Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ruston has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today, as shown at item 12 of today's Order of Business:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Albanese Government to immediately reverse its harmful treatment of older Australians, including its decision to gut the private health insurance rebate for Australians over 65, impose a flawed algorithm on aged care needs assessments with no capacity for human override and bury a so-called 'widow tax' in rushed legislation, which together demonstrate a profound disregard for the dignity, security and contribution of older Australians.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

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

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Albanese Government to immediately reverse its harmful treatment of older Australians, including its decision to gut the private health insurance rebate for Australians over 65, impose a flawed algorithm on aged care needs assessments with no capacity for human override and bury a so-called 'widow tax' in rushed legislation, which together demonstrate a profound disregard for the dignity, security and contribution of older Australians.

I stand today to speak on this urgency motion because I believe it should be the opinion of the Senate that this Labor government is waging a war on older Australians. I am pleased to move this urgency motion standing in my name; it's an urgency motion that calls out the Labor government for waging a war on older Australians through higher taxes, higher healthcare costs and reduced aged-care support. Older Australians are being hit with a triple whammy—an $11 billion cut to the private health insurance rebate which impacts over-65s; a flawed aged-care assessment algorithm that puts a computer, instead of a person, in charge of somebody's assessment being introduced into a system that is already seeing blowouts in wait times and waitlists; and a hidden widow's tax that strips Australians of the promised grandfathering protections when they are at their most vulnerable.

Labor's $11 billion rebate cut is a tax on older Australians who have spent decades paying for their own private health insurance. From April 2027, couples over the age of 65 with gold cover will pay up to $1,614 more per year—a 21.3 per cent increase; the largest increase on record—and the government admits it doesn't even know how many of the 3.1 million older Australians who will be affected are pensioners. But we know that over 50 per cent of these people are likely to be pensioners, because National Seniors have already estimated that 55 per cent of those 3.1 million Australians who will be impacted will be pensioners.

Many older Australians will have little choice but to absorb the costs, because they rely so heavily on their private health care. Older Australians disproportionately hold gold and silver policies covering procedures like joint replacements and cataract surgery. Losing cover means longer waitlists in our public hospitals and greater pressure on our public health system.

There's Labor's aged-care assessment algorithm. It's an assessment tool that allows assessors to collect information, but the algorithm, the computer, is the one that makes the decision that determines the funding. Assessors have no ability to override incorrect outcomes, even when the clinical assessors' professional judgement says the decision is wrong.

Since the rollout in November 2025, almost a thousand older Australians have sought reviews to challenge the outcome of their assessment. Thousands of older Australians have had care reduced or been found ineligible, despite their worsening health conditions. The Inspector-General found that only 0.1 per cent of cases are classified as urgent, even for people with advanced dementia or motor neurone disease. The Commonwealth Ombudsman is investigating this algorithm, following thousands of complaints. The Inspector-General of Aged Care, and peak organisations, including OPAN, COTA, MND Australia and the Australian and New Zealand Society for Geriatric Medicine, have all called for human override. This week, we, in this chamber, have the opportunity to be able to put that back in, and I hope everybody in this chamber supports that.

And there's the 'widows tax'. Under Labor's new CGT and negative gearing laws, Australians were promised that their existing assets would be grandfathered if held on budget night. That promise was another cruel hoax from Labor. Buried in Labor's legislation, which it rushed through the parliament with the Greens, was a provision stripping grandfathering provisions and protections from Australians who lose a partner through death or divorce, or who are fleeing domestic violence. Because ownership structures change, the protections disappear—at the very moment when Australians are at their most vulnerable.

Whether it's higher taxes, higher health costs or denying older Australians the care that they have been assessed as needing, Labor continues to make life harder for older Australians. This Treasurer has got no idea about the details of his budget. This government has got no idea about the details of legislation that it has jammed through this place.

There's one thing you can be assured of: we will stand on the side of you, older Australians, who deserve a more dignified retirement and ageing process than this government is prepared to give you. The Labor government have declared war on older Australians. Older Australians deserve policies that will support them, not punish them. That means that we need to make sure that Australians get the care and the aged-care support that they need, and that they should not be taxed when they are at their most vulnerable.

Ellie Whiteaker (WA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, what another ridiculous scare campaign from those opposite. And it's not all that surprising. I mean, they're badly down in the polls; just when we thought they couldn't drop any further, they have. They're in absolute chaos. They're in coalition with not only the Nationals but also One Nation. They are in a desperate attempt to distract from the chaos, from the division, from the divisiveness that we're seeing from the Liberal Party and the National Party and One Nation working together. They're in an attempt to get the Australian people to miss the fact that they've voted against our tax cuts for working Australians in this place and that they've stood in the way of every attempt we have tried to make to build more homes and get more young people into their first home, and that they have stood in the way of every attempt that we have made to help with the cost of living.

