Chapter 1Introduction

1.1The Aged Care Bill 2024 (the bill) was introduced by the Hon. Anika Wells MP, Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Sport (the Minister), to the House of Representatives on 12 September 2024.[1]

1.2On 16 September 2024, the Senate referred the provisions of the bill to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee (the committee) for inquiry and report by 31 October 2024.[2]

Structure of the report

1.3This report contains three chapters. This chapter sets out:

the purpose of the bill;

background information relating to aged care reforms in Australia; and

general information outlining the conduct of the inquiry and other committees’ consideration of the bill.

1.4Chapter 2 outlines the bill’s key provisions and Chapter 3 explores the key issues raised by inquiry participants on the bill, then concludes with the committee’s view and recommendation.

Purpose of the bill

1.5As articulated by the Minister, the bill is designed to introduce a new Aged Care Act that will ‘… put older people, not providers, at the centre of aged care’.[3]

1.6The bill implements 58 recommendations made by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (the Aged Care Royal Commission/the Royal Commission).[4]

1.7The Explanatory Memorandum elaborates:

The Bill establishes a modern rights-based legislative framework that focuses on the safety, health and wellbeing of older individuals and places their needs at the centre of the aged care system, with funding and regulation of programs targeted for the benefit of older individuals, their families and carers.[5]

1.8Specifically, the bill would:

… provide legislative authority for the delivery of funded aged care services to individuals under the Commonwealth aged care system, including those programs which were previously outside the scope of aged care legislation.

… introduce a new risk-based regulatory model, designed to encourage the delivery of high quality funded aged care services by registered providers and increase provider accountability.[6]

1.9The simplified outline of the bill also notes that the bill is underpinned by its objects, a Statement of Rights, and a Statement of Principles, which are aimed at ensuring quality and safe care.[7]

Background

1.10As mentioned above, the bill responds to the findings and recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety’s final report, which was tabled on 1 March 2021.[8]

1.11The Royal Commission, and the government’s response to its findings and recommendations, are discussed further below.

The Aged Care Royal Commission

1.12The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety was established on 8 October 2018. Royal Commissioners the Hon Tony Pagone QC and Ms Lynelle Briggs AO (the Royal Commissioners) were tasked with inquiring into:

… the quality of aged care services in Australia, whether those services were meeting the needs of the community, and how they could be improved in the future.[9]

1.13The Royal Commissioners adopted eight key methods of inquiry to gather evidence, which included: a call for public submissions, public hearings, notices under the Royal Commissions Act 1902, community forums, targeted consultations, visits to service providers, research conducted by the Office of the Royal Commission, and research commissioned from external providers.[10]

1.14In their final report, the Royal Commissioners stated that the Royal Commission revealed that people receiving aged care ‘want to be treated with care, dignity and respect’ and that it has been ‘too easy for older people and their families to become disempowered in what can be a depersonalised, confusing and overly bureaucratic aged care system’.[11]

1.15The Royal Commissioners also found that Australia’s aged care system is ‘large and complex’, ‘difficult to access and navigate’ and that ‘substandard care and abuse’ also pervades the system.[12]

1.16Consequently, the Royal Commissioners made a total of 148 recommendations across a range of areas related to aged care. Notably, in some instances, the Royal Commissioners made differing observations and recommendations, but they both strongly concluded that ‘fundamental change is needed’.[13]

1.17The first recommendation made by the Royal Commissioners (Recommendation 1) was that the ‘Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth) should be replaced with a new Act to come into force by no later than 1 July 2023’.[14]

1.18The Explanatory Memorandum explains that bill will respond to approximately 60 of the Royal Commission’s recommendations, including Recommendation 1.[15]

Aged care legislative reforms to date

1.19In addition to the bill’s introduction, the Australian Government has also responded to a range of Royal Commission recommendations through various reviews and reform packages. These are explored further below.

