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

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3416 revised together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 14 (after line 18), after item 54, insert:

54A At the end of section 91

Add:

(6) In making a determination under subsection (1) for the 2025-26 financial year, the Minister must ensure that the method makes available:

(a) a number of places equal to, or greater than, the guaranteed (tranche 1) number, for allocation to individuals for the service group home support by the end of 31 December 2025; and

(b) at least an additional 43,000 places, for allocation to individuals for the service group home support by the end of 30 June 2026.

Note: This guarantees at least 83,000 services (whether home care packages or home support places) for recipients.

(7) Nothing in subsection (6) limits the Minister's powers under any of paragraphs (1)(b) to (d) in respect of the places mentioned in that subsection.

(8) In this section:

guaranteed (tranche 1) number means the number worked out as follows:

(a) 40,000; less

(b) the following:

(i) if the difference between the number of home care packages immediately before the commencement of the Aged Care Act 2024 and the number of home care packages immediately before the transition time is greater than or equal to 40,000—40,000;

(ii) if the difference between the number of home care packages immediately before the commencement of the Aged Care Act 2024 and the number of home care packages immediately before the transition time is greater than zero but less than 40,000—that difference;

(iii) otherwise—zero.

number of home care packages, at a time, means the number of home care packages under the Australian Government framework known as the National Priority System that were available and released to recipients at that time in accordance with determinations under subsection 23B-1(1) of the Aged Care Act 1997.

transition time means the beginning of the day after the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2025 receives the Royal Assent.

(2) Schedule 1, page 15 (after line 9), after item 58, insert:

58A At the end of section 92

Add:

(5) The System Governor's power to allocate places to an individual under subsection (1) must be exercised in the 2025-26 financial year so that:

(a) a number of places equal to, or greater than, the guaranteed (tranche 1) number (within the meaning of section 91) are allocated to individuals for the service group home support by the end of 31 December 2025; and

(b) at least an additional 43,000 places are allocated to individuals for the service group home support by the end of 30 June 2026.

Note: This ensures the 83,000 services (whether home care packages or home support places) guaranteed by subsection 91(6) are released.

(6) If the System Governor fails to comply with paragraph (5)(a) or (b), the System Governor must give the Minister a written statement that sets out the reasons for the failure.

(7) The System Governor must do so within 14 days of:

(a) for a failure to comply with paragraph (5)(a)—31 December 2025; or

(b) for a failure to comply with paragraph (5)(b)—30 June 2026.

(8) The Minister must cause a copy of the statement to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the statement is given to the Minister

_____

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 provide for the release of a minimum number of home support places in accordance with the Commonwealth aged care system.

This will increase the amount of expenditure under the appropriation in section 598 of the Aged Care Act 2024.

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 598 of the Aged Care Act 2024 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendments be moved as requests.

In moving these amendments, the opposition is seeking to make sure that the government holds true to its commitment that it made to older Australians during the election campaign that 83,000 packages will be released to provide care for older Australians that are currently waiting for the care they've been assessed as needing. We saw earlier this morning an amendment pass this chamber which has forced the government into releasing 20,000 home-care packages immediately. What these amendments seek to do now is force the government to commit to releasing an additional 20,000 Support at Home packages between 1 November and 31 December, and ensure that the remaining 43,000 packages that were promised by this government during the election campaign are released before 30 June 2026.

Before I seek for the question to be put, I am keen to ask the minister: when is the government intending to seek royal assent to these bills?

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

In response to your direct question, the standard process is six to 10 days. That is the intention of the government.

I take the opportunity, while I am on my feet, to indicate that the government will be supporting the amendments just moved by Senator Ruston. We've engaged in a positive, constructive discussion with the opposition, particularly Senator Ruston, over the sitting period. We are grateful for the genuine desire on behalf of the opposition and others in the chamber to help us build a better aged-care system. I have said previously but will repeat that this is a once-in-a-generation reform. It is designed to give older Australians choice, dignity and safe, high-quality care. We have consistently released more home-care packages in every year and every budget since 2023; we've continued to listen to older Australians, those who care for them and our aged-care providers; and we're stepping up to deliver more home-care support now and under the new Aged Care Act from 1 November. This is a responsible decision that will deliver more care faster to the older Australians who need it most while maintaining the medium-term fiscal save that was a key pillar of our aged-care reforms last year.