They are sinking to new lows with this desperate scare campaign, using older Australians in their political quest for relevance. It is absolutely shameful, it is irresponsible and it is wrong. In the other place, we saw the shadow treasurer claim the government had scrapped rebates for private health insurance for people aged over 65. This is wrong. It is simply not true. It is not what our government is proposing. He went even further and suggested it was because the government does not want to provide health care to older Australians.

What a ridiculous proposition to say about this Labor government, which has done more to deliver health care for Australians than any other government since the establishment of Medicare—and certainly more than those opposite. It's a particularly 'egregious' claim—to use Senator Hume's words—about our tax cuts by those opposite, who were found by the royal commission to have overseen an aged-care system of neglect of older Australians. For them to come into this place, and the other place, and accuse us of not being on the side of older Australians is a desperate scare campaign. It's a desperate political tactic to hide from the Australian people the truth about what they stand for, what they don't stand for and what they stand in the way of. They stand in the way of our attempts to deliver tax cuts. They stand in the way of our attempts to build more homes. They stand in the way of our attempts to deliver cost-of-living relief, time and time again.

The bill to which Senator Ruston refers to, the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026, ensures more funding for aged care by removing the additional private health insurance subsidy provided to Australians aged 65 and over. We announced these reforms in the budget, and, really, what they mean is that all Australians will receive the same private health support, based on their income rather than their age. Under the current private health insurance arrangements, the government provides a higher subsidy to Australians aged over 65. This bill simplifies the rebate tiers and removes this inequity.

On the other matters that Senator Ruston has raised in her motion—the widow tax, come on! Again, it's another scare tactic and an attempt by them to muddy the truth. On the jointly held assets question about how these matters are dealt with under the existing arrangements prior to our tax reforms being passed through the Senate, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have said that those matters will be reviewed and considered as we continue to work through these important reforms in a staged way, which is entirely consistent with how these matters are delivered at home. On the question of AI and its use in aged-care assessments, we've been really clear that there is always human oversight over these decisions, as there should be.

But we know the facts don't matter to those opposite. The truth doesn't matter to those opposite, because the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation are committed to working together to stand in the way of the things Australians want to see our government taking action on. But we won't allow them to do it.

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

I want to again commend Senators Ruston and Allman-Payne for the work that they've done in aged care in shining a light on the use of an algorithm that doesn't seem fit for purpose, shining a light on an assessment tool that—despite what the government says—seems like its only human oversight is the putting of numbers into the algorithm. You can't change it once it comes out, and that is no way to treat Australians.

This leads us to a very important and much broader challenge that we're facing—how do you have more transparency and accountability when there is widespread use of automated decision-making and widespread use of algorithms? Clearly, so far, we haven't figured that out as a country. We need the government to step up when it comes to recommendations from the royal commission and when it comes to transparency of an algorithm that has such a big impact on people's lives.

Kerrynne Liddle (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care) | Link to this | Hansard source

I am proud to stand here and call out what is happening in aged care, particularly around the algorithms. As shadow assistant minister for health and aged care, I know about it because I get the calls to my office from people who are anxious—who are terrified. Their families, worried about what's happening to them as they age, are waiting and waiting for the government to respond. You can't hide from the fact that this government's waiting lists have got worse and that its ideas for addressing aged care aren't working—because people power proves it. Labor claim to support older Australians, but their budget is riddled with hidden taxes on hardworking and vulnerable Australians, and the truth has been revealed. They don't understand how their own laws will impact people most affected by changes, and they don't even have the capacity to fix it. We've heard it time and time again.

With the coalition, I'm calling on the Albanese government to immediately scrap this damaging policy. It hurts older Australians; they tell us that, time and time again. These are real people who are ageing, scared and wanting better—and they deserve better. Your $11 billion tax on older Australians' private health insurance will actually result in higher costs for people on fixed incomes who have no real choice but to absorb them. What about those couples over 65 with gold cover who will struggle with being slugged up to $1,614 extra from next year? That's a staggering 21 per cent increase. It's the biggest rise in private health costs on record. This is real for these people. These figures aren't made up. And do you know what's worse? The Labor government has conceded it doesn't even know how many of the 3.1 million older Australians will be affected as pensioners, because it never bothered to find out. But research by National Seniors suggests around 55 per cent will be affected. That's not a small number. What does Labor go and do? It punishes those financially exposed older Australians who have worked hard their whole lives and managed their finances carefully to maintain their cover and maintain some sort of dignity in aged care. It's a fact that older Australians are more likely to need health care as they age. I don't think any Australian is different in that respect. It's something they expect. That's why they hold on to certainty. They plan for their futures. They've contributed to our communities, they've been taxpayers in our communities and they expect to be looked after in their old age better than they are right now.

