the Home Care Packages Program. They will be credited on 1 November as per the balance under the home care program on 31 November. Essentially, those funds will be rolled over and the Commonwealth-provider-held proportion—and this is perhaps too technical for your question—will remain a recoverable debt.

The particular thing to note is that unspent funds accumulated under the Home Care Packages Program will be managed by type. There are three types of unspent funds. Notional home-care accounts will be set up on 1 November 2025 for all participants, as I have already indicated. Providers will be able to view the balance through the Services Australia systems. These amounts may be used to fund funded aged care and services in accordance with the subsidy calculator. The Commonwealth-provider-held portion will continue to be held by providers, and the subsidy calculator will prescribe how these funds must be used. Providers may also elect to return these amounts to the Commonwealth, and the rules will prescribe the circumstances in which these funds become a recoverable debt. The amount that will be in the account on the transition day is the amount that is in the individual's account immediately before the transition day. Any changes in their funding won't impact their rollover.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister, for that comprehensive response. I think that in a lot of these debates, unfortunately, the nuance gets lost, and so does the detail. On the topic of support at home, which is really the substance, I think, of this particular debate, it was evident from the consultation that we've done over many years now—the three years of our first term and the start of this term—that Australians, resoundingly, want to spend as much time as they can at home before they have to, in some cases but not inevitably so, make a decision to enter residential aged care. We are absolutely of the opinion that we want to support that decision-making as much as possible.

What was also evident was that the current system is wholesale broken and needs to be overhauled. We all agree upon that; the coalition agrees on that, and we agree on that. But, with respect to the packages, there is a narrative forming that we are somehow holding back and that we're doing that for budgetary reasons. I really reject that. On Friday during the committee hearing, the evidence the Department of Health and Aged Care gave to us was—and I quite clearly remember this—that not all providers are ready to absorb a slush of new packages into the system.

This is important, Minister, because we heard on that day from a handful of mostly large providers—the likes of Bolton Clarke, Catholic Health Australia and so on. We did not speak to every single provider in the sector, and they're not all big. There are some medium-sized and smaller providers that provide care to communities all over this country, not only in cities but in rural and regional communities as well. This consultation has been done by our government and by the aged-care ministers, former minister Anika Wells—and I pay tribute to her—and current minister Sam Rae, and the department.

Not all providers could absorb the flood of packages if we were to release them tomorrow, but I was particularly interested in the other types of non-care provisions in the act, particularly around cleaning and gardening and why they're so important to our constituents, to older Australians. Could you please elaborate on that?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To respond quickly to Senator Ananda-Rajah's question, it is the case that this bill removes the caps which were previously in place in relation to those services. But I can indicate—and I know Senator Pocock was keen to have his amendment dealt with—that the government has been in discussions with the opposition about the approach we might take to some of the questions in Senator Pocock's amendment. Accordingly, we are not in a position at this time to support his amendment, and the government will not be voting in support of it.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that requests (1) and (2) on sheet 3413 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—We didn't seek a division on this, but, as indicated, the government did not vote in support of Senator Pocock's amendment, and, under the standing orders, I ask that the government be recorded as being opposed to the motion.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens requests for amendment (1) and (2) on sheet 3403 revised 2 together:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:

(1) Schedule 1, page 68 (after line 12), after item 229, insert:

229A After subsection 323(6)

Insert:

Excluding redress amounts

(6A) In working out an individual's total assessable income, disregard an amount paid to, or for the benefit of, the individual by way of compensation under a scheme established by a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory for providing redress to survivors of any form of abuse or wrongdoing.

(6B) To avoid doubt, an amount mentioned in subsection (6A) is to also be disregarded in making determinations under subsection (1) or paragraph (2)(b), (3)(b), (4)(b) or (5)(b).

(2) Schedule 1, page 69 (after line 6), after item 236, insert:

236A After subsection 330(8)

Insert:

Excluding redress amounts

(8A) In working out the value of an individual's assets, disregard an amount paid to, or for the benefit of, the individual by way of compensation under a scheme established by a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory for providing redress to survivors of any form of abuse or wrongdoing.

(8B) To avoid doubt, an amount mentioned in subsection (8A) is to also be disregarded in making determinations under paragraph (2)(a) or (b) or (3)(a) or (b) or subsection (4).

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to put on the record that the coalition certainly understands the intent of the amendment just moved by Senator Hanson-Young in relation to redress payments for the purposes of means testing. We know that these payments are made because of some extraordinary circumstances that the individual has suffered during their life. But, whilst we have incredible sympathy for the intent of this amendment, the reason that we will not be supporting the amendment at this time is that we believe that the government should have a look at redress payments in terms of how they are handled when it comes to the broader application of payments made by government to individuals.

So, as I said, whilst we would be more than happy to support it in a more general context, because it is so specific in its nature in relation to the payments and to this alone, we will be supporting the government in their endeavours to not support this amendment. But I want to make sure that it is on the record that we absolutely understand the intention of the Greens in moving this amendment. We'd be very happy to work with the Greens to make sure that the issue of the exclusion of redress payments from means testing, more generally, is something that is consistently applied across the whole of government.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that requests for amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3403 revised 2 be agreed to.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It being after 12.15 pm, we shall move to senators' statements.