Question Time AU

Bill Debate · Second Reading

Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, Aged Care (Accommodation Payment Security) Levy Amendment Bill 2025; Second Reading

Senate · Monday 1 September 2025

Continued from Thursday 31 July 2025.

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The debate centred on technical amendments required to implement the Aged Care Act 2024, which had been delayed from July to November 2025. The Opposition argued the delay resulted from government unpreparedness and highlighted significant waitlists for home care, while the Government defended the deferral as necessary for sector readiness and cited previous reforms. Both sides acknowledged the necessity of the bills for the new system's commencement, with the Opposition moving a second reading amendment calling for immediate action on rules and workforce planning.

Outcome

The transcript ends before the vote or final outcome is recorded.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Continued the debate

Anne Ruston (SA) (Liberal Party) Liberal

Ruston argued that the government failed to prepare systems for the July 2025 start date, forcing a delay that left over 200,000 older Australians waiting for assessment or care. Ruston stated the bills were essential to enable information sharing between departments and implement the no-worse-off principle through grandfathering arrangements. Ruston condemned the government for withholding home-care packages despite sector readiness, noting wait times had increased significantly. Ruston announced the coalition would not block the bills but would move amendments to demand immediate registration of rules and publication of release schedules.

Opposition response

Anne Ruston (SA) (Liberal Party) Liberal

Ruston contended that the government's delay was due to internal ICT failures rather than sector unpreparedness, as confirmed by Senate inquiry evidence. Ruston highlighted that the bills were necessary to exempt existing residents from new payment obligations and ensure informed consent for service agreements. Ruston criticised the government for breaking promises regarding package delivery and increasing waitlists, while affirming the coalition's support for the legislation to enable the rights-based system.