Too much left to later rules
Critics said key operating details were missing from the bill and pushed into subordinate legislation, making it hard for providers and older Australians to know how the changes would work or prepare for them properly.
Aged Care Legislation Amendment
Current status
This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Policy area
Health, care & disability
What does this bill do?
The bill lets the Health Department run checks on residential aged care data so government payments and public information rely on more accurate records from providers.
Why was it introduced?
Inaccurate residential aged care data and outdated resident financial information risked wrong subsidy payments and future breaches of section 83 of the ConstitutionThe constitutional rule the bill is partly designed to avoid breaching by making sure aged care payments are properly authorised.. The bill lets the government audit provider data, require documents and answers, update means assessments efficiently, and allow residents to move to better rooms within the same home.
Broader context
Under the Aged Care Act 1997The main law that already sets the rules for aged care subsidies, fees and accommodation payments, which this bill tries to tighten rather than replace., the Commonwealth was already paying residential aged care subsidies and using residents' financial assessments to set fees, but residential care lacked the same formal data-assurance checks already used in home care and outdated information risked incorrect payments and potential section 83The constitutional rule the bill is partly designed to avoid breaching by making sure aged care payments are properly authorised. constitutional problems. In October 2024 the government introduced this bill as a near-term fix while a broader rights-based aged care rewrite was being prepared, adding powers to test provider data, update means assessments and allow voluntary moves to better rooms within the same home, but the measure stalled in the Senate and lapsed when Parliament ended in July 2025.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the bill was too thinly drafted and left too much to later rules, creating risks of extra red tape, poor transition planning and higher costs or confusion for providers and older people. These concerns came mainly from Coalition speakers and some crossbench senators; even some members who supported passage said their support depended on stronger safeguards, clearer detail and workable implementation.
Who supported it?
Minister MP introduced this bill. Speeches supporting it came from Labor, , Nationals, some crossbench members.
Introduced in House 10 Oct 2024
Passed House 07 Nov 2024
Failed in Senate 21 July 2025
Did not become law —
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
Did not pass
4 recorded votes before the bill stopped proceeding
Time before failure
284 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
What does this bill do?
-
The bill lets the Health Department run checks on residential aged care data so government payments and public information rely on more accurate records from providers.
-
Aged care providers could be ordered to hand over documents or answer questions for these data checks, and providers that do not cooperate could face civil penalties.
-
The bill lets the government update an aged care resident's income and asset assessment when circumstances change, making it easier to keep fees and subsidies in step with current finances.
-
If a resident asks to update their financial assessment, fee reductions can be backdated, but when the government changes it on its own, the change cannot be backdated and create surprise debts.
-
Residents could choose to move into a newly built or renovated room in the same aged care home and agree to pay a higher approved accommodation price for that better room.
Show source excerpts
-
Residential care data assurance reviews will better protect the integrity and reliability of the Government’s aged care data collections and improve the correctness of payments and other actions reliant on that data. The reviews build on existing work to improve transparency about what aged care is delivered, by which approved providers, at what cost, and with what quality of care outcomes. The reviews complement and are directly modelled on home care assurance reviews permitted by Part 6.8 of the Aged Care Act.
Aged Care Legislation Amendment explanatory memorandum -
For the purpose of the reviews, approved providers may be issued a notice to provide information or documents and/or a notice to answer questions. A failure to comply with notices, or to provide all reasonable facilities assistance necessary to reviewers, may incur civil penalties. All civil penalty provisions in new Part 6.6 are also subject to an infringement notice under Part 5 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 (Regulatory Powers Act).
Aged Care Legislation Amendment explanatory memorandum -
Amendments to enable an income and asset determination to be varied, in addition to the determination being set and revoked, have been made. To reducing administrative burden amendments to align, where appropriate, the income and asset determination processes have been made. These amendments will provide consistency in the processing provisions and a clearer legislative framework to support care recipients updating their income and asset details.
