Additional Comments - Coalition Senators

1.1The Aged Care Bill 2024 was introduced into the House of Representatives on 12 September 2024.

1.2The Coalition agreed not to amend the financial framework provisions contained in Chapter 4 of the Bill, unless such amendment/s have bipartisan agreement.

1.3The agreement not to amend the financial framework delivers on the promise from the Leader of the Opposition, in his Budget Address in Reply Speech, May 2023, ‘to work with Government to ensure that our aged care system remains sustainable.’[1]

1.4The Coalition required significant changes to the Exposure Draft and the Draft Bill prior to agreeing not to amend the financial framework contained in Chapter 4 of the Bill.

1.5The major amendments secured by the Coalition are focused on providing a sustainable aged care system that provides dignity and certainty for older Australians. We fought for a fairer deal for older Australians who are going to be asked to contribute more for their aged care. We also secured changes that reflected the many concerns of the sector.

1.6The amendments included:

Full grandfathering for all Australians already on their aged care journey, including those on the National Priority System,

A reduced, lifetime cap on care contributions from $185,000 for residential aged care (RAC) only, to a $130,000 cap for combined residential and home care,

A reduced taper rate from 17.5% to 7.8% for people who will be required to contribute to their nonclinical care in RAC,

A package of financial measures for Rural, Regional, and Remote areas, including $300 million for additional rounds of Aged Care Capital Assistance Programme (ACCAP) to support regional providers to build or renovate their facilities or to provide accommodation for staff.

The removal of strict liabilities and criminal penalties, to avoid the unintended consequences of penalty provisions not seen in any other workplace and not recommended by the Royal Commission,

The removal of a new ‘worker voice’ provisions, and

The requirement for, and the timing of, the Accommodation Supplement and Refundable Accommodation Deposit reviews to be included in primary legislation.

1.7Coalition Senators acknowledge that the Aged Care Bill 2024 is integral in delivering key recommendations from the Aged Care Royal Commission, which was instituted under the former Coalition Government.

1.8Coalition Senators welcome the Statement of Rights delivered through this Act. Coalition Senators support safeguarding these rights and note that, whilst older Australians have always had rights in aged care, this Bill places those rights at the forefront of aged care.

1.9Coalition Senators remain committed to the passage of a new Aged Care Act that embeds a rights-based framework to ensure a world-class aged care system.

1.10However, Coalition Senators have concerns that the Bill contains several shortcomings that should be remedied for the Bill to deliver on its stated purposes and outcomes.

1.11Coalition Senators note that this Bill does not fulfil the Aged Care Royal Commission’s clear recommendation to establish a right to access care.[2]This Bill fails to provide clear timelines and reporting mechanisms to track wait times from application and assessment, to receipt of care.

1.12Coalition Senators recommend the System Governor be required to report quarterly on both the current waitlist and wait times from application to service commencement of Commonwealth funded aged care.

1.13The Committee received evidence from a number of witnesses expressing concerns that there are no provisions within the Bill to prevent the Government from reducing the number of places within aged care. Currently the Bill requires the Minister for Health and Aged Care to consult with the Minister for Finance to determine the number of places allocated. This provision does not prevent the Minister from reducing the number of places in residential aged care.

1.14Coalition Senators recommend the Bill include provision to ensure aged care places cannot be reduced unless it can be proven that demand for services has decreased.

1.15Coalition Senators are concerned about the lack of detail in the primary legislation and the significant amount of information that is expected to be included in the yet-to-be-seen subordinated legislation, or ‘rules’.

1.16Coalition Senators note that there will be a separate Bill to implement the transition arrangements for this reform Bill, which has yet to be officially released by the Government. Witnesses consistently gave evidence that the absence of a clear transition or implementation plan, will make the implementation timeframes, particularly for the new Support at Home programme, unachievable, and could negatively impact the care that can be delivered for older Australians.

1.17Coalition Senators disagree with the Majority Report’s assertion that the Bill must be passed before the release of subordinate legislation. Coalition Senators believe that withholding this critical information prevents all stakeholders from adequately analysing the potential impacts of this Bill.

