Maria Vamvakinou

The question is that amendment (1) moved by the member for Indi be agreed to.

Allegra Spender

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (8) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 4, item 2, page 97 (after line 21), after the definition of Federal cap in section 302ALA, insert:

Independent House candidate means a candidate for election to the House of Representatives, for a Division, at any time while the candidate is not endorsed by a registered political party.

Independent House candidate Divisional cap means 150% of the Divisional cap.

(2) Schedule 4, item 2, page 97 (lines 23 to 25), omit "a candidate for election to the House of Representatives, for a Division, at any time while the candidate is not endorsed by a registered political party", substitute "an Independent House candidate".

(3) Schedule 4, item 2, page 98 (lines 1 to 3), omit the definition of Independent House of Representatives by-election cap in section 302ALA, substitute:

Independent House of Representatives by-election cap, for a by-election, means:

(a) for an Independent House candidate—120% of the Independent House candidate Divisional cap that applies on the 2 day the writ for the by-election is issued; or

(b) otherwise—120% of the Divisional cap that applies on the 2 day the writ for the by-election is issued.

(4) Schedule 4, item 2, page 98 (lines 4 and 5), omit the definition of Independent House of Representatives cap in section 302ALA, substitute:

Independent House of Representatives cap means:

(a) for an Independent House candidate—the Independent House candidate Divisional cap; or

(b) otherwise—the Divisional cap.

(5) Schedule 4, item 2, page 98 (before line 6), before the definition of Independent Senate candidate or Senator in section 302ALA, insert:

Independent Senate candidate means a candidate for election to the Senate, for a State or Territory, at any time while the candidate is not endorsed by a registered political party.

(6) Schedule 4, item 2, page 98 (lines 7 to 9), omit "a candidate for election to the Senate, for a State or Territory, at any time while the candidate is not endorsed by a registered political party", substitute "an Independent Senate candidate".

(7) Schedule 4, item 2, page 98 (after line 16), after the definition of Independent Senate candidate or Senator in section 302ALA, insert:

Independent Senate candidate Senate base amount means 150% of the Senate base amount.

(8) Schedule 4, item 2, page 98 (lines 19 and 20), omit paragraph (a) of the definition of Independent Senate cap in section 302ALA, substitute:

(a) multiplying whichever of the following applies by the number of Divisions in the State or Territory:

(i) for an Independent Senate candidate—the Independent Senate candidate Senate base amount;

(ii) otherwise—the Senate base amount; and

This is a deeply problematic bill and a deeply problematic process that has been followed to push it through the House with almost no scrutiny. Despite the complexity of the legislation, despite it running to more than 200 pages and despite it being described by the minister as the largest reform to Australia's electoral laws for over 40 years, the government and the opposition voted against the bill even being considered by a committee inquiry. This is clearly a stitch-up, trying to entrench incumbency and reduce competition in our democracy. It is very telling that, aside from the minister and shadow minister, not a single member of either the Labor Party, the Liberal Party or the National Party got up to defend this bill. That says it all.

One of the biggest issues in this bill is the structural spending caps. I support spending caps in principle. As we all agree, Clive Palmer should not be able to spend more than $100 million on an election. So, on paper, the $800,000 spending cap for individual candidates seems reasonable. But, when you unpack how these caps are applied, it's clear they create a structural bias towards the major parties. Whilst an Independent is limited to spending $800,000, the major party can not only spend $800,000 promoting themselves personally with their name; they also benefit from their party's advertising for the Senate, up to $9.2 million in New South Wales, as well as their party's national spending, which can be up to $90 million overall. The structure of these caps has many loopholes, that the Labor Party could line every single street in my electorate with banners saying, 'Vote (1) Labor,' and it would not count towards a candidate's $800,000 divisional cap.

I have heard the minister describe how he didn't need to spend $800,000 on his electorate and this should be allowed for competition. But the point is that this bill entrenches unfairness in competition. And this is why the loopholes are being called by the Centre for Public Integrity, Transparency International and the Australian Democracy Network—I mean, these are hardly bodies that are sitting there not interested in electoral reform. These guys have been pushing it from long before the Labor Party agreed to do this. They all said yesterday that 'the bill will entrench major party and incumbency advantage', and they said passing it without an inquiry was 'not in the interest of the Australian public'.