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

I take it from your answer that there is no intention to try and expedite royal assent to these bills. The reason I ask whether there is going to be any accelerated attempt by the government to seek for these bills to receive royal assent is the final rules are contingent on royal assent to these bills into legislation. I'm keen to understand when the final rules are anticipated to be registered in the parliament.

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

It will be after royal assent, Senator Ruston—although you will be aware, of course, that the government has circulated draft final rules so as to enable people in the sector and indeed members of parliament to engage with our proposed approach.

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

I'm just keen to understand what your intention is, because of course draft rules are one thing, but obviously the sector actually needs those rules and obviously the department of social services et cetera are requiring some of these rules in terms of some of the things they've got to do. So, I'm just keen to understand: you said royal assent in six to 10 days. How many days after royal assent is it the intention of the government to have the rules registered?

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

The advice I have is: as soon as practicable. I think the government is well aware of the significance of the final rules for the providers in particular in making their plans and arrangements and also of course for Services Australia. We intend to move as soon as we can.

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

Thank you, Minister. I suppose my concern around this stems from what we saw happen on 1 July. We had an absolutely categorical commitment from the then minister—not you—that everything would be in place in order for the Aged Care Act to come into effect on 1 July, and that commitment was given to us in November, despite I think some quite serious and genuine concerns being raised by the opposition where a transition program and timeframe and framework would assist in making sure that that was possible. The government refused to accept our recommendation, and we found that the government wasn't ready to enable the act to start on 1 July. We found out, during the committee hearing, that the government was aware, or certainly the department was aware, of this as early as January this year.

So, my concern stems from the fact that we are here today, on 3 September, and if you assume that we take 10 days, we're talking about 13 September, which is six weeks before the government is intending for this act to come into effect. So, I'm quite interested to understand, first of all: is the draft of the rules that have been provided to the sector sufficient for the sector to commence the legal requirements to transition?

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

The advice I have is that they have been progressed as far as they can be. As your question indicates, they do require royal assent before they can be registered. The government does not intend to delay registration.

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

Can I just clarify: I asked you whether the draft that they had is sufficient for the legal requirements of transition, which we know are quite significant, to be undertaken. Do I take it from your answer that you're saying that no, they actually need the finalised registered rules in order for the sector to commence the transition requirements?

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

The advice I have is that the rules are not likely to materially change. They are as final as they may become prior to registration, but, of course, they may not be registered until after royal assent. That is a function of the legislative process.

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

With the greatest amount of intention that the government may well have, when will the government provide the certainty the sector needs in order for the legal requirements of the transition to take place? When is that going to happen? On the basis of the answers that you've been given, is the government prepared to commit to the chamber that every requirement of the government or the department will be finalised and in place to provide sufficient, adequate and reasonable time for the sector to be able to do what it needs to do, after you've done what you need to do, in order for this act to come into effect on 1 November 2025?

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

Senator, I think your question contains multiple elements. I will answer it this way, and you may wish to seek further clarification. The government is keenly aware that passing this bill is important to allow the sector to commence the transition. We have done as much as we can to signal as clearly as we can what the nature of those requirements would be by publishing draft final rules. We have been very clear in our communications, and the Senate inquiry into the bill drew many of the same conclusions. It has been important for this bill to be passed as quickly as possible. That is why we've sought to progress it over this fortnight. But yes; we do need to register the final rules, and we acknowledge that.

Question agreed to.

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

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 3417 together:

(1) Schedule 2, heading to Part 2, page 107 (line 2), omit "24 months", substitute "12 months".

(2) Schedule 2, item 30, page 107 (line 9), omit "24 months", substitute "12 months".

(3) Schedule 2, item 30, page 108 (line 2), omit "24 months", substitute "12 months".

(4) Schedule 2, item 30, page 108 (line 31), omit "24 months", substitute "12 months".

(5) Schedule 2, item 30, page 109 (line 3), omit "24 months", substitute "12 months".