1.18An overwhelming number of witnesses emphasised that the lack of information in this Bill, combined with the uncertainty about the content of subordinate legislation and delegated instruments, makes it exceedingly difficult for stakeholders to prepare for the upcoming changes.

1.19In response to implementing the changes within this Bill, Ms Silvia Alberti, Chief Operating Officer of Baptcare, highlighted how her facilities ‘could [not] put in place a change when [they] don't know the rules.’[3]

1.20Mr Tom Symondson, CEO of the peak body for aged care providers, Aged and Community Care Providers Association, stated that there are serious concerns across the sector regarding the preparedness for implementation without understanding the details of delegated legislation:

The lack of detail on the rules is a very significant problem for us at the moment. It's why one of our main recommendations around the bill is sensible transition.[4]

1.21Specifically in relation to the delivery of home care services, Ms Allyson Warrington, Chief Executive Officer of Community Based Support stated that:

We haven't had enough detail on the overall rules and changes to be able to financially model what that care management looks like.[5]

1.22This was strongly echoed by Mrs Didier McGill, who when asked if this Bill has sufficient information to adequately cost the delivery of the new standards of high-quality care, stated that: ‘The clear answer to that is no; we don't.’[6]

1.23In his submission to the inquiry Mr Tim Hick, Executive General Manager, Policy and Advocacy at Bolton Clark, expressed concern at the rationale for care management fee caps stating:

Caps on care management are particularly perplexing as a large share of non-compliance in home care is related to low care management and poor care management practices.[7]

1.24Importantly, it is not only providers who recognise how important it is to understand the rules before these changes can be implemented. During a lived experience panel, Mr Peter W who lives with heart failure and severe respiratory disease stated that:

Providers, financiers and those ensuring in-house governance cannot prepare new systems without a profound understanding of all the rules comprising grant subsidies that will not be fully available until February 2025. The earliest that Support at Home can start is 1 July 2026, not 2025. So don't rush. Let's get it right.[8]

1.25Evidence was also presented highlighting that the subordinated rules and the final Independent Hospital and Aged Care Pricing Authority (IHACPA) pricing determinations are essential to assessing the viability of aged care under the new arrangements enacted by this Bill. When referring to the IHACPA costing determinations, Mr Tim Hicks from Bolton Clark stated that:

Government’s proposed timeline where initial prices will be published in November 2024 and detailed prices will be published in February 2025 is just unreasonable.[9]

1.26The Committee received evidence that there needed to be appropriate time to enable ICT systems changes. Whilst providers were doing what they could to prepare for the expected changes, the absence of software specifications meant that the actual systems upgrades could not commence.[10]

1.27Coalition Senators recommend that the timeframe for the release of the schedule of rules and the instruments through which they will be delegated be agreed prior to the Bill being passed.

1.28Coalition Senators recommend that upon public release, all relevant rules and subordinate legislation pertaining to the Aged Care Bill 2024 be referred to the Senate Standing Committee for Community Affairs for inquiry and public comment.

1.29Coalition Senators recommend that the timeframe for the commencement of the Support at Home Programme be revised to allow sufficient time for implementation, following receipt of the transition Bill and all the subordinate legislation.

1.30Coalition Senators recommend that in recognition of the cost, both in staff training time and monetary value of these changes, the Government must provide certainty to the sector through a clear transition path including implementation information beyond 1 July 2025.

1.31Coalition Senators recommend that the transition arrangements include a provision that the start date for all changes that require ICT builds be set on a date not less than six months following(a) receipt of pricing from IHACPA, (b) tabling of the chapter 4 rules, and (c) all associated Government ICT changes be in place (or, at least scoped to the extent that would provide certainty regarding the systems interface with providers IT).

1.32Coalition Senators recommend that the Government adopt an approach ensuring providers are not penalised until full transition has been completed.

1.33It was noted throughout the inquiry that the Bill makes no provision for the replacement of the Commonwealth Home Support Programme (CHSP). Government policy is for CHSP to be phased out on 1 July 2027. Currently more than 800,000 older Australians receive aged care services via CHSP, which is approximately half the people who receive aged care services, or 75 per cent of people who currently receive home care services. The Government has announced the release of 300,000 new home care packages over the next 10 years,[11] which is insufficient to meet projected demand for home care. This is particularly concerning given the Government has made no provision for the 800,000 people currently on CHSP past 1 July 2027.