Capability Review of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission

1.20The Capability Review of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (the Review) was announced by the Minister on 28 July 2022 in response to recommendations 10 and 104 of the Royal Commission.[16]

1.21The Review commenced on 4 October 2022, led by Mr David Tune AO PSM, who consulted with the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, departmental staff, consumer and provider peak bodies, and state and territory governments.[18]

1.22The Review concluded that the Commission has ‘achieved a great deal in seeking to establish itself as one entity and deliver on its substantively expanded roles and responsibilities’.[19]

1.23It also found that while the Commission is ‘maturing’ and ‘developing solid strategies’ to strengthen its capability, gaps remain that require attention.[20]

1.24As such, the Review made a range of recommendations, which included a broad timeframe for implementation of each recommendation according to its priority. These were as follows:

Priority 1: to be progressed as soon as possible, and by no later than 30 September 2024.

Priority 2: to be progressed as soon as possible, and by no later than 31 March 2024.

Priority 3: to be progressed in line with introduction of the new Aged Care Act.

Priority 4: to be progressed in 2025.[21]

1.25In her second reading speech, the Minister stated that 31 of the 32 recommendations made by the Review have been ‘completed or are underway and the final will commence in 2025’.[22]

1.26The Explanatory Memorandum also provides several notes where key provisions have been directly informed by the Review’s recommendations, for example, Clause 344 which establishes the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission.[23]

1.27Additionally, Recommendation 4.3 of the Review recommended that the Commission strengthen its leadership by implementing a new organisational structure which includes Deputy Commissioners to support the Commission’s purpose and outcomes, which is provided by clause 353 of the bill.[24]

1.28Further, the Review made recommendations relating to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Council. For instance, it recommended that the Advisory Council should act as an independent check to the authority of the Commission, including alerting the Government to key risks and issues, recommending remedies to these issues and helping to drive the strategic direction of the Commission. These recommendations are addressed in clause 383 and its associated subclauses.[25]

Aged Care Taskforce

1.29The Minister noted that the ‘great unanswered question from the royal commission was how to make aged care equitable and sustainable into the future’.[26]

1.30As such, the Aged Care Taskforce (the Taskforce) was established in order to advise the government on aged care funding arrangements, including:

A fair and equitable approach to assessing the means of older people

Participants contributions for home care

Reforms to arrangements for pricing and funding of hotel and accommodation costs in residential care, including the phasing out of Refundable Accommodation Deposits (RADs)

Services for inclusion and exclusion in the new home aged care program

Funding and contribution approaches to support innovation in the delivery of care.[27]

1.31The Taskforce made 23 recommendations across seven aged care funding principles, which followed three key themes:

Support older people to age in place;

Equitable and sustainable funding; and

Quality, innovation and transparency.[28]

1.32In her second reading speech, the Minister highlighted that the Taskforce recommended that Australia should make a ‘reasonable means-tested contribution to the cost of aged care’.[29] This is reflected in the bill’s provisions, which are further discussed later in the Chapter.

1.33In addition to responding to recommendations from the Royal Commission, the Explanatory Memorandum explains that the bill will also legislate the government’s response to the recommendations of the Taskforce.[30]

Creation of an Inspector-General of Aged Care

1.34In their final report, the Royal Commissioners recommended the establishment of an independent office of the Inspector-General of Aged Care. The Royal Commissioners explained that its primary functions should be to:

… identify and investigate systemic issues in the provision or regulation of aged care, to make and publish reports of its findings, and to make recommendations to the System Governor and the Minister.[31]

1.35Consequently, the government established an Inspector-General of Aged Care (the Inspector-General) to lead the statutory agency of the Office of the Inspector-General of Aged Care (the Office) on the 16th of October 2023 via the Inspector-General of Aged Care Act 2023.[32]

1.36Both the Inspector-General and the Office have oversight of the administration, regulation, and funding of the aged care system by the government, including the:

Department of Health and Aged Care;

Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission;

Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority; and

Other services or bodies in the aged care system regulated or funded by the government.[33]

Consultation on the bill’s provisions

1.37The Australian Government consulted on the bill’s provisions throughout 2023 and 2024.[34] This consultation included direct engagement with advisory bodies including the Aged Care Council of Elders, the National Aged Care Advisory Council and other peak bodies.[35]

1.38The Department of Health and Aged Care (the Department) explained that initial consultation on the foundations and core components of the bill occurred in August and September 2023, which informed the preparation of the exposure draft.[36]

