Not many issues have had bipartisan support in the 47th Parliament, but I'm glad that this essential reform to our failing aged-care system has support from both sides of the floor and the crossbench. Ageing is a privilege but can also be a burden. Our older Australians deserve to be treated with respect, dignity and clarity, which is why the royal commission into aged care made it so clear that the new aged care act should have a rights based approach, with a focus on people.

An effective aged-care system will not only give older people improved quality of life, with access to medical care, social opportunities and community engagement; it will also help families manage the added challenges of an ageing loved one and provide peace of mind that their family member is supported and safe. The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety was established in 2018 in response to damning incidents of neglect, abuse and negligence in nursing homes across the country. The final report, with 148 recommendations, was handed down in February 2021 and looked at whether aged-care services were meeting the needs of the community. The royal commission found the community expected certain central themes from the aged-care system: dignity and respect, control and choice, the importance of relationships and connections to communities, and the desire for a good quality of life and ageing at home.

A key recommendation of the commission was the development of a new act, and I'm glad to see the government delivering on that recommendation. A simplified aged-care system is beneficial for all, and it's a welcome change to have one piece of legislation and a single set of subordinate legislation called the rules. I note that the rules are currently in consultation phase and haven't been finalised, and this means that we don't yet have a confirmed outline of how the Aged Care Bill 2024 will actually be implemented. Given there are more than 600 references to the new rules in this bill, which means there are more than 600 times that we're being asked to assume the consultation draft will be adequate, the passing of the rules is a very big part of this legislation. It includes important parts of the system change, like the Aged Care Code of Conduct and the Aged Care Quality Standards, audit requirements, dealing with complaints, and conditions of registration. There were a number of changes made after consultation on the draft that have made it easier to support this bill—for example, the statement of rights was made stronger with the inclusion of 'must', the independence of the complaints commission was strengthened, and criminal penalties for service provider boards were removed.

My office receives a large number of emails in relation to aged-care services, both as case work and in response to policy announcements. In fact, given the volume of queries we have from constituents about the supports available to them or their parents, we put out a Curtin seniors guide to help people navigate the aged-care system and Centrelink. This has been a very popular resource, with more than 1,500 distributed to people across Curtin. If constituents would like one, they can pick up a hard copy from my office or download it from the website.

After the exposure draft of the new Aged Care Bill was released last year, I held a community forum and invited participants to come and discuss what they thought was important to include in a new aged care act. We had a room full of interested people. First we heard from Mark Kinsela from the Council on the Ageing WA about aspects of the act such as the statement of rights, the complaints process, the new access pathway and the enhanced choice and control for consumers. And then we ran a workshop so people could share their concerns and what they liked about the new approach. I want to thank everyone who participated in that workshop and contributed their views, which were captured in our Curtin community submission on the Aged Care Bill exposure draft. I found that people in my electorate were chiefly concerned with the humanity of the system. They wanted people to be treated as individuals with connections to their communities which continue into later life. They also wanted to have self-direction as they got older, with the ability to choose their preferred living arrangements and the manner of their death. That is why I'm happy to support this bill, with a few caveats.

At the outset, I want to state what may be seen as the obvious: people are worried about how these changes to the aged-care system will affect them personally. We get so many calls and emails from constituents who are struggling to navigate the current aged-care system, and they're really worried that they'll be expected to navigate something new. That is why this reform must be simple, accessible and user-friendly, and it must be responsive to need. The current system is not supplying support when it's required—for example, one constituent, 93-year-old Mabel, was assessed and granted a level 3 home-care package in July last year and waited until this July for her service to begin. It's hard to comprehend how support for a 93-year-old is not urgent.

I know that the Minister for Aged Care has the best of intentions that this new aged-care scheme will streamline a broken system, and I want to emphasise the importance of clearly communicating the changes to all older Australians and their loved ones. I appreciate a recent speech where the minister said, 'I hear your feedback that reform cannot just happen to you, and that you need to be brought along the journey.' I will be representing my community to make sure this promise is enacted.

I think the definition of clinical care, which will be paid for by the government, and independent care and everyday living, which the client will pay part of, depending on assets, is an important distinction that may not be clearly understood. Change is difficult at the best of times, and, when it's changing how people are planning to age or care for their ageing family members, individuals really need to know how they will be affected. I appreciate the comprehensive website explainers about the new legislation and hope there'll be ongoing community engagement as the new reforms roll out.

As many speakers before me have noted, the Aged Care Bill 2024 proposes a refined means-tested user-pays system for co-contributions to everyday living and independent support. It also goes to the systemic issues within the current aged-care system that are forcing aged-care providers out of business, which reduces options for aged care. Only a few months ago, Aged and Community Care Providers Association Chief Executive Officer Tom Symondson said the aged-care system was in crisis and half of residential aged-care providers are losing money. I know that some in this House will argue that this bill should be about only quality and standards of care, but we also need to be practical and acknowledge that aged care needs to be sustainable.