The amendments that the opposition is proposing on this are to reduce the minister's rulemaking powers from 24 months to 12 months. First of all, when the government sought to give itself 24 months, it was before they decided to put this delay in place. The government's actually given itself additional time anyway. They've got an extra four months in which they can make sure that they have remedied some of the potential issues that have occurred in this legislation. We found out from the primary legislation that there have been 325 separate instances of where this amendment bill will have to come into play in order to affect changes because of mistakes, errors, inconsistencies or omissions in the original bill. We believe that the government doesn't need this heavy handed, Henry VIII power for 24 months. We believe 12 months should be adequate time to make sure that this bill, once it is enacted, is able to be remedied for any unexpected changes that need to be made to it.

The government should have more trust in its own legislation than thinking it requires 24 months to fix up its problems. The government should not be expecting the sector to constantly be responding to continued failures for a period of 24 months. We would suggest to the government, given you're very optimistic commitments about what your legislation is able to do when you're able to get it in place, that you should back yourself in and accept that 12 months is a perfectly adequate length of time to provide yourselves with the kind of power that these particular rulemaking powers give to the minister.

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

The government does not support this amendment. The 24-month period in which to make rules under this proposed modifying-rules-making power aligns with the maximum period during which a provider may retrospectively adjust a claim for a subsidy. It was intended that this 24-month period would provide sufficient time both for any unanticipated matters to arise and for appropriate action to be determined and taken should this occur. The 24-month period after which a rule made under the proposed modifying-rules-making power is intended to allow sufficient time for the necessary action to be taken to identify the cause of an issue, develop policy to address it and then allow the introduction and passage of a bill.

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

I simply rise to indicate that the Greens will be supporting this amendment.

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

The question is that amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 3417 be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move the requests for amendments on sheet 3414 together:

(1) 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 remaining home care packages

Aged Care Act 1997

1 After subsection 23B-1(5)

Insert:

(5A) The Secretary must, as soon as practicable after the commencement of this subsection, make such determinations under subsection (1) as are necessary to ensure all home care packages that were available but not released immediately before that commencement under the Australian Government framework known as the National Priority System are released to recipients.

_____

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 home care packages in accordance with the Commonwealth aged care system.

This will likely 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.

What these amendments do is make sure that all new packages that are in the system are released immediately. We want to make sure that older Australians who have been assessed as needing care get these packages as soon as they are able to be delivered. So these amendments force the government's hand in making sure that any new home-care packages are released immediately upon royal assent.

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

The government does not support the amendment. All home-care packages are being released as soon as they become available. The government is not withholding any available home-care packages, and the amendment will have no effect on the release of home-care packages.

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

I'm interested as to, if there is no impact and you're releasing them immediately, why you would be opposing this amendment.

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

The government does not support amendments that are not necessary for the functioning of the reforms.

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

The question is that requests (1) and (2) on sheet 3414 be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 3394 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 23, page 8 (line 13), omit "rules; or", substitute "rules; and'.

(2) Schedule 1, item 23, page 8 (after line 13) at the end of paragraph 11A(3)(a), add:

(iii) if staff of the registered provider were scheduled to be involved in the delivery of the service—the staff were unable to be redirected, before the agreed time, to the delivery of another service despite the registered provider's best efforts; or

(3) Schedule 1, item 23, page 8 (after line 14), after subsection 11A(3), insert:

(3A) However, subsection (3) does not apply to the service if:

(a) the service was scheduled to be delivered by the registered provider to the individual on the day at an agreed time and place; and

(b) the reason that the service was not delivered was because the individual was admitted to hospital or was involved in an emergency.

(4) Schedule 1, item 23, page 8 (after line 27), after subsection 11A(5), insert:

(5A) If:

(a) a service is taken to have been delivered by a registered provider to an individual on a day (the deemed delivery day) because of the operation of subsection (2); and

(b) a service (whether or not the same service mentioned in paragraph (a)) is scheduled to be delivered by the registered provider to the individual on a later day;

the registered provider must before the end of 7 days after the deemed delivery day contact the individual to ask whether the delivery of the later service on the later day, including at any agreed time and place, is suitable.

(5B) If the registered provider fails to comply with subsection (5A), then subsection (2) does not apply in relation to the delivery of any service by the registered provider to the individual scheduled after the end of that 7-day period.