Aged Care Legislation Amendment explanatory memorandum -
New subsection (15) provides that if a determination is varied under section 44-25, the variation takes effect on the day specified in the instrument. For variations on application by the care recipient, the date in the instrument may be a date before the instrument is made. The effect of these provisions is that changes to the amount of fees payable by a care recipient and the amount of subsidy payable in respect of that care recipient as a result of the varied determination of total assessable income may be applied in respect of previous payment periods. This recognises that there may be a delay in a change of a care recipient’s circumstances and when the Secretary is notified of those changes. Generally, variations will only take effect on a date in the past if the result would be a reduction to the fees payable by the care recipient otherwise increases to fees will generally apply prospectively to mitigate against bill shock.
Aged Care Legislation Amendment explanatory memorandum -
This amendment is intended to permit a care recipient to voluntarily move to a renovated or new room within a residential care service and agree to pay a higher accommodation payment amount in their new room.
Aged Care Legislation Amendment explanatory memorandum
Context
Broader context for this bill
Under the Aged Care Act 1997The main law that already sets the rules for aged care subsidies, fees and accommodation payments, which this bill tries to tighten rather than replace., the Commonwealth was already paying residential aged care subsidies and using residents' financial assessments to set fees, but residential care lacked the same formal data-assurance checks already used in home care and outdated information risked incorrect payments and potential section 83The constitutional rule the bill is partly designed to avoid breaching by making sure aged care payments are properly authorised. constitutional problems. In October 2024 the government introduced this bill as a near-term fix while a broader rights-based aged care rewrite was being prepared, adding powers to test provider data, update means assessments and allow voluntary moves to better rooms within the same home, but the measure stalled in the Senate and lapsed when Parliament ended in July 2025.
- 1997
Aged Care Act 1997The main law that already sets the rules for aged care subsidies, fees and accommodation payments, which this bill tries to tighten rather than replace. sets the payment and accommodation rules
The existing Act created the subsidy, means-testing and accommodation-payment system that this bill sought to tighten rather than replace.
Hansard ↗ - 10 Oct 2024
Government says inaccurate residential care data needs immediate fixing
The minister said the bill was needed ahead of a wider rights-based aged care rewrite because residential care data and residents' financial information had to be made more reliable for payment decisions.
Hansard ↗ - 10 Oct 2024
Bill introduced to add data checks and update resident assessments
The explanatory memorandum said the bill would let the department run residential care data assurance reviewsChecks the department can run on provider data to test whether the information used for payments and public reporting is complete, accurate and reliable., compel information from providers and update income and asset determinations more efficiently.
Australian Parliament House ↗ - 07 Nov 2024
House passes the bill
The House completed its consideration of the measure, sending the proposed fixes for data assurance, means testing and room moves to the Senate.
Parliamentary timeline ↗ - 21 Nov 2024
Bill lapses before final passage
The Senate agreed to the bill at second reading, showing support for its purpose without completing final passage before the Parliament ended.
Parliamentary timeline ↗ - 21 July 2025
Bill lapses at the end of Parliament
Because the bill had not completed all parliamentary stages, its proposed administrative fixes fell away when the Parliament was dissolved.
Parliamentary timeline ↗
Legislative route
How did it move through Parliament?
House Senate
Introduced 10 Oct 2024
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
Second reading opened 10 Oct 2024
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Second reading debate 05 Nov 2024
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Sent to Federation Chamber for debate 05 Nov 2024
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Federation Chamber
Second reading debate 06 Nov 2024
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading debate 07 Nov 2024
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Returned to House for further consideration 07 Nov 2024
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House second reading agreed 07 Nov 2024
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
House third reading agreed 07 Nov 2024
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Introduced 18 Nov 2024
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
Second reading opened 18 Nov 2024
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Second reading debate 19 Nov 2024
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading debate 20 Nov 2024
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading debate 21 Nov 2024
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate second reading agreed 21 Nov 2024
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
Lapsed at end of Parliament 21 July 2025
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
The main case against this bill
The main criticism was that the bill was too thinly drafted and left too much to later rules, creating risks of extra red tape, poor transition planning and higher costs or confusion for providers and older people. These concerns came mainly from Coalition speakers and some crossbench senators; even some members who supported passage said their support depended on stronger safeguards, clearer detail and workable implementation.
Criticism focused more on drafting and implementation risk than on rejecting the bill’s overall aims.