We've seen over the last couple of weeks that the government doesn't even do the modelling to understand how many people are affected by the things it chooses to do to them. We've seen legislation come into this place and then the fixes done after the legislation has gone through. Not just Australians but older Australians trust the Labor government to fix it afterwards. You didn't take your tax changes to them at an election to give them choice, so why should they trust you? Of course they shouldn't. What matters is that older Australians can prepare with their families for their futures, choose what sort of health cover they go on and choose the kind of care that they get as they age—because they deserve it. Labor Premier Chris Minns said:

Little changes at a federal level, made by somebody in a darkened room in Canberra, can have a huge impact on an emergency department in Mount Druitt.

He was talking about older Australians. I couldn't have said it better. You can't make decisions in this place without doing the work. You can't make decisions in this place without consulting properly. You can't make those decisions without doing the modelling. But do you know what? That's what Labor does, time and time again.

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

I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of Senator Waters, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving an amendment to the motion.

It is urgent that standing orders be suspended because the coalition's motion does not go to the heart of the problem with the aged-care reforms. It is necessary for us to suspend standing orders so that we can speak to the fact that the reforms that we have before us are based on the financial co-payment model that was designed behind closed doors with the government and the coalition. It is important that we suspend standing orders so that the community understands that, whilst the coalition gets up and says this aged-care reform is not working and the government is to blame, it shares in the blame for the co-payment system that is causing older Australians to suffer.

It is important that we suspend standing orders so we can focus the debate on the fact that, whilst the coalition stands up and says it is so concerned about pensioners having to pay more, it was the coalition who joined with the Labor government to pass the aged-care reform bill, which contains the co-payment model. It is important and urgent that we suspend standing orders so that every Australian knows that the co-payment model that older Australians are now trying to work within in aged care was voted for in this chamber by Labor senators, coalition senators, One Nation senators and every senator on the crossbench except the senators from the Australian Greens.

It is important that we suspend standing orders so that the community knows and understands this and we can debate the fact that the Inspector-General of Aged Care, Ms Siegel-Brown, said, before these reforms came to pass, that the co-payment model would see people being denied access to the care that they need and deserve. It is important that we suspend standing orders so we can debate the fact that the co-payment model was voted for by the coalition and the government, who cooked it up behind closed doors, and was supported by every member of the crossbench except the Greens.

It is important that we focus our debate and therefore suspend standing orders so that we can move this amendment so that the community understands that Labor, the coalition, One Nation and the crossbench share the blame for the co-payment model that is still currently seeing seniors paying up to $50 for a shower, assistance with dressing and incontinence care. It is important that they also understand that Labor is responsible for the algorithm that is currently underassessing thousands of Australians who can't access care at the level they need.

It is important that we suspend standing orders so that we focus this debate on the Greens amendment which says that a problem here is the integrated assessment tool, which must be immediately changed to reinstate human override so that people with progressive degenerative diseases like MND are not underassessed. It is important that we suspend standing orders to move this amendment because, whilst the algorithm is underassessing people, we also have people who are still prevented from accessing the care they need because they cannot afford the co-payments.

Pensioners and part-pensioners in this country are making more hardship applications than ever because this system and the financials behind the aged-care reforms that we now have in place were designed behind closed doors by the Labor government and the coalition and voted for in the Senate by the Labor government, the coalition One Nation senators and every person on the crossbench, despite the Inspector-General warning that they would deprive people of care. It is important that the Australian public understands how we got here.

The Greens agree that we need to reinstate human override into the integrated assessment tool. But make no mistake. Pensioners are suffering because everyone in this chamber except the Greens supported co-payments for aged care.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition won't be supporting this amendment because this is an attempt to divert attention from what is actually happening to people on the ground right now through the measures of this government. If the Greens want to put up their own motion, then they're quite free to do that as a part of everyday business. They could have put up a motion in the terms that they've proposed as a part of this amendment. The reality is that the issue that we're dealing with as part of the substantive motion is also contained within the Greens' motion, and that is the lack of override that's available to assessors under the new aged-care assessment tool, which is all of the government's making. They might try to pretend that it belongs to somebody else, but I can tell you, as a former minister in the portfolio who commenced the process, that it has got nothing to do with anyone but the Labor Party. It's their tool that takes away the capacity of human assessors to make an assessment of the care needed for senior Australians.