(5C) An individual may, within 7 days of the day a service is taken to have been delivered by a registered provider to the individual because of the operation of subsection (2), request the System Governor make an order that the subsection be taken to not apply, and to have never applied, in relation to the delivery of the service to the individual.

(5D) The request must be in an approved form.

(5E) The System Governor must, within 30 days of receiving the request, either:

(a) if the System Governor is satisfied there are extenuating circumstances justifying the making of the order—make the order; or

(b) otherwise—refuse to make the order.

(5F) Subsection (2) does not apply, and is taken to have never applied, in relation to the delivery of a service to an individual if the System Governor has made an order under subsection (5E) to that effect.

The purpose of these amendments is to make sure the cancellation policy is fairer for older people and, in particular, to ensure that an older person is not charged a cancellation fee for an aged-care service if the reason that it's not delivered is that they are admitted to hospital or are involved in a medical emergency.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3397 together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 23 (after line 29), after item 69, insert:

69A Subsection 179(3) (heading)

Omit "Serious", substitute "Civil penalty provisionserious".

69B After subsection 179(3)

Insert:

Strict liability offence serious failures

(3A) A registered provider commits an offence of strict liability if:

(a) the provider has a duty under subsection (1); and

(b) the provider engages in conduct that does not comply with the duty; and

(c) the conduct amounts to a serious failure by the provider to comply with the duty.

Penalty:

(a) in the case of an offence committed by a registered provider that is an individual—150 penalty units; or

(b) in the case of an offence committed by a registered provider other than an individual—1,000 penalty units.

69C Subsection 179(5) (heading)

Omit "Death", substitute "Civil penalty provisiondeath".

69D At the end of section 179

Add:

Strict liability offence death or serious injury or illness

(6) A registered provider commits an offence of strict liability if:

(a) the provider has a duty under subsection (1); and

(b) the provider engages in conduct; and

(c) the conduct amounts to a serious failure by the provider to comply with the duty; and

(d) the conduct results in the death of, or serious injury to, or illness of, an individual to whom the duty is owed.

Penalty:

(a) in the case of an offence committed by a registered provider that is an individual—500 penalty units; or

(b) in the case of an offence committed by a registered provider other than an individual—4,800 penalty units.

Fault-based offence death or serious injury or illness

(7) A registered provider commits an offence if:

(a) the provider has a duty under subsection (1); and

(b) the provider engages in conduct; and

(c) the conduct amounts to a serious failure by the provider to comply with the duty; and

(d) the conduct results in the death of, or serious injury to, or illness of, an individual to whom the duty is owed.

Penalty:

(a) in the case of an offence committed by a registered provider that is an individual—1,000 penalty units or 5 years imprisonment or both; or

(b) in the case of an offence committed by a registered provider other than an individual—9,500 penalty units.

General defence of reasonable excuse

(8) Subsection (3A), (6) or (7) does not apply if the registered provider has a reasonable excuse.

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (8) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).

69E Subsection 180(3)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(3) A person may be found liable to pay a civil penalty under this Act, or be convicted or found guilty of an offence against a provision of this Act, relating to a duty under this section whether or not the registered provider has been found liable to pay a civil penalty under section 179, or been convicted or found guilty of an offence against section 179.

69F Subsection 180(4) (heading)

Omit "Serious", substitute "Civil penalty provisionserious".

69G After subsection 180(4)

Insert:

Strict liability offence serious failures

(4A) A person commits an offence of strict liability if:

(a) the person has a duty under subsection (1); and

(b) the person engages in conduct that does not comply with the duty; and

(c) the conduct amounts to a serious failure by the provider to comply with the duty.

Penalty: 150 penalty units.

69H Subsection 189(6) (heading)

Omit "Death", substitute "Civil penalty provisiondeath".

69J At the end of section 180

Add:

Strict liability offence death or serious injury or illness

(7) A person commits an offence of strict liability if:

(a) the person has a duty under subsection (1); and

(b) the person engages in conduct; and

(c) the conduct amounts to a serious failure by the person to comply with the duty; and

(d) the conduct results in the death of, or serious injury to, or illness of, an individual to whom the duty in section 179 is owed by the registered provider.

Penalty: 500 penalty units.