1.39The exposure draft of the bill was released for public consultation from 14 December 2023 to 8 March 2024.[37] During this consultation period, close to 1000 people attended face-to-face or virtual workshops which included specific sessions for culturally and linguistically diverse communities and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.[38]

1.40The Department hosted three public webinars, with over 9600 people in attendance.[39] The Department also facilitated roundtable discussions that engaged aged care experts, advocates, providers and aged care worker representatives to discuss and provide comment on the exposure draft.[40]

1.41The Explanatory Memorandum further explains that consultations on the foundations of the new Act, and on the Exposure Draft of the bill for the new Act, resulted in almost 14 500 separate points of engagement, including over 440 submissions and 1500 survey responses.[41]

1.42The Department also noted that major components of the bill, including the new regulatory framework, Support at Home and consumer contribution arrangements were the subject of ‘significant consultation processes in their own right’.[42]

Financial impact statement

1.43The financial impact statement for the bill specifies that at the 2024–25 Budget, total aged care program costs were estimated to be $204 billion over the period 2023–24 to 2027–28.[43] The Explanatory Memorandum further explains that the ‘new Aged Care Act will fundamentally enable the continued delivery of aged care programs and services’.[44]

Compatibility with human rights

1.44The bill’s Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights (the statement) provides that the bill establishes a modern rights-based legislative framework that focuses on the safety, health and wellbeing of older individuals and places their needs at the centre of aged care, with funding and regulation of programs targeted for the benefit of older Australians, their families and carers.[45]

1.45The statement notes that the bill engages the following rights:

the right to an adequate standard of living in article 11(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and article 28(1) of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD);

the right to health in article 12 of the ICESCR and article 25 of the CRPD;

the right to protection from exploitation, violence and abuse in article 16(1) of the CRPD;

the right to social security in article 9 of the ICESCR and article 28(2) of CRPD;

the right not to be subjected to torture, or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and article 15 of the CRPD;

the right to privacy in article 17 of the ICCPR and article 22 of the CRPD;

the right to freedom of opinion and expression in articles 19 and 20 of the ICCPR;

the right to work and rights at work in articles 4 and 6 of the ICESCR;

the right to security of the person and freedom from arbitrary or unlawful detention in article 9 of the ICCPR and article 14 of the CRPD;

the right to self-determination in article 1 of the ICCPR and article 1 of the ICESCR;

the right to equality and non-discrimination in articles 2, 16 and 26 of the ICCPR, article 2(2) of the ICESCR;

the right to the presumption of innocence in article 14(2) of the ICCPR;

the right to a fair trial in article 14 of the ICCPR;

the right to equal recognition before the law in article 12(2) of the CRPD;

the right to access information in article 19(2) of the ICCPR and article 21 of the CRPD;

the right the protection of a person’s physical and mental integrity in article 17 of the CRPD.[46]

1.46The statement provides that the bill is ‘compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011’.[47]

Consideration by other committees

1.47Both the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills made a number of comments on the bill. Key issues raised by both committees are outlined in the following sections.

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights

1.48The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (PJCHR) raised a number of concerns regarding the bill in its Report 9 of 2024, which tabled on 10 October 2024.[48] These matters are summarised below.

Commonwealth aged care system

1.49The PJCHR noted that the bill seeks to establish a legislative framework for the Commonwealth aged care system and to also respond to, and implement, recommendations of the Royal Commission.[49]

1.50The committee considered that several of the bill’s measures would promote human rights, noting that, in general:

… providing for the delivery of funded aged care services to older persons, which may include access to subsidised accommodation, food and other services to assist with daily living, would promote the rights to an adequate standard of living and health, and the rights of people with disability.[50]

1.51However, the committee noted that there are measures in the bill that engage and limit human rights.[51]

1.52The PJCHR also noted that, ordinarily, it would write to proponents of legislation seeking a response to any questions it has about the compatibility of proposed legislation with human rights. However, the committee stated that it is not possible for it to write to the Minister in the available timeframe.[52]

1.53Instead, the PJCHR made a range of recommendations that ‘may improve the human rights compatibility of specified measures’.[53]

Statement of rights

1.54The PJCHR considered that to the extent that providers deliver aged care services in line with the Statement of Rights, a number of human rights would be promoted. However, it also noted that there are number of key rights missing, including the right to life, liberty and security of person.[54]