1.34Coalition Senators recommend that the design of the CHSP replacement program be expedited to give providers sufficient time to make necessary changes and to prevent the challenges associated with rushed policy implementation as seen with this Bill. This would also enable providers the opportunity to undertake ICT changes for both Support at Home and the CHSP replacement program concurrently.

1.35Coalition Senators note that the Majority Report states that the Bill was consulted upon during 2023–2024. However, the final Bill was not released until 12 September 2024, and significant changes have been made since the exposure draft. Moreover, much of the detail that is to be contained in the rules remains absent. Because of this, Coalition Senators do not agree that the provisions of the Bill before this inquiry have been appropriately or widely consulted.

1.36Dr Kaele Stokes of Dementia Australia highlighted his concerned with the lack of detail and the subsequent requirements for consultation on the yet to be seen subordinate legislation stating that:

The devil is in the detail, so, throughout the process of developing the legislation and the supporting subordinate legislation, it's incredibly important that there is consultation with consumer organisations.[12]

1.37Coalition Senators note the evidence received on the Government’s failure to appropriately consult on the details of this Bill with the sector and recommend that proper consultation is undertaken on all new requirements, including the Implementation Bill, all subordinate legislation and delegated instruments.

1.38The lack of consultation was echoed throughout the inquiry in relation to the published Services List. Concerns were frequently raised regarding care management caps, as well as service caps on gardening and cleaning. Ms Tracy Burton, CEO of Uniting NSW/ACT, stated that ‘We haven't had any consultation, and we hadn't anticipated that change that's come through’.[13]

1.39Ms Courtney Love, National Policy Director of Anglicare Australia also emphasised the fact that failure to consult on the changes and prepare the sector regarding care management caps is ‘one of the most concerning areas identified by several of [their] members’.[14]

1.40Ms Clare Douglas, Chief Executive for Healthy Ageing at Mercy Health stated that ‘the whole idea of [Support at Home] is to keep people at home as long as possible… care management really ensures they're getting the services that they need.’[15]

1.41The significance of well-funded care management was strongly echoed by Ms Prue Bowden, Chief Executive Officer of Home Health, who stated that ‘care management… is a fundamentally important service for an ageing Australian.’[16]

1.42The Committee heard evidence that any delay in the receipt of home care services may have serious consequences for Australians’ journey of aging, including preventable hospital admissions.[17] Care management plays a crucial role in ensuring older Australians receive services that best fit individuals’ needs, and can pre-empt care requirements to reduce the potential risk of decline in quality of life.

1.43Coalition Senators recommend that the Government undertakes further consultation on care management fee caps, including with clinicians, to provide greater transparency about the factors that were used to determine the Service Lists.

1.44Coalition Senators also recommend that the Government specifically review their determination to cap cleaning and gardening services and the categorisation of activities such as showering within the Service Lists.

1.45Evidence throughout the Committee process identified that older Australians and providers were concerned at the lack of available information about the impending changes[18] with a push for further ‘clarity and explanation.’[19]

1.46Coalition Senators recommend that an extensive education and information campaign be undertaken to address the understanding gap clearly articulated throughout this inquiry. This campaign should be targeted at both older Australians and their families, and the wider aged care sector.

1.47The Committee also heard evidence of concerns that the Bill did not give clarity on definitions, particularly those that will have enforceable undertakings. Definitions such as strengthened quality standards, reasonable mistakes and hardship were raised as examples.

1.48The Committee heard evidence that definitions pertaining to hardship were unclear, leaving financially vulnerable older Australians at risk.[20] The lack of definition also left providers uncertain of their obligations regarding hardship.

1.49Coalition Senators recommend that the Bill is explicit about its definition of hardship, including what defines someone as experiencing hardship and what are the obligations of providers regarding the treatment of someone experiencing hardship.

1.50With regard to penalties, the Government has indicated that their intention is for penalties to only apply to severe wrongdoing. In the absence of a definition of how ‘severe wrongdoing’ is to be determined, and clarity on what constitutes a ‘reasonable mistake’, many in the sector have expressed concern that workers will be left exposed to civil penalties for actions that may be outside of their control.