Fault-based offence death or serious injury or illness

(8) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person has a duty under subsection (1); and

(b) the person engages in conduct; and

(c) the conduct amounts to a serious failure by the person to comply with the duty; and

(d) the conduct results in the death of, or serious injury to, or illness of, an individual to whom the duty in section 179 is owed by the registered provider.

Penalty: 1,000 penalty units or 5 years imprisonment or both.

General defence of reasonable excuse

(9) Subsection (4A), (7) or (8) does not apply if the person has a reasonable excuse.

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (9) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).

69K Paragraph 186(1)(a)

After "subsection 179(3) or (5)", insert "or is found guilty of an offence against subsection 179(3A), (6) or (7)".

(2) Schedule 1, page 75 (before line 1), before item 264, insert:

264A After subsection 551(2)

Insert:

(2A) In proceedings for a civil penalty order against an entity for a contravention of subsection (1):

(a) the person seeking the order bears the onus of adducing or pointing to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility of the matters in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b); and

(b) if that onus is discharged—the entity bears the onus of proving that the claim is not made out.

264B After subsection 551(5)

Insert:

(5A) In proceedings for a civil penalty order against an entity for a contravention of subsection (3):

(a) the person seeking the order bears the onus of adducing or pointing to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility of the matters in paragraphs (3)(a) and (b); and

(b) if that onus is discharged—the entity bears the onus of proving that the claim is not made out.

These amendments are to reinstate offences for breach of registered provider duties and the responsible person duties to make sure that older people actually have enforceable rights.

Question negatived.

I move amendment (1) on sheet 3396:

(1) Schedule 1, item 180, page 56 (lines 11 and 12), to be opposed.

The purpose of this amendment is to retain the requirement for higher everyday living agreements to be in writing.

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

The question is that item 180 of schedule 1 of the bill stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

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

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 3399:

(1) Schedule 1, page 74 (after line 32), after item 263, insert:

263A Section 547 (after the heading)

Insert:

Internal disclosures

263B Section 547

Before "A disclosure", insert "(1)".

263C Paragraph 547(c)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(c) the discloser has reasonable grounds to suspect that the information:

(i) indicates that an entity may have contravened a provision of this Act; or

(ii) indicates that an entity may have engaged in conduct covered by subsection (2); or

(iii) if an entity is a body corporate—indicates that a related body corporate of the entity may have engaged in conduct covered by subsection (2); or

(iv) concerns misconduct, or an improper state of affairs or circumstances, in relation to an entity.

263D At the end of section 547

Add:

(2) This subsection covers the following conduct:

(a) conduct that constitutes an offence against a law of the Commonwealth that is punishable by imprisonment for a period of 12 months or more;

(b) conduct that represents a danger to the public or an individual who accesses the aged care system;

(c) conduct that is prescribed by the rules.

(3) A disclosure covered by subsection (1) is an internal disclosure.

(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to a disclosure of information to the extent the information disclosed concerns a personal work-related grievance of the discloser.

External disclosures

(5) A disclosure of information (an external disclosure) by an individual (the discloser) qualifies for protection under this section if:

(a) the discloser has previously made an internal disclosure of the information; and

(b) the person to whom the internal disclosure was made:

(i) took no action in relation to the internal disclosure; or

(ii) did not complete an investigation in relation to the internal disclosure before the end of the period of 90 days beginning on the day the internal disclosure was made; or

(iii) completed an investigation in relation to the internal disclosure that resulted in no further action being taken; and

(c) the external disclosure is made to one or more of the following:

(i) a member (however described) of the Parliament of the Commonwealth or a State, or of the legislature of a Territory;

(ii) a person who works in a professional capacity as a journalist; and

(d) the discloser reasonably believes that the external disclosure is in the public interest.

Disclosures to support persons

(6) A disclosure of information by an individual (the discloser) qualifies for protection under this section if:

(a) the disclosure is made to one or more of the following:

(i) an officer or employee of a trade union;

(ii) an independent aged care advocate;

(iii) a legal practitioner; and

(b) the disclosure is made for the purposes of seeking support or advice in relation to the information, or another disclosure relating to the information.

(7) A disclosure of information by an individual (the discloser) qualifies for protection under this section if:

(a) the disclosure is made to a medical practitioner or psychologist; and

(b) the disclosure is made for the purposes of seeking or obtaining medical or psychiatric care, treatment or counselling (including psychological counselling).