1.55The PJCHR also noted that subclause 24(2) would require registered providers to take all reasonable and proportionate steps to act compatibly with the Statement of Rights, taking into account that limits on rights may be necessary in certain circumstances (referred to as the ‘limitation criteria’).[55]

1.56Further, the PJCHR raised that it is not clear whether there would be an effective remedy for violations of the rights specified in the Statement of Rights.[56]

1.57As such, the PJCHR made a variety of recommendations to strengthen human rights compatibility, including that:

… all key human rights be protected, that the limitation clause be amended to reflect international human rights law, and that there is an effective remedy for any violation of a right specified in the Statement of Rights.[57]

Restrictive practices

1.58The PJCHR noted that the bill would allow rules to be made regarding the use of restrictive practices on an individual that a registered provider is delivering funded aged care services to.[58]

1.59Further, the PJCHR commented that, as much of the operational detail is to be set out in future rules on restrictive practices, it is not possible to conclude whether the requirements in the bill would serve as ‘sufficient safeguards’.[59]

1.60The PJCHR also underlined that the bill does not contain key safeguards in relation to restrictive practices that were recommended by the Royal Commission.[60]

1.61As such, the PJCHR suggested some actions to assist with the human rights compatibility of this measure, including that the bill be amended to incorporate additional safeguards with respect to restrictive practices recommended by the Royal Commission.[61]

Supporters and guardians

1.62The PJCHR noted that the provisions do not make it clear the ground on which a person’s capacity would be denied and a supporter would consequently be granted decision-making authority. As such, the PJCHR identified a risk that the measure would invariably apply to people with disability.[62]

1.63Consequently, the PJCHR recommends that the bill be amended to clarify:

what constitutes exceptional circumstances for the purposes of making a determination that a supporter has decision-making authority; and

what is meant by an ‘individual’s personal, cultural or social wellbeing’ in the context of a decision-making supporter acting in a way that is not in accordance with the individual’s will and preferences if necessary to prevent serious risk to one of those things.[63]

Publication of banning orders

1.64The PJCHR notes that the bill empowers the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner (the Commissioner) to make banning orders and that the Commissioner is required to make and maintain a register of banning orders, as well as a provider register.[64]

1.65The PJCHR recommended amending the bill to:

… to require the Commissioner to ensure that the register contains correct and complete information, and does not include misleading information; and to empower the Commissioner to not include information on a register in certain circumstances; and identify whether a decision to include information on the register, or to not amend the register, would be reviewable.[65]

Information sharing

1.66The PJCHR understood that the bill provides for the use and disclosure of information, including personal information, subject to prohibition against unauthorised disclosure. The PJCHR commented that these provisions engage and limit the right to privacy.[66]

1.67As such, the PJCHR considered that some of the safeguards in the bill could be strengthened and as such, it made recommendations to this effect. For example, the PJCHR recommended that the statement of compatibility be updated to provide a more fulsome assessment of the compatibility of these measures with the right to privacy.[67]

Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills

1.68The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills (Scrutiny of Bills committee) outlined a number of concerns regarding the bill in its Scrutiny Digest 13 of 2024, tabled on 9 October 2024[68]. These matters are summarised below.

Significant matters in delegated legislation; and restrictive practices

1.69The Scrutiny of Bills committee noted some concerns in relation to the substantial matters to be included in Rules made under Part 10, Chapter 8 of the bill, including the following examples:

matters in relation to payment of subsidies for funded aged care;[69]

the Aged Care Quality Standards which providers will be required to adhere to;[70]

the Aged Care Code of Conduct which will apply to registered providers, aged care workers and responsible persons; and[71]

use of restrictive practices.[72]

1.70Broadly, in relation to the significant matters to be included in the Rules, the Scrutiny of Bills committee acknowledged that the bill ‘is seeking to set out a significant regulatory scheme and it is not possible for all matters to be contained in primary legislation, noting the importance of expert-led, responsive approaches to ensure the safety and quality of aged care services’.[73]

1.71Regarding the classification of restrictive practices, and their use, in the Rules the Scrutiny of Bills committee noted the explanation provided in the bill’s Explanatory Memorandum, that including these matters in delegated legislation ‘will allow for responsiveness in relation to the regulation of restrictive practices in aged care’ and that the Rules would be able to be adapted and modified in a timely manner to respond to emerging concerns.[74]

1.72The Scrutiny of Bills committee noted that it has raised similar concerns about the wide use of delegated legislation, and specifically in relation to the use of restrictive practices, when considering aged care legislation previously.[75] Noting the potential for restrictive practices to impact on personal rights and liberties, the committee requested the minister’s advice on amending the bill to include matters relating to restrictive practices.