More regulation and centralised power
Some opponents argued the bill gave Canberra broader powers over providers and could add unnecessary compliance burdens, especially through data-checking powers and penalties for non-cooperation.
Risk of unfair costs and weaker protections
Greens senators argued the changes could entrench a more user-pays system, raise costs without enough protection for older people, and weaken accountability by favouring provider interests over enforceable rights.
Regional and transition readiness concerns
Several speakers said smaller and regional providers could struggle if implementation was rushed or funding and workforce problems were not dealt with, leaving the sector unready for the new settings.
Further sources
Votes
Recorded votes
Amendments at a glance
Amendments grouped by chamber. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.
House
Carried Remove workers voice provision
Passed 51 to 8. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, and Centre Alliance. Opposition came from Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Carried
Remove workers voice provision
This changed the bill during House consideration in detail; it was not Sussan Ley’s separate second-reading amendment.
Party Aye / No
Labor 40 / 0
Liberal Party 2 / 0
Nationals 1 / 0
Greens 0 / 4
Independent 7 / 4
Centre Alliance 1 / 0
Defeated Ley reporting-burden amendment defeated
Defeated 52 to 72. Support came from Liberal Party, LNP, Nationals, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor.
Defeated
Ley reporting-burden amendment defeated
The House did not add the Coalition’s second-reading statement to the motion.
Party Aye / No
Labor 0 / 72
Liberal Party 24 / 0
LNP 6 / 0
Nationals 11 / 0
Independent 10 / 0
Centre Alliance 1 / 0
Senate
Defeated Kovacic aged-care amendment defeated
Defeated 30 to 31. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Gerard Rennick People First, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and Australia's Voice.
Defeated
Kovacic aged-care amendment defeated
The proposed change was not agreed.
Party Aye / No
Labor 0 / 21
Liberal Party 17 / 0
Nationals 6 / 0
Greens 0 / 9
Independent 3 / 0
Gerard Rennick People First 1 / 0
One Nation 2 / 0
Australia's Voice 0 / 1
UAP 1 / 0
Defeated Call to keep under-65s out of aged care
Defeated 12 to 32. Support came from Greens and Australia's Voice. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeated
Call to keep under-65s out of aged care
The Senate defeated the amendment, so that call was not added to the second-reading motion.
Party Aye / No
Labor 0 / 21
Liberal Party 0 / 5
Nationals 0 / 2
Greens 9 / 0
Independent 2 / 1
One Nation 0 / 2
Australia's Voice 1 / 0
UAP 0 / 1
Defeated Require platform providers to meet aged care standards
Senator Van’s proposal, decided on voices, would have called on the government to ensure platform providers meet the same aged care quality, conduct, audit and incident-reporting rules as registered providers.
Defeated
Require platform providers to meet aged care standards
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
These are amendment votes, not the final passage vote on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Who spoke, and what they said
Start here — lead voices
Sponsor speech Supports
Minister
The Minister supports the bill as a set of practical aged care fixes that improve integrity, fairness and choice before the new rights-based aged care law commences.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead opposing voice Opposes
Anne Ruston
Ruston says the opposition cannot support the bill in its current form and will move a second reading amendment and further changes because it is badly designed, lacks transparency, and needs major fixes on transition, home care, caps and implementation.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead supporting voice Supports
Malarndirri McCarthy
McCarthy supports the bill and presents it as a practical set of aged care reforms to improve data integrity, strengthen income and asset determinations, and clarify rules for voluntary accommodation moves.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead non-major voice Supports
David Pocock
Pocock supports the bill and says it is needed to secure the future of aged care, but he wants amendments to improve transparency around waiting times and to make sure the reforms work in practice.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
Labor
6 speakers · 6 support
Labor
6 speakers · 6 support
-
Malarndirri McCarthy ★ McCarthy supports the bill and presents it as a practical set of aged care reforms to improve data integrity, strengthen income and asset determinations, and clarify rules for voluntary accommodation moves.
“The amendments to the Aged Care Act 199 7 and the Aged Care Transitional Provisions Act 1997 will ensure that the next phase of reforms is undertaken using a stronger information base than currently exists. This will enable the Government to make the right decisions based on better data integrity to achieve greater compliance across the residential aged care program.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Tony Sheldon Sheldon strongly supports the bill, saying it delivers long-needed aged care reforms to strengthen rights, regulation and funding after the failures exposed by the royal commissionThe major inquiry whose recommendations are repeatedly referenced in the debate and used as the benchmark for broader reform. and COVID-19 deaths in facilities.