263E After section 548

Insert:

548A Claims for protection

(1) If, in civil or criminal proceedings (the primary proceedings) instituted against an individual in a court, the individual makes a claim (relevant to the proceedings) that, because of section 548, the individual is not subject to any civil, criminal or administrative liability for making a disclosure that qualifies for protection under section 547:

(a) the individual bears the onus of adducing or pointing to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility that the claim is made out; and

(b) if the individual discharges that onus—the party instituting the primary proceedings against the individual bears the onus of proving that the claim is not made out; and

(c) the court must deal with the claim in separate proceedings; and

(d) the court must adjourn the primary proceedings until the claim has been dealt with; and

(e) none of the following:

(i) any admission made by the individual in the separate proceedings;

(ii) any information given by the individual in the separate proceedings;

(iii) any other evidence adduced by the individual in the separate proceedings;

is admissible in evidence against the individual except in proceedings in respect of the falsity of the admission, information or evidence; and

(f) if the individual or another person gives evidence in the separate proceedings in support of the claim—giving that evidence does not amount to a waiver of privilege for the purposes of the primary proceedings or any other proceedings.

(2) To avoid doubt, a right under section 126K of the Evidence Act 1995 not to be compelled to give evidence is a privilege for the purposes of paragraph (1)(f) of this section.

263F After section 549

Insert:

549A Certain recipients to take steps to protect disclosers

If:

(a) an individual makes a disclosure that qualifies for protection under section 547 to an entity (the recipient); and

(b) the recipient is:

(i) a registered provider; or

(ii) a responsible person of a registered provider;

the recipient must take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to protect the individual against any reprisals that have been, or may be, taken in relation to the disclosure.

263G Subparagraph 550(3)(a)(ii)

Omit "paragraph 547(c)", substitute "paragraph 547(1)(c)".

This amendment would ensure that there are adequate whistleblower protections.

Question negatived.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3405 together:

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

229AA Before subsection 323(7)

Insert:

Excluding certain redress amounts

(7AA) In working out an individual's total assessable income, disregard the following amounts:

(a) 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 Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander survivors of any form of abuse or wrongdoing, including redress to the Stolen Generations and redress in respect of stolen wages;

(b) an amount paid to, or for the benefit of, the individual by way of compensation pursuant to an order of a Commonwealth, State or Territory court in respect of any form of abuse or wrongdoing in relation to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander persons, including in respect of stolen wages.

(7AB) To avoid doubt, the amounts mentioned in subsection (7AA) are 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:

236AA Before subsection 330(9)

Insert:

Excluding certain redress amounts

(9AA) In working out the value of an individual's assets, disregard the following amounts:

(a) 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 Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander survivors of any form of abuse or wrongdoing, including redress to the Stolen Generations and redress in respect of stolen wages;

(b) an amount paid to, or for the benefit of, the individual by way of compensation pursuant to an order of a Commonwealth, State or Territory court in respect of any form of abuse or wrongdoing in relation to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander persons, including in respect of stolen wages.

(9AB) To avoid doubt, the amounts mentioned in subsection (9AA) are to also be disregarded in making determinations under paragraph (2)(a) or (b) or (3)(a) or (b) or subsection (4).

These are very simple amendments. They ensure that compensation or redress payments to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, including for stolen gen, which we know the Labor government support—I can't understand why they would not support this—stolen wages and stolen gen payments are excluded from income and assets tests under aged-care legislation. I'm not sure if the Indigenous senators in this place actually read these bills or understand how these bills actually affect our people. Compensation is being stolen as part of the colonisation of this country and the violence that our people endure every day. Our old people who've received stolen gen payments will be affected—not only stolen gen but stolen wages. When our people were slaves in their own country—I know some people might find this absolutely hilarious. I'm surprised that Labor people are laughing while I'm speaking about this. It's very disrespectful to stolen gen and those that were slaves in our own country. This means that income and assets tests under the age-care legislation will affect these payments. In practice, this means that such payments will not reduce a person's eligibility and extent of aged-care support and protect survivors' redress from being effectively clawed back through the aged-care system. How does that make sense, Labor? I think you need to rethink this for stolen gen and stolen wages and make sure that they are not affected by this legislation. Don't you think our people have suffered enough at the hands of this violent system?