No-invalidity clause; and enforceability of rights

1.73The Scrutiny of Bills committee welcomed the inclusion of the Statements of Rights and Principles in the bill and noted the Royal Commission Report’s comments that most rights not be separately and directly enforceable in courts. However, the Scrutiny of Bills committee was concerned that where rights were not enforceable, individuals had limited remedies in the event of a breach of rights.[76]

1.74The Scrutiny of Bills committee also noted that the bill provides a no-invalidity clause in relation to failure to comply with the Statement of Principles. The Scrutiny of Bills committee expressed concerns that the no-invalidity clause would limit the legal remedies available to individuals in the event of a breach of the Statement of Principles, and the committee noted that the Explanatory Memorandum provided not explanation or justification as to why the no-invalidity clause is necessary. The committee sought the minister’s advice in relation to the operation of subclauses 26(1) and (3).[77]

Automated decision-making

1.75The Scrutiny of Bills committee noted the bill’s provision for the System Governor to arrange for use of computer programs to undertake certain administrative actions. The bill provides a list of actions considered ‘relevant administrative action’, for example:

classification levels (subsection 78(1));

allocation of places (subsection 92(1)); and

deciding the order of allocation of places (subsection 93(1)).[78]

1.76While the Scrutiny of Bills committee acknowledged the safeguard mechanisms around use of computer programs for decision-making, the committee was concerned as to whether all decisions including as ‘relevant administrative action’ are appropriate for use of a computer program. The committee noted that the Explanatory Memorandum did not provide a justification for why some decisions are considered appropriate for automation and expressed the view that automated decisions would be strictly limited and not able to be expanded by delegated legislation.[79] The committee requested the minister’s advice in relation to these matters.

Exemption from disallowance

1.77The Scrutiny of Bills committee noted that various provisions within the bill provide for determinations or directions made by the minister to be legislative instruments, but they are not subject to disallowance. An example the committee considered was that written directions to the Commissioner about performance of their functions was not subject to disallowance or sunsetting.[80]

1.78The Scrutiny of Bills committee noted the explanations in the Explanatory Memorandum that it would be inappropriate to subject directions and determinations to disallowance because they are either administrative or would cause delay or uncertainty if the determination was disallowed. However, the Scrutiny of Bills committee considered it was unclear how subjecting instruments to disallowance could cause delay or uncertainty as disallowance is a rare occurrence.[81]

Standing appropriation; broad delegation of powers; disclosure of private information; and tabling of documents

1.79The Scrutiny of Bills committee also raised concerns in relation to the standing appropriation in the bill. The committee considered that there was limited parliamentary oversight of the standing appropriation, particularly as such an expenditure may be predicted to increase over time.[82]

1.80The Scrutiny of Bills committee noted that the bill provides for the Complaints Commissioner to delegate their powers and functions under the bill to a member of staff in the Commission, but there is no limit to the seniority of the staff to which the delegations can be made. The committee noted that the Explanatory Memorandum does not provide guidance as to why the broad delegation of power is necessary.[83]

1.81Regarding privacy, the Scrutiny of Bills committee noted that the bill creates offences for the unauthorised use or disclosure of protected information, which includes personal information. Exceptions are provided, including for entrusted persons in certain circumstances. The committee noted that the exceptions in relation to disclosure of private information by the System Governor or an appointed Commissioner are ‘extremely broad’.[84] Similarly, the exception for disclosure by the minister is broadly defined.[85] The committee also identified other issues around disclosure, including that de-identification is not required for information disclosed for research purposes.