“I strongly support this bill and congratulate the minister, Anika Wells, on the incredible amount of work that has been done in this portfolio over this term.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Helen Polley Polley strongly supports the bill, saying it restores dignity in aged care, strengthens rights and care standards, and makes the system more sustainable.
“This is good legislation. I have been in this place for a long time. There is no such thing as a perfect piece of legislation. That is why we have been negotiating with those opposite for over 12 months. For 12 months, we've been trying to get them to the table, to actually vote and to support this legislation, but we never walked away from it. We were never going to go away from our belief that this was really important.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Murray Watt Murray Watt strongly supports the bill and urges the Senate to pass it, saying it will create a rights-based foundation for aged care that puts older people first.
“We cannot realise this potential if senators do not come together and pass this bill, so I urge the Senate to support this bill to deliver the long-term, sustainable and high-quality care that older Australians deserve.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Marielle Smith Marielle Smith supports the bill and urges the Senate to pass it urgently because it delivers long-awaited aged care reform in response to the royal commissionThe major inquiry whose recommendations are repeatedly referenced in the debate and used as the benchmark for broader reform..
“I think this is a good bill. Throughout our inquiry process we found some things which we thought needed work and needed to be addressed. We made commentary throughout our report on the committee's view, and I acknowledge the work and the response of the government to some of those issues raised. That's the purpose and part of having an inquiry process. But it is also really important that we come together and do something about this and that we don't think the status quo, in a system which led to a royal commission report called Neglect, is ever going to be superior to a reform agenda which seeks to put older Australians at the heart of aged care, because that's not an acceptable scenario either.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Anika Wells Wells supports the bill, saying it makes small but necessary changes to improve integrity, fairness and choice in aged care before the new rights-based system begins.
“Ahead of the anticipated passage and commencement of the rights based Aged Care Bill, the Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 makes small changes to the 1997 Aged Care Act that are needed now to improve integrity, fairness and choice in aged care.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Coalition
9 speakers · 10 contributions · 4 support · 3 oppose · 2 mixed
Coalition
9 speakers · 10 contributions · 4 support · 3 oppose · 2 mixed
-
Anne Ruston ★ Ruston says the opposition cannot support the bill in its current form and will move a second reading amendment and further changes because it is badly designed, lacks transparency, and needs major fixes on transition, home care, caps and implementation.
“So we think this bill needs amending in so, so many ways, and I'll foreshadow now that I'll be moving a second reading amendment to that effect. We believe that we need to make sure that we understand transitional requirements. We need to understand the transition pathway. We need to understand information so that older Australians, their families and the sector understand. We need to make sure that the Commonwealth Home Support Program recipients have got greater clarity. We need to understand the caps that they're still proposing for the service list. We need to understand how the service list has been designed. We also need to understand things like the scale of unrecoverable debts and with whom and where they will reside. We also need to make sure that we have dignity for all older Australians in the high-quality care that we want for them.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Maria Kovacic Kovacic says the coalition will support the bill’s passage, but argues it needs stronger transparency, clearer implementation rules and more realistic transition arrangements.
“While there is broad support for the reforms proposed in these bills, many stakeholders emphasised the need for adequate time to implement these changes effectively. This concern is especially relevant given that much of the detail remains in subordinate legislation which has yet to be released in full. The coalition has agreed to the passage of these bills because it is necessary to embed a rights based framework and to ensure a world-class aged-care system in our country. However, the coalition remains deeply concerned about the lack of appropriate transparency, particularly the absence of critical rules and implementation guidelines.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Sam Birrell Birrell supports the bill and says the coalition has negotiated an agreement that improves it, especially by securing protections for older Australians and extra support for regional and rural aged care.
“Aged care and what we do in this place are really important for our families, and I'm really pleased with the bill we've been able to negotiate and come to an agreement on.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Hollie Hughes Hollie Hughes says the coalition will support the bill's reform direction, but only after amendments to make it workable and protect older Australians from unintended consequences.