As with the recent NDIS bill, I agree without reservation that we need to provide human centred services, and that the rights of the person accessing the services should be paramount, but we also need to make those services affordable enough that we can continue to provide them. This is particularly important as our population ages and more Australians start to move into aged care. I support the concept of those who cannot afford to pay making greater contributions, but the feedback from those who have contacted my office is that they don't want to pay more for services. They've made decisions based on the current situation, and this should be recognised. I'm glad to see that current users of aged care will be guaranteed to be no worse off. Those who have yet to enter the aged-care system want to limit the amount they must pay but, overall, they recognise that the system needs proper funding.

A few weeks ago I visited St Ives Retirement Living in Jolimont, during one of my regular community visits, and I was delighted to have 30 residents come to chat with me about a range of topics, including the new act. While there were concerns about having to pay more and about the amount of detail yet to be disclosed, there was general acceptance that, with an ageing population, aged-care services need to be sustainably funded from somewhere. While much of the detail remains to be seen, I'll be tracking implementation to confirm that the funding changes do not leave anyone in financial hardship, and advocating for change if they do.

I want to express support for the way in which this legislation has focused attention on ageing in place through the Support at Home package. Surveys consistently show that the vast majority of older Australians want to live in their own home as they age so that they can remain connected to their community and services with which they are familiar. A survey conducted by Anglicare Australia in 2022 found that 87 per cent of people want to remain at home. Similarly, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute recently found that between 78 and 81 per cent of older Australians aged over 55 want to live in their own home as they age, which is why this part of aged care must be addressed comprehensively. I am pleased to hear that the new act will include 30,000 new packages, but this will not guarantee support for everyone who requires it. I appreciate that the maximum annual amount of funding available for in-home clinical aged care is increasing from $61,000 to $78,000. I also support the provision of additional funding for home modification, palliative care and short-term restorative care. I worry, however, that access to short-term restorative care is not always available.

Unpaid carers—those spouses, siblings, children and other family members providing support and care to older people living in their own homes—make an enormous contribution to the lives of older people, and the act does not acknowledge this role. The act should reflect the role of carers and their importance to the older people they support while acknowledging the carers' individual needs. Having sat on the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs during its recent inquiry into the recognition of carers, I've heard plenty of evidence about the important role that carers play and the need for their appropriate recognition in our service systems.

The availability of adequate respite so carers can take a break is of particular importance to my constituents. Access to respite is required for people like 69-year-old Joyce of Doubleview, who lives with her 90-year-old mother and provides much of her care. Last year she wanted to take a holiday, but she couldn't find respite for her mother in order to do this. Joyce has provided many years of care for her mother and deserves to take a break. The act does not improve the availability of respite. It should include incentives for residential aged care to make respite beds available.

I also worry about the timeliness of decision-making for Support at Home packages. The statement of rights in the act could include an obligation to provide home-care services to those eligible within a six-week period and an obligation to undertake timely assessments. In the absence of these changes, my office will track how long these decisions are taking under the new act.

The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety shone a light on some of the neglect which has taken place in the aged-care system and showed that we need reform in the way our aged-care residences are managed. I'm hopeful that the creation of a statement of rights and a statement of principles will protect the safety of users of our system. I support a positive duty on providers to uphold these rights and I support the creation of an independent complaints commissioner of aged care.

In the bill's first iteration I was concerned about the inclusion of criminal penalties for providers who breached aged-care standards. We need providers to continue to be incentivised to provide care, and I'm glad that provision has been removed from the bill. I know that some in my community were disappointed by what they saw as a reduction in penalties for systemic neglect within aged-care facilities, but I do think we need to balance the need for appropriate care with the need for provider services. I believe the civil penalties for providers who step out of line, including fines of more than $1.5 million for serious failures, adequately recognise the seriousness of breaches while also recognising that scaring off providers would have a negative effect on the quality and provision of aged care. I would support reviewing the act in three years to determine if it's fit for purpose, as the five-year review period seems a bit long.

In conclusion, we need this updated aged-care act, and I support it generally. It has taken some time to get to this point, and whether it succeeds will be determined in its implementation. As my office continues to support constituents negotiating the system, I'll be looking out for how simple, accessible and user friendly the new system is; for how transparently people can find out how they'll be affected individually; for how funding changes affect individuals, ensuring that they do not create financial hardship; for how we protect the humanity of the new system; for the ease and availability of access to Support at Home packages and short-term restorative care; and for recognition of the role of unpaid carers and for availability of respite for people like Joyce. Any large shift can take some time to bed down. My office will be working with constituents to bring any teething issues to the attention of the government and the department so that they can be resolved. I commend the bill to the House.