While Independent MPs like me are disadvantaged by the structure of these caps, the impact on challengers is much worse. New independent candidates, selected by communities who are frustrated by major parties' failures to tackle long-term problems, face huge barriers. Most of these candidates, including most of the people on the crossbench right now, do not have a political past. They come from business. They are doctors. They are from not-for-profits or, perhaps, the public service. That is exactly the sort of diversity we want in this parliament, but it means that challengers usually don't have a big profile and will have to spend heavily to build name recognition, establish credibility and educate the electorate about their policies. In contrast, the major party can rely on the reputation of the party. They can rely on the fact that the major parties are on television practically every single day and that the major parties have consistently used public spending on advertising to promote what they do in their parties and to really build on the back of these in the national media, even if incumbent MPs, like me, have an advantage over them. So applying the same cap to Independent challengers and to incumbents is clearly not a level playing field.

This amendment seeks to address that imbalance. It raises the spending cap for non-incumbent Independent candidates in the House and allows them to spend 150 per cent of the divisional cap. An equivalent provision is made for in the Senate. This change is modelled on spending caps in New South Wales, where Independents are able to spend 1.5 times that of major parties. This amendment does not benefit a single member of this House nor a single member of this crossbench, and I think that should be noted, because I think there has been a lot of imputation, saying I'm trying to protect—this is not about me trying to protect my seat. This is about trying to make sure that we have contestability in our parliament and in our democracy, and that means competition. It does not benefit a single senator. It only benefits those who seek to challenge us, and it is about purely creating competition in our democracy.

The government could argue that this cap unfairly disadvantages major party candidates at the expense of their challengers, and I would refer them to my earlier example. This bill bakes in structural spending advantages for the major parties, which this amendment would only partly—and I hesitate to bring it forward because I know it will only partly address so many problems in this bill, but it would still make it better for challengers. (Time expired)

Steve Georganas

The question is that the amendments be agreed to. I call the member for Wentworth.

Allegra Spender

I just have a question to the minister. I actually have some other questions about amendments I couldn't put forward because, unfortunately, the drafters have not been able to deal with them in time, but I'd appreciate your response first, and then we can perhaps go to questions afterwards? Is that possible?

Patrick Gorman

I'll just outline the government's position on these amendments, which will be my contribution for this part of the consideration in detail. The government will not be supporting this amendment. The caps have been set based on evidence. Everything has been provided in briefings, in what we've seen in the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report and the explanatory memorandum, and our proposal is about limiting the arms race for everyone.

Allegra Spender

I'd like to make the observation that there was a member of the Labor Party in the Senate who left the Labor Party and joined the crossbench, and there has been quite a lot of discussion in the media about whether it was appropriate for her to stay on the crossbench, given that she was not elected on her own basis as she was elected on the basis of the party. I think that is really the point that I'm trying to make here. You could run in my seat. You could not have a candidate until the last possible moment that the election is called. You could run a candidate in my seat and you could actually not spend a single dollar with somebody's name on it as an electoral candidate, and they would still probably get, if they were from the Liberal Party, maybe a primary of 30 per cent, just on the basis of the party alone.

I cannot understand how the government—and the minister, who's obviously not listening to me, because he's having an animated conversation with somebody else, but that's his prerogative—can pretend that this is even, that this is levelling the playing field, when there is so much advantage from having those major parties behave in that case.

I'm going to ask some other questions of the minister, because I think they're important questions. I'm not sure if I am going to get an answer to them. Before I do, I want to make a personal apology. I named a staff member in my comments yesterday and I shouldn't have done that. I apologise unreservedly for that. I should reserve all my comments to the ministers and the people who are responsible.

My questions are about nominated entities. The government is making the case that this fair, that we are 'all on the same playing field', and pieces like that. My concern is that the government and the opposition have these nominated entities which have perhaps up to $100 million in them; we don't know how much money is in them. My understanding of the legislation, which is still imperfect because I only got it on Friday, means that these entities are able to give the Labor Party or the Liberal Party any amount of money that they want. They're not subject to the donation caps that any other member is subject to.