“We will move a number of amendments to this legislation to make sure that it is workable, that it won't adversely impact older Australians and that it will not have unintended consequences. But it is the government that must ultimately wear the pain of any shortcomings or failures of this legislation. The coalition believes that reform is necessary and we do not wish to be obstructionist for the sake of it but we will also not simply roll over and give this government carte blanche to do as it pleases, especially on significant legislation that it is once again failing to develop in an honest, meaningful and open way.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Linda Reynolds Reynolds says the coalition will support the bill, but only after forcing significant changes because the original version was rushed and lacked key detail.
“Time doesn't permit for me to go through all of the other reforms that the coalition has fought for and achieved. But while there have been significant achievements during these negotiations, it is important to remember that this is Labor's package of reforms which we have worked very hard to get to a point where we can support what started off as incredibly poor legislation. This government has still failed to address critical issues such as workforce, regulatory impacts and implementation times contained in this bill. So while we have improved it significantly, after 2½ years this government is still letting aged Australians down.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Mark Coulton Coulton says he supports the aged care reforms in principle and thinks they are a step in the right direction, especially for regional providers and the need for people to plan for old age.
“Hopefully—I've got great faith in this legislation—those things will be addressed. I give support to the concept. I'll make my judgement when I see the final bill, but I think this is a step in the right direction.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Wendy Askew Askew says the coalition will support the bill, but only after securing changes and with further amendments still to come.
“While the coalition will ultimately support this bill, it is important to remember: this is Labor's package of reforms. It was not co-designed with the coalition. As mentioned in response to the advocacy of witnesses to the inquiry, further amendments will be proposed by the coalition. These proposed amendments will address concerns raised and will look to ensure the bill is fit for purpose, provides dignity, respect and security to our older Australians and does not penalise hardworking people in the sector who are just doing their jobs.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Sussan Ley Ley says the coalition will scrutinise the bill closely and move amendments because it risks adding unnecessary regulation and centralising power over providers.
“In response to the escalating administrative demands, the coalition will propose an amendment focused on reviewing existing red and green tape. We will move an amendment which aims to ensure that the reporting burdens imposed on providers do not outweigh the necessary information being collected, thereby promoting a more balanced approach to regulation.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Richard Colbeck 2 contributions Richard Colbeck opposes the bill, saying it leaves people waiting too long for home-care packages and that its fee design unfairly hits lower-income older Australians.
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Richard Colbeck on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Richard Colbeck opposes the bill, saying it leaves people waiting too long for home-care packages and that its fee design unfairly hits lower-income older Australians. He argues the government has delayed aged-care reform and built a system that will push people out of home care.
“There are some other catches within this legislation that haven't been talked about. The government talks about a lifetime cap on expenditure. It has been referred to by a number of people, but the thing that this legislation does is discriminate against people on lower incomes. If you can find the money to pay a RAD—a deposit for your home, which is a lot of money; potentially, up to a million dollars—that money is protected by the system, but, if you pay a DAP, a daily accommodation price or a daily accommodation fee, that is not included in the cap, and you will pay that every day. So, if you're someone of low means who can't afford to pay a RAD, all of your resources can, over time, be gobbled up through the daily accommodation fees. It is not part of the cap; it's not protected. The only thing that is included in the cap is the clinical care fees.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗Second reading speech
Colbeck opposes the bill as drafted, saying it is badly delayed, based on too much unfinished regulation, and will leave low-income people worse off. He argues the government has misrepresented the royal commissionThe major inquiry whose recommendations are repeatedly referenced in the debate and used as the benchmark for broader reform. and that the reforms will make people wait longer and pay more for aged care.
“I want to go back and refer to some representations that were made to me by some constituents in the lead up to the debate on the bill that go to cost. As I indicated earlier in my presentation, if somebody takes out a returnable accommodation deposit, a RAD, that's protected under the legislation. But if they don't have the money for a RAD and they have to pay a DAP, a daily accommodation payment, that is not protected under the lifetime cap. So someone of low means can be milked dry by this system—the cap does not apply. I know people in that circumstance and it is not good enough.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Greens
2 speakers · 3 contributions · 2 oppose
Greens
2 speakers · 3 contributions · 2 oppose
-
Larissa Waters Waters says the Greens will oppose the bill in its current form and move amendments, because it entrenches a two-tiered aged-care system, leaves rights unenforceable and increases costs without enough protection for older people.