1.51Coalition Senators recommend that clear definitions of terms, including metrics by which they will be measured, be included in the primary legislation.

1.52Many providers raised concerns about the potential for confusion arising from proposed supporter provisions in the Bill.

1.53The confusion around supporter provisions was articulated by Mr Andrew Kinnersly, Chief Executive Officer of Uniting AgeWell:

… some of the significant changes—things like supporter changes. We're confused as to how that's going to play out… I think there's a lot of unintended consequence from it. We need time as a sector and as a department to work our way through that, because it's the sort of thing where, if we get it wrong, it'll be really messy for families, residents and providers … ‘Is that going to work in six months’ time? No. Nine months’ time? No.' We would absolutely say that is an area that needs a level of phasing in over a more appropriate timeframe.[21]

1.54Coalition Senators recommend that supporter provisions be removed from the Bill to allow additional time for consultation. This would help to address concerns about the practical application of these provisions, and their interaction with existing State and Territory legislation, notably power of attorney practise.

1.55Throughout the inquiry many providers expressed concerns about the whistle-blower provisions in the Bill. Providers are concerned that the Bill will require the capacity for all employees to receive protected disclosures, and consumer groups are concerned that restrictions cannot be too narrow. Given that other industry standards require disclosures be made to nominated and authorised personnel, it appears unreasonable to expect every aged care employee be trained and equipped to receive whistle blower disclosures as outlined in the Bill.

1.56Coalition Senators note the view expressed by some Unions that residents should be able to disclose to the aged care worker that they ‘feel most comfortable with’[22] and acknowledge the Department’s objective ‘to make sure people feel safe to come forward and make complaints.’[23]

1.57However, Coalition Senators equally acknowledge the training obligation to empower all staff to receive whistleblower disclosures as stated by one provider:

We don't think it's possible, across Australia, to train thousands of people to take these disclosures and know how to act on them appropriately and swiftly … these are really important disclosures, and the people that take them need to understand very carefully how to manage them appropriately.[24]

1.58Coalition Senators recommend that the Bill clarifies who within an aged care organisation should be authorised to receive a disclosure, including the provision for an employee to opt out of being required to receive such disclosures.

1.59Coalition Senators welcome the Complaints Commissioner as an independent statutory appointment under this Bill. However, witness submissions raised concerns with the lack of timelines for determination outcomes, and the conflict of the Complaints Commissioner acting both as the decision and reviewing authority for determinations.[25]

1.60Coalition Senators recommend a time-based obligation for complaint determinations to be specified in legislation and urge the Government to explore additional measures to ensure the integrity of complaint reconsiderations and reviews.

1.61Many providers raised concerns about the stringent application of care minutes. They said that despite their best endeavours they were unable to attract registered nurses to meet these requirements. This was particularly concerning for rural, regional and remote providers, as well as those operating in thin markets.

1.62Providers said they were left with the choice of either relying on expensive agency staff which do not always provide the continuity of care they want to provide to their residents, or they had to close beds, meaning that older Australians needing residential care often had to move hundreds of kilometres away from their family, friends and communities to secure a bed.

1.63As Mr Trevor Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of Eyre Peninsula Old Folks Homes, stated:

We've already been hit by the government rushing in the 24/7 and other RN care minute mandates. Look at the consequences: you've had facilities close across the country. And we reduced our capacity by at least 10 per cent for a period of time. There are only two ways to meet that ratio. You either reduce the number of people you're servicing, or you get more nurses… we can't afford [agency nurses].[26]

1.64Witnesses also expressed concerns that the limited use of Enrolled Nurses and the exclusion of Allied Health professionals and other wellbeing services from care minutes often impedes the delivery of the quality care that older Australians need, and want.