To use a sporting analogy, because there are a lot of people who love sports in this area, my question is: if every team in the AFL had to comply with a salary cap but the two teams that had been going the longest—let's call them Melbourne and Geelong, not the Swans—didn't have the same salary caps, would that be seen as fair? That is my question, really, to the government in relation to this: is it okay that because the McCormick Foundation—which potentially holds up to $100 million worth of assets—was built and grew wealthy before this legislation, it can make any donation of any amount it wants to the Liberal Party, for example, and is not subject to any sorts of donation caps at all? So anyone who wants to give me or anyone else money—even in a party that has not been established—can't give more than $20,000, but it's okay for the McCormick Foundation, because it has been around for ages and reportedly has $100 million in assets, to give as much money as it wants to the Liberal Party.

Similarly in the case of the Labor Party, there are institutions that can give as much money as they want. Do you think that's fair, or should these institutions—if we're really going to level the playing field—perhaps be subject to the same donation caps as everybody else is in this country? It's a genuine question. Why are there no donation caps on the assets of these organisations, these nominated entities, which are not the Labor Party or the Liberal Party? They're entities close to them but they're not the same thing. Why should they be able to give unlimited donations?

Why should everybody else not be able to have these sorts of donations? Or why is there not some sort of management? If you don't have a nominated entity, why don't you for instance get to have a higher donation cap so that there's a chance for, again, challengers to build up their war chest, like the McCormick Foundation and the Labor Party's entities? That's a question I still do not have an answer to, and I think it goes to the heart of why I don't think this is an extremely fair bill.

Helen Haines

():  I just wanted to check whether the minister will be responding straightaway to the questions put by the member for Wentworth or whether I can ask another question and he'll take them all as a whole?

Steve Georganas

I can't direct who stands on their feet. I can just continue the procedures for the day. I take it you're on your feet, so the member for Indi has the call.

Helen Haines

Okay. I will take it that the minister has held those questions in his mind. Can I add one more to them—a very simple question? The minister just said in his remarks in response to the member for Wentworth's amendments that the government was acting on evidence in order to arrive at the metric for the caps. I've seen no such evidence. The JSCEM report supported both recommended donation caps and expenditure caps in principle but did not nominate an amount, so I would like the minister to give us the evidence that the government have used to arrive at these numbers, please.

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Warringah be agreed to.

Kate Chaney

Under standing order 143, I move:

That Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 and the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Communications) Bill 2024 be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Reform for consideration and an advisory report by 3 March 2025.

Karen Andrews

Is the motion seconded?

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Farrer be agreed to.

Rebekha Sharkie

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on the sheet revised 4 November 2024, as circulated in my name together:

(1) Clause 600, page 540 (line 25), omit "31 January 2029", substitute "the third anniversary of the commencement of this Act".

(2) Clause 600, page 540 (line 29), omit "no later than 31 March 2030", substitute "within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister".

Providers will newly be able to charge a maximum refundable deposit for residential aged care of $750,000 indexed over time, up from $550,000, without seeking separate regulatory approval. Depending on when each person enters aged care, a couple could be required to pay deposits of up to $1.5 million between them, as well as significant ongoing fees for each person.

I won't detain the House for too long, but I would just like it to make it clear that this will have profound impacts on people's lives. My constituent, Betty, whose husband is living with dementia has written to me. She said: 'Many people have mentioned that my husband should be in a nursing home, and I realise that this will be necessary, but I cope as long as I can. My concern is that the ridiculously high entrance cost proposed will force carers, many women like me, to struggle on as a carer at home, largely invisible. To me, this is a feminist argument—a carer role for children and then for aged relatives, with a token reward. I've been saving hard to have the nursing home upfront fee, but there's no way I could save $750,000. This is a ridiculously high amount. I don't have to pay, apart from private insurance, when he is in hospital, as he is ill. I can't see a difference, to be honest. It is not a universal service that we will all use when we are deemed old. It is for those who need specialist care. It's not a hotel. Comparisons of that with being the normal cost of living is highly offensive. I also wonder if I should place him in a nursing home earlier rather than later, before July next year, which is very soon, as soon as he comes under the new rules—a cruel decision to have to make.'