“I rise to speak to the Aged Care Bill 2024 and the Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. Our concern is that these bills risk creating a two-tiered system that bakes in inequality. The Greens share the concerns of older Australians that these bills will increase their co-contributions and accommodation costs but don't guarantee enforceable rights or the quality of care for participants. We have significant concerns that, in buckling to the demands of the Liberal Party, the Labor Party has abandoned criminal penalties for dodgy aged-care providers, which it had promised and has now junked to get the deal with the Liberals. We've also got concerns about chapter 4, which contains the new funding model, because asking people to pay more for their care with no guarantee of improved quality is simply taking us in the wrong direction. So we will be moving amendments to address both of those concerns when we come to the committee stage on this bill.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Jordon Steele-John 2 contributions Steele-John says the Greens cannot back the bill as drafted because it leaves major problems unresolved, including unenforceable rights, young people remaining in aged care, and weak safeguards around guardianship.
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Jordon Steele-John on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Jordon Steele-John says the Greens cannot support the bill because it risks expanding a user-pays model and weakens penalties for providers, which he says puts provider interests ahead of older people’s rights. He argues the legislation does not go far enough to guarantee universal, rights-based aged care.
“The first concern which I and the Greens hold is that this bill opens the door to an expanded user-pays model. This risks only increasing the profits of private providers. Such private providers are already making massive profits off the backs of older Australians.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗Second reading speech
Steele-John says the Greens cannot back the bill as drafted because it leaves major problems unresolved, including unenforceable rights, young people remaining in aged care, and weak safeguards around guardianship. He says the government must fix these issues in good faith and foreshadows a second reading amendment to keep young people out of aged care.
“In conclusion, there are so many issues in this bill at present that will affect the lives of millions of Australians. The Greens urge the government to work in good faith with older Australians to address these issues. I foreshadow a second reading amendment that I will be moving on behalf of the Greens in relation to keeping young people out of aged care.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Minor parties and independents
2 speakers · 2 support
Minor parties and independents
2 speakers · 2 support
-
David Pocock ★ Pocock supports the bill and says it is needed to secure the future of aged care, but he wants amendments to improve transparency around waiting times and to make sure the reforms work in practice.
“That's clearly why change is necessary, and that's why I'm supportive of what is being proposed today. We need a system that is available for the next generation and the generation after that. We need more funding entering the system to improve wages, quality standards and accommodation. In general terms, this bill delivers on that, helping to secure the future of the aged-care system and regear it so that it focuses on providing support to keep people at home for as long as possible.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Tammy Tyrrell Tyrrell supports the bill as a step in the right direction because it strengthens aged care protections and training, especially for dementia care.
“Even with flaws, I can see this bill is a step forward for the aged-care sector and that its intention is to better protect the rights of older Australians.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Unknown
1 speaker · 1 support
Unknown
1 speaker · 1 support
-
Minister ★ The Minister supports the bill as a set of practical aged care fixes that improve integrity, fairness and choice before the new rights-based aged care law commences.
“Ahead of the anticipated passage and commencement of the rights based Aged Care Bill, the Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 makes small changes to the 1997 Aged Care Act that are needed now to improve integrity, fairness and choice in aged care.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
Full record
- Status
- Not Proceeding -- Collected from the APH bill page.
- Originating house
- House of Representatives
- 10 Oct 2024
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
- 10 Oct 2024
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
- 05 Nov 2024
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 05 Nov 2024
House · Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 06 Nov 2024
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 07 Nov 2024
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 07 Nov 2024
House · Returned to House for further consideration
Returned to House for further consideration
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 07 Nov 2024
House · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
- 07 Nov 2024
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
- 18 Nov 2024
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
- 18 Nov 2024
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
- 19 Nov 2024
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 20 Nov 2024
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 21 Nov 2024
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 21 Nov 2024
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
- 21 July 2025
Senate · Lapsed at end of Parliament
Lapsed at end of Parliament
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.