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

The opposition put on the record that we have great sympathy for the position that has been put by Senator Thorpe. As I responded to Senator Allman-Payne when she, this morning, also moved a similar amendment, I say we believe and accept the government's position that, if we were going to address redress payments as they were impacting on payments as part of the broader payment system of government, it should be done in a uniform way across all payment systems and not done in an ad hoc way, bill by bill. So, I just wanted to put on the record, Senator Thorpe, that we have great sympathy for the case that you've put forward, but we will be supporting the government in their intention to make sure this is a uniform application of this particular issue across the whole of government.

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

As noted in the previous contribution, the Greens did move an amendment earlier today seeking to exclude redress payments. We would urge the Senate, given that they have a second opportunity this evening, to right that wrong, to vote in favour of Senator Thorpe's amendment. If it's the case that the government thinks that redress payments should be excluded, this is a good place to start, and we would welcome other legislation coming before the Senate so we could expand it beyond the Aged Care Act.

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

The question is that requests (1) and (2) on sheet 3405 be agreed to.

Fatima Payman (WA, Australia's Voice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the amendment circulated in my name on sheet 3393:

(1) Schedule 2, item 30, page 109 (after line 22), at the end of item 2, add:

Review by Senate Committee

(9) The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, or such other committee constituted under a resolution of the Senate, may:

(a) begin a review of any rules made under subitem (1) within 3 months after the day the rules are tabled in the Senate; and

(b) report the Committee's findings to the Senate as soon as practicable after completing each review.

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

Do you wish me to put the amendment? Did you wish to speak to it, Senator Payman?

Fatima Payman (WA, Australia's Voice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I can speak it to. It will be short. This amendment would amend part 4 of schedule 2 of this bill, which inserts a proposed schedule 6 into the Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2024. This schedule would allow the minister to modify the legislative framework of aged care by legislative instrument while the transition to the new Aged Care Act is underway. This is a consequential schedule that empowers the minister to legislate without reference to the parliament. While it is important that the transition to the new aged-care framework goes as smoothly as possible, it is also important that this power is scrutinised by parliament.

The amendment on sheet 3393 adds a clause to the proposed schedule 6 to allow the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee to review any rules made under schedule 6 without the need for the Senate to refer the matter to it first. This committee can do so within three months of a rule or rules made under the schedule being tabled in the Senate. In a previous draft of this amendment, the choice of the committee to review a rule or rules was instead an obligation. This would have meant, even if a rule was made that was as simple as fixing a drafting error or making a minor technical amendment, the committee would have been required to review it and report to the Senate. By substituting 'must' with 'may' this amendment allows the committee the freedom to decide whether a rule is worthy of inquiry.

For some senators, this may raise a concern that, by not forcing the committee to review every rule, the committee, which is a government controlled one, could choose to not review rules that, for example, the government or the minister do not wish them to review but that are consequential. If the word 'must' is used and the committee was presented with what, in its view, was an inconsequential rule, the committee could elect to report this finding without being required to consider the rule any further. If the word 'may' is used, the committee would be free to not consider a rule it deemed inconsequential without the need to produce a report of finding for each inconsequential rule that is made. In essence, the committee would in either situation retain the power to determine to what extent it wished to inquire into rules.

The use of 'may' rather than 'must' recognises that the committee's time and resources are limited and offers the committee flexibility in deciding which rules it wishes to report on. This amendment will increase the accountability of the minister in exercising his powers under this act, and I would urge my fellow senators to support it.

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

I would like to indicate that the opposition will be supporting Senator Payman's amendment because we believe this provides additional scrutiny to the minister's rule-making powers. We support this amendment.

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

I will just indicate that the government does not support the amendment. There is nothing to prevent the Senate from referring this or any other matter to the relevant committee should it choose to do so.

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

I wish to indicate that the Greens will be supporting this amendment.

Question agreed to.

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

Before we close the debate on this very important piece of legislation, I want to put on the record that today was a win for older Australians who desperately need the assistance that the passage of this bill is going to afford them. The decision to release today immediately on royal assent the 20,000 home-care packages is incredibly important for so many Australians, for those 20,000 Australians who now are going to get the support that they otherwise previously had been denied. It will also be a win over time for 83,000 older Australians, because the sector is now in a position to be able to gear itself up to be ready to deliver the packages that have been forced to be released over the coming nine months.