I note that if Betty and her husband were able to save the $750,000, which is what it potentially could be—this will no doubt, I think, become the default minimum refundable deposit—it will be expended on her husband's refundable deposit. This will likely leave Betty with few savings should she later require high-level care, and I suspect, as Betty has said to my office, that this burden will be borne predominantly by women. I think this is very true.

Over a five-year period, at a conservative six per cent rate, a provider of residential aged care will earn $253,669 in compound interest on the refundable deposit of $750,000, and providers will newly be permitted to retain two per cent of that refundable deposit. That's up to $75,000. So, as well as the compound interest, we're looking at a contribution of potentially $328,000. The parliament is being asked to provide a huge windfall for operators on an understanding that the additional capital will be spent and maintained on improving facilities, but it's not exactly clarified exactly how the government intends to monitor that. What we need to make sure is that it's not spent on Lamborghinis or Birkin bags—and we have seen media reports of that—and that it's actually spent on improving facilities. That is why I am moving these amendments. I commend these amendments to the House.

Anika Wells

I thank the member for Mayo for her genuine and ongoing advocacy for older Australians, particularly in the electorate of Mayo. I confirm that the government supports the amendment with respect to the act review. This bill will deliver once-in-a-generation reform that will have a profound impact on the lives of older Australians and their families and carers, aged-care workers and providers. We agree it's important that the review into the operation of the act is brought forward to ensure that it is delivering on its intended purpose, to create a forward-looking aged-care system that upholds the rights of older Australians receiving aged-care services.

Aside from the member for Mayo, who has worked tirelessly in this space for many, many years, I also recognise the stakeholders who have advocated for this amendment in particular, including National Seniors Australia, the Older Persons Advocacy Network, Council on the Ageing, Dementia Australia, Carers Australia, Catholic Health Australia, Australian College of Nursing and Wongaburra, an aged-care provider in Beaudesert in the electorate of Wright. I note this was also a recommendation put by the opposition in the community affairs committee report on the bill.

Question negatived.

Rebekha Sharkie

by leave—I move amendments (3) and (4) on the sheet revised 4 November 2024, as circulated in my name, together:

(3) Clause 601, page 541 (line 3), omit "fifth", substitute "third".

(4) Clause 601, page 541 (after line 4), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) Without limiting subsection the matters to be covered by the review, the review must:

(a) have regard to the objects of the Act; and

(b) consider the following matters:

(i) the operation of the Statement of Rights and the Statement of Principles;

(ii) the effectiveness of the Act in delivering the objects, including enabling individuals to exercise choice and control;

(iii) the effectiveness of the Act in embedding the role of supporters in the aged care system;

(iv) the extent of unmet demand for funded aged care services in a home or community setting;

(v) the duration of waiting periods from application to service commencement for funded aged care services in a home or community setting;

(vi) the effectiveness of the governance (under Chapter 5) and regulatory mechanisms (under Chapter 6) of the aged care system in overseeing and ensuring the quality of funded aged care services;

(vii) the effectiveness of the Act in ensuring equitable access to funded aged care services for individuals, regardless of their location, background and life experience;

(viii) the effect of Part 3 of Chapter 4 (about individual fees and contributions) on the sustainability of the aged care system, service usage and outcomes for individuals accessing funded aged care services;

(ix) the use of refundable accommodation deposits and daily accommodation payments;

(x) the proportion of aged care accommodation payments being charged at the maximum accommodation payment amounts;

(xi) the proportion of registered providers who charge an accommodation payment approved under section 290 (that is, an approved accommodation payment that is higher than the maximum accommodation payment amount);

(xii) the quality and timeliness of data published about the performance of the aged care system.

This relates to clause 601, the statutory review. I have heard from key stakeholders, including National Seniors and Council of the Ageing, that the planned mechanisms for statutory review of the act after five years of operation are insufficient and too distant into the future. I've therefore moved amendments (3) and (4) in my name to require review of the operation of the act within six months after the third anniversary of the commencement of the act, with a report to the parliament to be tabled within 15 sitting days of the report being given to the minister.

I've also consulted with Council of the Ageing, COTA, regarding the inclusion of proposed terms of reference for the act's statutory review being an inclusive rather than exclusive list of matters required to be considered on review based on stakeholder feedback. They include the effectiveness of the act in delivering objects, including choice and control, for individuals; receiving funding for aged-care services; whether the act has been successful in embedding rights, principles and supported decision-making as the foundations of aged care delivered in Australia; whether the level of support and greater investment in support at home has improved access and reduced waiting times for individuals to receive care; the effectiveness of arrangements for regulation and governance of aged care; and the impact on ensuring the quality of funded aged-care services.