1.82The Scrutiny of Bills committee noted that the bill provides for reports to be prepared by the System Governor, as well as for the minister to request that the Complaints Commissioner or another relevant Commissioner inquire and report on their functions. The committee expressed concern that none of the provisions for these reports (clauses 342, 373 and 374) required the reports to be tabled in the Parliament.[86]

1.83The Scrutiny of Bills committee considered each of these issues to require further explanation and justification and requested advice from the minister on each matter.

Coercive powers; banning orders; reversal of evidential burden of proof; and immunity from civil liability

1.84The Scrutiny of Bills committee noted that the bill seeks to trigger standard search, entry and seizure powers and to provide that these powers are extended to include an authorised person able determine when an item may be seized. The committee noted that it did not appear that a warrant must be obtained in relation to the seizure of the item, and the Explanatory Memorandum did not provide justification for why items may be seized without warrant.[87] The committee requested the advice of the minister in relation to this matter.

1.85The bill provides for the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner to make an order prohibiting or restricting a registered provider or individual aged care worker from involvement in the delivery of aged care services, which the Scrutiny of Bills committee notes is in effect a banning order.[88]

1.86The Commissioner must provide notice prior to the issuing of the banning order, unless the Commissioner believes there is ‘an immediate and severe risk to safety, health or wellbeing of one or more individuals accessing funding aged care.’ The Scrutiny of Bills committee notes that the removal of notice means that the entity or individual being issued with a banning order does not have the opportunity to make submissions to the Commissioner.[89]

1.87The Scrutiny of Bills committee also noted that under clause 507 of the bill, the Commissioner is required to maintain a register of banning orders and that current register is public via a government website.[90]

1.88The Scrutiny of Bills committee acknowledged the importance of protecting the safety of individuals accessing aged care services but raised concerns about the information to be published on a public website and that the details of the banning orders are to be contained in delegated legislation. The committee requested the advice of the minister in relation to these matters.[91]

1.89The Scrutiny of Bills committee noted that the bill seeks to provide immunity from civil liability in some circumstances, including authorised officers for actions done in good faith in relation to the powers exercised for the purpose of the bill. Although the committee acknowledged the need for officers to exercise their powers and functions, the committee was concerned that the immunity left affected individuals without legal recourse. The committee requested the minister’s advice in relation to what recourse was available.[92]

1.90The bill creates an offence related to non-entrusted persons using or on-disclosing protected information, with a penalty of up to two years imprisonment. There are two exceptions to this offence in the bill and in both exceptions the evidential burden of proof is reversed.[93]

1.91The Scrutiny of Bills committee outlined their expectation that any reversal of the evidential burden of proof should be justified, but noted that in the Explanatory Memorandum does not sufficiently address the issue. The Scrutiny of Bills committee drew this provision to the attention of the Senate.[94]

Conduct of the inquiry

1.92Details of the inquiry were made available on the committee’s website. The committee also contacted a number of organisations and individuals to invite them to lodge written submissions by 30 September 2024.

1.93The committee received 189 submissions, which are listed at Appendix 1 of this report.

1.94The committee held nine public hearings in the following locations:

Canberra, Australian Capital Territory;

Devonport, Tasmania;

Brisbane, Queensland;

Port Lincoln, South Australia;

Newcastle, New South Wales;

Melbourne, Victoria;

Perth, Western Australia; and

Darwin, Northern Territory.

1.95A list of witnesses who gave evidence at these public hearings is included at Appendix 2.

Note on references

1.96References to Committee Hansard in this report are to proof transcripts. Page numbers may vary between proof and official transcripts.

Acknowledgments

1.97The committee thanks the organisations and individuals who contributed to the inquiry by making written submissions and giving evidence at the public hearings. The committee is grateful to all those who have shared their expertise, knowledge, ideas and lived experiences.

1.98These personal testimonies have been vital in deepening the committee’s understanding of the impacts that the bill will have on older Australians and their families. The committee appreciates the time and effort that people have taken to share their often very personal stories.

Footnotes

[1]House of Representatives Votes and Proceedings, No. 146, 12 September 2024, p. 1890.

[2]Journals of the Senate, No. 132, 16 September 2024, p. 4008.

[3]The Hon. Anika Wells, Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Sport, House of Representatives Hansard, 12 September 2024, p. 64.

[4]The Hon. Anika Wells, Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Sport, House of Representatives Hansard, 12 September 2024, p. 64.