1.65When questioned about the value of enrolled nurses, and the limitations on care minutes, Ms Kathryn Hurrell, CEO of Three Tree Lodge highlighted the following:

We have certainly been using enrolled nurses in our facility, as a number of my regional colleagues have, for a number of years. But I can share that when I ask my consumers what would improve their quality of life they say to me, 'More leisure and lifestyle and more allied health.[27]

1.66In response to these concerns, Mr Sheldon-Stemm, Chief Executive Officer of Riverview Residence Collie inc., stated clearly that ‘In rural areas we rely heavily on enrolled nurses… that needs to be amended in the legislation.’[28]

1.67The sector’s capacity to implement innovative models of care was consistently raised as being restricted or disincentivised by the current regulatory requirements, as noted by witnesses throughout the enquiry.

Having inflexible care stops our ability to be innovative in how we deliver the care needed by residents—and wanted by residents—because we have to use RNs.[29]

From an innovative model perspective…we still feel the enrolled nurse would be a more valuable asset than one in 10 or 10 per cent of our registered nursing.[30]

Our overarching model now is mandated inputs, which I understand from the context of a royal commission, but there are very few opportunities to innovate and provide choice.[31]

1.68Coalition Senators recommend allowing greater flexibility in use of care minutes so that residential aged care homes can deliver individualised, fit for purpose care that is within the limitations of their market, while still ensuring high quality care.

1.69Despite the overarching purpose of this Bill being to deliver a rights-based system, some older Australians questioned their rights in relation to the link between legislated risk thresholds and the desires of residents wishing to exercise their own decision making in the receipt of care that is best suited to them.

1.70Margaret, a 76-year-old lived experience panel member, stated:

The ongoing elephant in the room is the perceived dichotomy between duty of care and dignity of risk. If people were encouraged to spend their whole lives, from babyhood, cocooned in their own homes, never opening the door and venturing into the outside, they might be physically safer; however, we know that would mean they would miss out on most, if not all, of the joys and challenges that risk brings, that life brings—the mental and psychological health that we all aspire to… We want to have the option to choose the right to take risks according to our own priority, not to be wrapped up irrespective of our own. Too often, as people age, they are perceived as having higher and higher needs for priority to go to care rather than to activities and options that give them some entertainment or even joy.[32]

1.71Coalition Senators recommend that further consideration is given to regulatory requirements to ensure that dignity of risk is never removed from the centre of high-quality care.

1.72Coalition Senators also recommend that the Bill mandates that no aged care resident is ever denied access to the person that they designate, or the person designated under appropriate authority.

1.73Submissions were received, evidence was given and there has been commentary about the inclusion of Refundable Accommodation Deposits (RAD) in aged care means testing. This was raised in the context of the change in taper rate for the Non-Clinical Care Contributions (NCCC) that are to replace the Means Tested Care Fee (MTCF) and the equity between the treatment of RADs in the age pension means testing arrangements.

1.74During the inquiry, evidence presented that the difference in asset testing throughout an individual’s journey of aging can be complex and confusing. Mr Grant Corderoy, Senior Partner of Stewart Brown Aged and Community Services Division stated how:

This is an opportunity to ask: 'Why is this inequity there? Are there better ways of handling it, to be equal between the pension basis of assessing it and the aged-care basis?[33]

1.75The Committee also heard evidence of potential behavioural changes where people entering aged care will move away from using a RAD due to the change in taper rate combined with the reintroduction of a RAD retention percentage. Concerns were raised that this could undermine the projected sustainability outcomes of this reform, which relies heavily on RADs as the means to make residential aged care attractive for investment.[34]

1.76Coalition Senators note that consideration should be given to the exclusion of a RAD from aged care asset testing provisions where the person has sold their family home to pay the RAD. This would align the treatment of a RAD to its treatment in the age pension assessment and recognise that residential aged care is an individuals’ home.

1.77The inquiry also heard various concerns regarding the differential between accommodation payment mechanisms. This was emphasised through evidence as being a particularly pressing issue to ensure the maintenance of a strong safety net for supported people.[35]

1.78Coalition Senators also note that the sector gave evidence that in most homes, providers are having to cross-subsidise supported residents because the Accommodation Supplement is insufficient to cover costs.

1.79Coalition Senators recommend that the review of the Accommodation Supplement be brought forward to report by 1 July 2026 and that this requirement and timeframe be contained in this Bill.