In the context of once-in-a-generation reform in the aged-care system coming out of a once-in-a-generation—we hope—royal commission, with huge impacts on older Australians' rights and the quality and cost of care, the importance cannot be overemphasised of building a meaningful statutory review to ensure that the effectiveness of the scheme is rigorously assessed so that improvements can be identified and promptly implemented when needed. I commend these amendments to the House.

Anika Wells

I thank the member for Mayo for her ongoing advocacy. I note, with respect to RAD reviews, we have committed to a phase-out of refundable accommodation deposits by 2035, following a review of sector readiness for this transition, which will be in 2029-30. The Aged Care Taskforce, which brought together aged-care stakeholders, experts and providers, found that time is needed to manage the transition away from refundable accommodation deposits and that a review should be undertaken in 2030. A change in the timeframe as recommended by the taskforce was not a key issue identified in the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee report on the Aged Care Bill.

With respect to the act review, we do agree it's important. We think the member for Mayo is correct on this. We think the review into the operation of the act can be brought forward to ensure it is delivering on its intended purpose to create a forward-looking aged-care system that will uphold the rights of older Australians receiving aged-care services. It was also a recommendation put forward by the opposition in the community affairs committee report on the bill. I thank the member for Mayo.

Question agreed to.

Sophie Scamps

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Clause 5, page 3 (line 3), after "Cultural Rights", insert ", the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights".

(2) Clause 7, page 14 (after line 2), after the definition of cost, insert:

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights means the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights done at New York on 16 December 1966.

Note: The Covenant is in Australian Treaty Series 1980 No. 23 ([1980] ATS 23) and could in 2024 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on 7 the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au).

The amendments I am introducing today go to the objects of the Aged Care Bill 2024. Section 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act provides that statutes should be interpreted in accordance with their objects and that all other provisions of the bill are to be read as far as is possible as being designed to carry out these objects.

There can be no understating, therefore, of the importance of getting the objects provisions in the legislation right. Currently the bill's objects clause states, among other things, the objects are to:

give effect to Australia's obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights—

the ICESCR—

and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities—

the CRPD. However, there is no reference in the objects to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The explanatory memorandum to the bill states:

This is because the objects specify only those conventions that the Bill upholds in reference to the External Affairs power, but it does not mean that the Bill does not endeavour to uphold these other international conventions.

Basically, the bill only includes those international human rights treaties that the minister considers relevant to the constitutional authority of the Aged Care Bill.

The Law Council takes a different view. In its submission on the bill's exposure draft, the Law Council queried the department's assessment that only the ICESCR and the CRPD are relevant to provide the constitutional foundation for the Aged Care Bill and to manage associated legal risk. The Law Council went on to say that various provisions in the bill may carry the risk that they do not have a proper constitutional foundation because there may not be a proper foundation for them in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. These include the right to be free from all forms of violence, neglect or abuse and the right to be treated with dignity. Only half of Australians over the age of 65 are living with a disability. To rely only on a treaty relating to disability to give the bill its constitutional foundation is a risk.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the other hand, applies to all persons and will eliminate this risk if incorporated into the bill. After all, the report of the aged care royal commission described aged care in Australia as 'a sad and shocking system that diminishes Australia as a nation' and said it tells a 'shocking tale of neglect'. It was the royal commission report that shocked the nation. The ICCPR is a foundational international human rights treaty, and it needs to be incorporated into what is, after all, a bill which seeks to establish a rights based framework for the older Australian.

Since publishing this amendment yesterday I've been contacted by Australia's Council on the Ageing, COTA Australia, expressing their appreciation for it. In their view, it will bolster the scope of powers the act sits upon. If we do truly want a bill that is based firmly on the rights of all older Australians, I ask for all my colleagues in this House to support this simple yet commonsense amendment.

Long debate text truncated.

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Wannon be agreed to.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Petrie be agreed to.

Milton Dick

The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Fairfax be agreed to.