[5]Aged Care Bill 2024, Explanatory Memorandum (Explanatory Memorandum), p. 1.

[6]Explanatory Memorandum, p. 1.

[7]Aged Care Bill 2024, p. 4.

[8]Royal Commissions, Royal Commission into Aged Care and Quality Safety – Final Report, www.royalcommission.gov.au/aged-care/final-report (accessed 4 October 2024).

[9]Royal Commissions, Royal Commission into Aged Care and Quality Safety, www.royalcommission.gov.au/aged-care (accessed 4 October 2024).

[10]Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, Final Report - Care, Dignity and Respect: Volume 1, March 2021, p. 31.

[11]Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, Final Report - Care, Dignity and Respect: Volume 1, March 2021, p. 181.

[12]Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, Final Report - Care, Dignity and Respect: Volume 1, March 2021, pp. 61, 65 and 68.

[13]Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, Final Report - Care, Dignity and Respect: Volume 1, March 2021, p. 2.

[14]Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, Final Report – List of recommendations, March 2021, p. 1.

[15]Explanatory Memorandum, p. 1.

[16]Mr David Tune AO PSM, Report of the Independent Capability Review of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, March 2023, p. 5.

[17]Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, Final Report – List of recommendations, March 2021, pp. 216, 217 and 275.

[18]Mr David Tune AO PSM, Report of the Independent Capability Review of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, March 2023, pp. 5 and 7.

[19]Mr David Tune AO PSM, Report of the Independent Capability Review of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, March 2023, [p. ii].

[20]Mr David Tune AO PSM, Report of the Independent Capability Review of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, March 2023, [p. ii].

[21]Mr David Tune AO PSM, Report of the Independent Capability Review of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, March 2023, [p. 10].

[22]The Hon. Anika Wells, Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Sport, House of Representatives Hansard, 12 September 2024, p. 67.

[23]Explanatory Memorandum, p. 301.

[24]Explanatory Memorandum, p. 305.

[25]Explanatory Memorandum, pp. 323–324.

[26]The Hon. Anika Wells, Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Sport, House of Representatives Hansard, 12 September 2024, p. 69.

[27]Aged Care Taskforce, Final Report of the Aged Care Taskforce, March 2024, p. 4.

[28]Aged Care Taskforce, Final Report of the Aged Care Taskforce, March 2024, p. 11.

[29]The Hon. Anika Wells, Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Sport, House of Representatives Hansard, 12 September 2024, p. 70.

[30]Explanatory Memorandum, p. 1.

[31]Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, Final Report - Care, Dignity and Respect: Volume 1, March 2021, p. 90.

[32]Office of the Inspector-General of Aged Care, Who we are, 30 January 2024, www.igac.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are, (accessed 7 October 2024).

[33]Office of the Inspector-General of Aged Care, Who we are, 30 January 2024, www.igac.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are, (accessed 7 October 2024).

[34]Explanatory Memorandum, p. 4.

[35]Explanatory Memorandum, p. 4.

[36]Department of Health and Aged Care, answer to question on notice regarding government consultation of the Aged Care Bill (received 24 October 2024).

[37]Explanatory Memorandum, p. 4.

[38]Explanatory Memorandum, p. 4.

[39]Explanatory Memorandum, p. 4.

[40]Explanatory Memorandum, p. 4.

[41]Explanatory Memorandum, p. 4.

[42]Department of Health and Aged Care, answer to question on notice regarding government consultation of the Aged Care Bill (received 24 October 2024).

[43]Explanatory Memorandum, p. 5.

[44]Explanatory Memorandum, p. 5.

[45]The bill’s Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights is contained within the bill’s Explanatory Memorandum. Aged Care Bill 2024, Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights, p. 6.

[46]Aged Care Bill 2024, Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights, p. 6.

[47]Aged Care Bill 2024, Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights, p. 6.

[48]Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (PJCHR), Human rights scrutiny report: Report 9 of 2024, 10 October 2024, pp. 19–65.

[49]PJCHR, Human rights scrutiny report: Report 9 of 2024, 10 October 2024, p. 23.

[50]PJCHR, Human rights scrutiny report: Report 9 of 2024, 10 October 2024, p. 23.