1.80The Committee heard evidence asserting that the planned review of the new Act set for five years after the act takes effect is too long. Witnesses contend that a three-year review period would enable a timelier response to any required changes.

1.81Coalition Senators recommend that the review of the new Aged Care Act, 2024, be brought forward to three years and that this requirement and timeframe be included in this Bill.

1.82The Committee heard evidence that removing the ability for residential aged care providers to seek agreement on higher everyday living charges prior to a resident entering into agreement with the home would have significant consequences for both the homes and the residents.[36]

1.83Concerns were raised, that for new builds, providers would not include facilities to support healthy aging habits such as hydro-therapy pools and exercise machines, if they cannot get timely certainty to make investments. This would effectively deny older Australians with the financial capacity, the opportunity to access additional services they want and can afford.[37]

1.84For existing homes, concerns were raised that people who agreed to pay for the additional services may face increased charges. Some providers also noted that they would never deny a resident access to a service available to others, meaning that the paying residents would end up cross-subsidising those who opted not to pay. Providers also highlighted the potential cessation of essential allied health services and other wellbeing programs as a result of this provision.[38]

1.85Coalition Senators acknowledge it was a recommendation of the Aged Care Taskforce that agreement for additional services be made after a participant has entered care.[39]However, we recommend that this provision be removed from the Bill to allow further time to resolve concerns about the practical application of the measure.

1.86The Committee heard evidence that worker screening requirements as prescribed by the Bill would have significant consequences for worker registration in Indigenous communities. Mr Russell Bricknell, Chair of Aged Care Workforce Remote Accord, highlighted during his opening statement that:

In remote areas, the discretion to make final decisions regarding worker screening should remain with local service providers. This is essential for maintaining culturally safe care, especially for First Nations elders, where community knowledge and lived experience play a significant role in determining who is best suited to provide care.[40]

1.87Coalition Senators recommend that worker screening provisions should be amended to ensure flexibility and increase local community workforce participation particularly for Indigenous communities.

1.88The Bill includes two specific exemptions allowing people under the age of 65 to access aged care: for Indigenous Australians and those at risk of homelessness.

1.89The Committee heard evidence seeking to both expand these exemptions, and further restrict them. Some witnesses believed that the exemptions should be broadened to include people living with early onset dementia or young people with a disability who wish to remain with a parent or carer.[41]Other witnesses felt that no exemptions should be given and that alternative accommodation arrangements should be provided for anyone under the age of 65.[42]

1.90Coalition Senators remain committed to YPIRAC targets and recommend that any exemptions for people under the age of 65 to enter aged care should be granted on a case-by-case basis, with regard to exceptional circumstance provisions, allowing for an assessment of the individual’s specific circumstances.

1.91The Committee received evidence highlighting the value of community engagement and involvement in providing inadvertent care. This was particularly emphasised by Meals on Wheels, who described the impact of their services being ‘more than an everyday living service. At our core, in the aged care system, [Meals on Wheels] are about independence, early intervention and preventative health, keeping people out of hospital and residential aged care.’[43]

1.92Coalition Senators recommend that greater emphasis is placed on the additional value that is provided by organisations, such as Meals on Wheels, when determining contracts and pricing for services.

1.93The application of payroll tax on for-profit providers was raised in evidence.[44]Currently only for-profit providers are required to pay payroll tax; however, it is understood that IHACPA amortise the impact of payroll tax, with regards to AN-ACC funding determinations, across all providers.

1.94Coalition Senators note that IHACPA review all submissions put to them and that providers can request that issues such as payroll tax be examined within the annual IHACPA pricing reviews.

1.95The Bill proposes an increase in the contribution of older Australians to their non-clinical care and supports, particularly in Support at Home. Currently the liability for bad, or unrecoverable, debts rests largely with providers.

1.96The Committee received evidence from providers that the changes to consumer contribution are likely to have an increased impact on the level of unrecoverable debts that they will need to absorb.

1.97Coalition Senators also note the role of Services Australia as the determining authority for contribution amounts and their role in debt collection on behalf of the Commonwealth Government for other taxpayer funded services.

1.98Coalition Senators recommend that the Government immediately assess the scale of risk in relation to unrecoverable debts and makes provision to ensure that the liability for any unrecoverable debts’ rests with the appropriate entity.