The reference was made in the last presentation with respect to the Inspector-General of Aged Care. Her evidence at estimates was absolutely damning of the Labor Party, and to hear the Secretary of the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing talking about the sad reality of the way that aged care is being handed out was shameful.

The fact is that we are now rationing aged-care home-care packages again, which is exactly the opposite of what the royal commission, which we all remember so well, said to do. The aged-care royal commission interim report said this cruel lottery for home-care packages must stop. That's what the coalition did. The coalition put $7.2 billion into home care in its response to the royal commission in 2021, and that saw 100,000 Australians come off the waiting list for home-care packages. The home-care package waiting list was reduced from 128,000 to 28,000 people in about the middle of 2022. The fact that there are now over 100,000 people back on that list is shameful, and it's got nothing to do with anything but the way the government is managing this system.

We cannot support this amendment. This is about what the government has done with respect to the assessment tool and their management of home-care packages. The fact that there are now over 100,000 people waiting to get an assessment is a further indictment on this government. Hard work was done by the coalition in allocating 118,000 packages over three years to get the waiting list down—which is what the royal commission asked us to do—to 28,000. The fact that that effort, that investment, has been wasted by Labor is shameful. To hear the minister at question time trying to suggest that we've taken money out of aged care was a disgrace. It was dishonest and demonstrates again that you cannot believe a thing that this government says. It doesn't matter what they're talking about or when they're talking about it. You cannot believe a thing that this government says, particularly with respect to aged care.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

How was the cricket, Richard?

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, that's right. Go personal, Helen. It's typical of the Labor Party. Just go personal. When you've lost the argument, go personal. You do it all the time. You've got no shame at all. The Labor Party has absolutely no shame at all.

Senior Australians, which are who we're talking about, can't get a home-care package. Over 100,000 of them are waiting. The waiting list is blowing out; it got to 130,000. It's shameful what this government allowed to happen, after all the hard work that was put in by everybody involved to get the home-care waiting list back down. The fact that there is now no human involvement in the assessment of aged-care packages, except for putting in the data, is an absolute disgrace. Quite frankly, I don't know why the government just doesn't do something to fix it.

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

I let the chamber know that the time for debate will expire at 5.23. Senator Polley.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Acting Deputy President Hodgins-May, for the opportunity to support the suspension motion. It is important to support this suspension motion. I also think it's very important that we remind people of the real facts when it comes to aged care. For the previous speaker to get up and try and paint this pretty picture of what those opposite did for the nine years that they were in government—they were so good when it came to aged care; they had five ministers and all of them failed! The Liberal government were so bad—and they didn't care about aged care because no-one really wanted to be the minister—that they had to call a royal commission into their own failure. Why? Because they neglected older Australians. Older Australians were neglected by that government because they didn't care. They didn't fund aged care. They used aged care as an ATM and ripped money out. That's the reality.

This government, having spent the time in opposition seeing the results of the lack of interest of their government, injected more money into aged care. We have adopted the recommendations of the royal commission—which is why we need to suspend standing orders to have a real debate about the opposition's failures when they were in government. It's very unusual for a government to call a royal commission into their own failings. I would be ashamed if I'd been a minister for aged care during those years. To stand up and try and rewrite history, to come in here with crocodile tears saying that they care about older Australians—you had the opportunity, decade after decade, when you were in government—

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

Senator Polley, please take your seat. Senator Henderson?

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Digital Safety) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm just seeking clarification that the government is supporting the Greens' amendment.

Government senators interjecting—

You're supporting the suspension in relation to the Greens' amendment? Wow!

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

That's not a point of order, Senator Henderson.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought I was very clear when I rose and said I was supporting the suspension motion. I think it is a great opportunity to call out the crocodile tears from those opposite. Those that were in government with Senator Colbeck when he was the minister were very quiet when it came to aged care, and the record will show that. I commend Minister Butler for the work that he did in re-establishing some dignity for older Australians. We've invested in that. With Minister Butler and Minister Rae—

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

Senator Polley, please take your seat. Senators, the time for this debate has expired. As the motion to suspend standing orders to enable Senator Allman-Payne to move an amendment was not agreed to prior to the expiration of time for the debate, the motion to suspend standing orders has lapsed. The question will now be put on the unamended urgency motion moved by Senator Ruston.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion is moved by Senator Ruston be agreed to.