Basically today Labor was faced with a choice: listen to the coalition, the Greens and Senator David Pocock and release these packages early or stand in the way of vulnerable older Australians getting the care they desperately need. Today, I was very pleased to have been able to stand with the Greens and Senator Pocock against what I think has been a very arrogant stance by this Labor government in relation to its absolute preparedness to intentionally deny older Australians the care that they have been identified as needing, simply because the government was not prepared to put its hand in the pocket and issue these new packages.

I just want to be very clear. Today was not a deal. Today was a defeat of the Labor Party's arrogance on this matter. The Labor Party capitulated on the stance that they have taken now for some months simply because they realised that they were going to lose a vote in this place. But, as I said, the big winners today are the older Australians who will now be able to get access to the care that they have been assessed as needing.

This shouldn't have had to take until today. This should have happened months ago. The government should never have said that they were not going to release any new packages for a period of at least four months. As I said, the situation should never have happened. The sector was ready, the department was ready, and the money was already baked in the budget by this government. Labor was the only one standing in the way of the release of these packages for older Australians.

It is a black mark on this government that it has taken the collective effort and will of those of us in the Senate who put older Australians' needs first that we have had to drag the government kicking and screaming to this position. This is a crisis of the government's own making, and we are very proud to have stood with others in this place to force the government to release these additional 83,000 packages. But we also found out today, despite the government's trying to stop us from finding out, that the waitlist is now 108,924 people. We now know that even these 83,000 packages that are to be released over the next nine months are not going to be sufficient to deliver the care to those people that are on the waiting list.

The coalition will continue to fight for older Australians with one very clear goal in mind: no-one should have to be waiting for the care that they have been assessed as needing, and we will continue to fight to make sure that that isn't the case. Can I acknowledge the support of the Australian Greens, who have been steadfast in their pursuit of the same goal that we have—that is, that older Australians should get the care that they need. I will also give a shout-out to Senator Pocock, who has been very steadfast through all of the inquiries to make sure that we have been able to achieve what we have achieved today.

Can I also, on indulgence, thank my incredible staff. We on the side have got very limited staff, which means our staff have to work incredibly hard. Can I put on the record the incredible work of Holly Crothers, who has worked tirelessly now for 18 months to make sure that we're in the position to be able to see these packages released. She's been ably supported by my chief of staff, Lilli Balaam, whom I'm very sad to say will be leaving us on Friday. We wish her all the best. But most particularly we wish older Australians all the best. We will not stop fighting for you.

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

The Greens, too, welcome the demonstration of the power of the Senate today in being able to force the government to release home-care packages now. It shouldn't have taken this long to bring the government to this position, but we showed, through bringing the evidence from our inquiry on Friday and maintaining consistent pressure on the government, that pressure works. The Greens are proud of the pressure that we have applied over the last month to bring the government to this position, along with Senator Pocock and the coalition.

It's concerning just how big the waitlist for aged care is. I want to remind the government that the royal commission said that we needed to stop rationing aged care. We are so far away at this point in time from ceasing that rationing. Eighty-seven thousand packages for a waitlist of over 200,000 is not going to get us there. So the Greens will continue to work to put pressure on the government. We also have concerns about the inequity of the new Aged Care Act and the fact that some people are not going to be able to access care because it would be beyond their financial means. We also have serious concerns about the ending of the Commonwealth Home Support Program, which provides essential services like Meals on Wheels. So it is a win today for the Senate. It shows that pressure in the Senate works, but there is still much more to do, and the Greens are going to keep holding the government to account and keep the pressure on them until we stop rationing care for older Australians and we make sure that they get it at the time that they need it.

Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, as amended, agreed to, subject to requests; Aged Care (Accommodation Payment Security) Levy Amendment Bill 2025 agreed to.

Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 reported with amendments and requests; Aged Care (Accommodation Payment Security) Levy Amendment Bill 2025 reported without amendment; report adopted.

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

Because the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 has been agreed to subject to requests, that bill will not be read a third time. A message will be sent to the House requesting that the House make the amendments.