[51]PJCHR, Human rights scrutiny report: Report 9 of 2024, 10 October 2024, p. 23.

[52]PJCHR, Human rights scrutiny report: Report 9 of 2024, 10 October 2024, pp. 23–24.

[53]PJCHR, Human rights scrutiny report: Report 9 of 2024, 10 October 2024, p. 24.

[54]PJCHR, Human rights scrutiny report: Report 9 of 2024 – Report Snapshot, 10 October 2024, p. 2.

[55]PJCHR, Human rights scrutiny report: Report 9 of 2024, 10 October 2024, p. 26.

[56]PJCHR, Human rights scrutiny report: Report 9 of 2024, 10 October 2024, p. 27.

[57]PJCHR, Human rights scrutiny report: Report 9 of 2024 – Report Snapshot, 10 October 2024, p. 3.

[58]PJCHR, Human rights scrutiny report: Report 9 of 2024, 10 October 2024, p. 31.

[59]PJCHR, Human rights scrutiny report: Report 9 of 2024, 10 October 2024, p. 35.

[60]PJCHR, Human rights scrutiny report: Report 9 of 2024, 10 October 2024, p. 36. Note: Recommendation 17 of the Royal Commission pertains to the regulation of restraints, and provides that restrictive practices should be prohibited unless certain circumstances occur. See Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, Final Report – List of recommendations, March 2021, p. 221.

[61]PJCHR, Human rights scrutiny report: Report 9 of 2024 – Report Snapshot, 10 October 2024, p. 4.

[62]PJCHR, Human rights scrutiny report: Report 9 of 2024 – Report Snapshot, 10 October 2024, p. 4.

[63]PJCHR, Human rights scrutiny report: Report 9 of 2024, 10 October 2024, p. 53.

[64]PJCHR, Human rights scrutiny report: Report 9 of 2024 – Report Snapshot, 10 October 2024, p. 4.

[65]PJCHR, Human rights scrutiny report: Report 9 of 2024 – Report Snapshot, 10 October 2024, p. 5.

[66]PJCHR, Human rights scrutiny report: Report 9 of 2024 – Report Snapshot, 10 October 2024, p. 5.

[67]PJCHR, Human rights scrutiny report: Report 9 of 2024, 10 October 2024, p. 65.

[68]Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny Digest 13 of 2024, 9 October 2020.

[69]Aged Care Bill 2024, Chapter 4.

[70]Aged Care Bill 2024, clause 15.

[71]Aged Care Bill 2024, clause 14.

[72]Aged Care Bill 2024, clause 17.

[73]Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny Digest 13 of 2024, 9 October 2020, p. 3.

[74]Explanatory Memorandum, p. 70.

[75]Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny Digest 13 of 2024, 9 October 2020, p. 4 and p. 7.

[76]Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny Digest 13 of 2024, 9 October 2020, p.10.

[77]Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny Digest 13 of 2024, 9 October 2020, p.11.

[78]Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny Digest 13 of 2024, 9 October 2020, p.28.

[79]Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny Digest 13 of 2024, 9 October 2020, p.29.

[80]Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny Digest 13 of 2024, 9 October 2020, p.11.

[81]Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny Digest 13 of 2024, 9 October 2020, p.13.

[82]Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny Digest 13 of 2024, 9 October 2020, p.31.

[83]Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny Digest 13 of 2024, 9 October 2020, p.27.

[84]Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny Digest 13 of 2024, 9 October 2020, p.25.

[85]Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny Digest 13 of 2024, 9 October 2020, p.25.

[86]Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny Digest 13 of 2024, 9 October 2020, p.14.

[87]Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny Digest 13 of 2024, 9 October 2020, pp. 14–15.

[88]Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny Digest 13 of 2024, 9 October 2020, p.17.

[89]Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny Digest 13 of 2024, 9 October 2020, p.18.

[90]Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny Digest 13 of 2024, 9 October 2020, p.19.

[91]Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny Digest 13 of 2024, 9 October 2020, p.20.

[92]Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny Digest 13 of 2024, 9 October 2020, p.22.

[93]Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny Digest 13 of 2024, 9 October 2020, p.23.

[94]Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny Digest 13 of 2024, 9 October 2020, pp.23–24.