1.99Coalition Senators note that the Majority Report fails to mention the removal of the worker voice provisions contained in the Bill.

1.100The Government has publicly acknowledged its intention to remove the worker voice provisions, and accordingly, Coalition Senators require the removal of these provisions prior to the Bill being debated in the Senate.

1.101The Committee heard evidence from providers who expressed a proactive desire to be transparent and report appropriate data to the Department and Commissioner. However, they noted the requirements often involved repeatedly reporting the same data, which frequently pulled registered nurses and care workers from their primary caregiving duties.

1.102Coalition Senators recommend the Inspector General of Aged Care review the reporting requirements in-line with the Royal Commission recommendations to ensure red and green tape is fit for purpose, proportionate and delivers real value.

1.103The Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee raised concerns about the power of officials to create offences that are subject to severe penalties.

1.104Coalition Senators are concerned that powers of this nature undermine the sovereignty of the Parliament.

1.105The Bill delegates power to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner to make conditions of registration and the power to impose penalties, in addition to those authorised by the Parliament. There also appears to be no requirement for the Commissioner to provide evidence of the breach of the condition of registration.

1.106Coalition Senators recommend that any condition sufficiently important to require a civil penalty should be subject to the scrutiny of the Parliament.

1.107Coalition Senators recommend that the Bill be passed with amendment.

Footnotes

[1]The Hon. Peter Dutton, Leader of the Opposition Budget Address in Reply Speech, 12 May 2023, <Budget in Reply - Liberal Party of Australia>

[2]Recommendation 2(a)(i), Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, Final Report: Care, Dignity and Respect, Recommendations, 206.

[3]Ms Silvia Alberti, Chief Operating Officer, Baptcare Ltd. Committee Hansard, 4 October 2024, p. 3.

[4]Mr Tom Symondson, Chief Executive Officer, Aged & Community Care Providers Association, Committee Hansard, 17 October 2024, p. 14.

[5]Ms Allyson Warrington, Chief Executive Officer, Community Based Support Ltd, Committee Hansard, 04 October 2024, p. 29.

[6]Mrs Deidre McGill, Chief Operating Officer, Home and Community Support Division, Bolton Clark, Committee Hansard, 17 October 2024, p. 60.

[7]Bolton Clark, Submission 29, p. 4.

[8]Peter W, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 14 October 2024, p. 32.

[9]Bolton Clark, Submission 29, p. 3.

[10]Ms Allyson Warrington, Chief Executive Officer, Community Based Support Ltd, Committee Hansard, 04 October 2024, p. 25.

[11]The Hon. Anika Wells, Minister for Aged Care and Sport Media Release <Once in a generation aged care reforms | Health Portfolio Ministers | Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care> 12 September 2024.

[12]Dr Kaele Stokes, Executive Director, Services, Advocacy and Research, Dementia Australia, Committee Hansard, 11 October 2024, p. 37.

[13]Ms Tracey Burton, Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director, Uniting NSW.ACT, Committee Hansard, 16 October 2024, p. 5.

[14]Ms Courtney Love, National Policy Director, Anglicare Australia, Committee Hansard, 17 October 2024, p. 29.

[15]Ms Clare Douglas, Chief Executive Healthy Ageing, Mercy Health, Committee Hansard, 17 October 2024, p. 36.

[16]Ms Prue Bowden, Group Executive and Chief Executive Officer, Home Health, Australian Unity, Committee Hansard, 18 October 2024, p. 36.

[17]Mrs Stephanie Buckland, Chief Executive Officer, Amana Living, Committee Hansard, 18 October 2024, p. 2.

[18]Ms Sarah Watson, Executive Manager, Community Aged Care and Disability Services, Uniting Communities, Committee Hansard, 14 October 2024, p. 41. Margaret, Personal capacity, Committee Hansard, 16 October2024, p.17; Ms Kathryn Hurrell, Chief Executive Officer, Three Tree Lodge Lithgow Limited, Committee Hansard, 16 October 2024, pp. 20–28; Mr Lincoln Hopper, Chief Executive Officer, St Vincent's Care Services, Committee Hansard, 16 October 2024, pp. 20–28.

[19]Dr Yvonne Wells, Professor, Australian Institute for Primary Care & Ageing, La Trobe University, Committee Hansard, 17 October 2024, p. 22.

[20]COTA Australia, Submission 13, p. 46.

[21]Mr Andrew Kinnersly, Chief Executive Officer, Uniting AgeWell, Committee Hansard, 04 October 2024, p. 40.

[22]Ms Lauren Hutchins, Assistant Secretary, New South Wales, ACT and Queensland Branch, Health Services Union Committee Hansard, Committee Hansard, 17 October 2024, p. 3.

[23]Ms Mel Metz, Assistant Secretary, Legislative Reform Branch, Committee Hansard, 21 October 2024, p. 7.

[24]Ms Silvia Alberti, Chief Operating Officer, Baptcare Ltd., Committee Hansard, 4 October 2024, p. 2.

[25]COTA Australia, Submission 112, p. 63.

[26]Mr Trevor Johnson, Chief Executive Officer, Eyre Peninsula Old Folks Homes, Committee Hansard, 14 October 2024, pp. 9–12.

[27]Ms Kathryn Hurrell, Chief Executive Officer, Three Tree Lodge Lithgow Limited, Committee Hansard, 16 October 2024, p. 27.

[28]Mr Mark Sheldon-Stemm, Chief Executive Officer, Riverview Residence Collie Inc, Committee Hansard, 18 October 2024, p. 8.

[29]Mr Trevor Johnson, Chief Executive Officer, Eyre Peninsula Old Folks Homes, Committee Hansard, 14 October 2024, 14 October, p. 13.

[30]Mr Michael Filsell, Chief Executive Officer, Boneham Aged Care Services, Committee Hansard, 14 October 2024, p. 43.

[31]Mr Sean Bilton, Chief Executive Officer, Estia Health, Committee Hansard, 17 October 2024, p. 18.

[32]Margaret, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 16 October 2024, p. 17.

[33]Mr Grant Corderoy, Senior Partner, StewartBrown, Committee Hansard, 24 October 2024, p. 22.

[34]Mr Tim Hicks, Executive General Manager, Policy and Advocacy, Bolton Clarke, Committee Hansard, 17 October 2024, p. 61.

[35]Mr Andrew Kinnersly, Chief Executive Officer, Uniting AgeWell, Committee Hansard, 04 October 2024, p. 38.

[36]Mr Tom Symondson, Chief Executive Officer, Aged & Community Care Providers Association, Committee Hansard, 17 October 2024, p. 18.

[37]Ms Linda Mellors, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Regis Healthcare, Committee Hansard, 17 October 2024, p. 34.

[38]Mr David Moran, Chief Executive Officer, Southern Cross Care (SA, NT & Vic) Inc, Committee Hansard, p. 27.

[39]Aged Care Taskforce, Final report of the Aged Care Taskforce, March 2024, p. 28.

[40]Mr Russell Bricknell, Chair, Aged Care Workforce Remote Accord, Committee Hansard, 24 October 2024, p. 5.

[41]Mr Bryan Lipmann, AM, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Wintringham, Committee Hansard, 11 October 2024, pp. 36–38.; Ms Kiley Miskovski, General Manager, Policy and Advocacy, Dementia Australia, Committee Hansard, 11 October 2024, pp. 36–38. Ms Patricia Sparrow, Chief Executive Officer, Council on the Ageing Australia, Committee Hansard, 17 October 2024, p. 43; Mr Craig Gear, Chief Executive Officer, Older Persons Advocacy Network, Committee Hansard, 17 October 2024, p. 43.

[42]Dr Bronwyn Morkham, National Director, Young People in Nursing Homes National Alliance, Committee Hansard, 17 October 2024, p. 51; Ms Jessica Walker Head of Policy, Communications and Systems Change, Summer Foundation, Committee Hansard, 17 October 2024, p. 53.

[43]Mr Evan Hill, Chief Executive Officer, Meals on Wheels Queensland, Committee Hansard, 11 October 2024, p. 42.

[44]Hall and Prior, Submission 81, pp. 14–16.