Posts

The Broken Aged Care Complaint System

,

I questioned the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission on the severe problems within the aged Home Care Package system, highlighting the specific case of the Smith family (with their permission).

The Smiths had $3,000 taken from their package and paid to a contractor for incomplete tree trimming. The Commission dismissed their complaint without explanation, leaving them out of pocket, which severely impacted their health and forced them to cancel necessary medical appointments.

Despite assurances from the minister’s staff that the issue would be resolved and funds reimbursed within five months, no contact was made with the family. Minister Chisholm and departmental officials agreed to follow up and contact my office regarding this breakdown.

I raised concerns that upcoming co-payment policies, with service costs potentially exceeding $100 an hour, would make essential care unaffordable for aged pensioners.

Departmental representatives responded that co-contributions will be a small percentage for pensioners (5% to 17.5% depending on the service category), and that the government is cracking down on unreasonable pricing while funding major care shifts.

The problem appears to be finally resolving but only after repeated interventions from my officers. This is not how it should work for the thousands of recipients being ripped off.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. It’s good to see you, Mr Comley. My questions are for the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission on problems with the aged Home Care Package, please. Late last year in Senate estimates, before this committee, I raised the case of the Smith family. Under their package, they’re entitled to some assistance in minor property maintenance. They needed some minor trimming of half a tree and a few branches of another on their property, which was not completed, yet they found that $3,000 had been taken out of their package and given to the contractor without discussion between the Smiths and the service administrator of the package. The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission closed off their complaint and refused to even discuss it with the Smiths, with no explanation given. Isn’t this elder abuse by a government agency that is supposed to help older Australians, not abuse them? What’s the cover up, and why was $3,000 paid for next to nothing?  

ACTING CHAIR: I’m not sure about the appropriateness of responding to individual complaints or issues. I think characterising them is one thing, but referring to individual cases is quite different.  

Senator ROBERTS: We have permission from the Smiths.  

ACTING CHAIR: We don’t have that, and the department don’t have that.  

Senator ROBERTS: How typical is this?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Let me try and respond to you. Sometimes these cases are very complex. There is often miscommunication. There are different versions of events from providers versus older people. I appreciate—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure you’re right.  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Sorry? What did you say?  

ACTING CHAIR: Let the official speak.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m just backing her up. I’m sure you’re right; it would be complex.  

Ms Hefren-Webb: And so we do our best to understand the circumstances—what’s happened, what’s gone wrong—and look at what we can do to restore people to make up for what’s happened to them and find an equitable solution. We do our best efforts. Obviously, I won’t speak about the individual case, because I don’t have permission from those people to speak. But cases like this, where people are quoted different amounts for different pieces of work and then may misapprehend what was going to be done, what’s happened with their package et cetera, are not unusual cases. And we do try and reach a sensible resolution. All our complaints are subject to review and appeal, so if people aren’t happy with where we’ve resolved a matter, they do have an opportunity to first ask for an internal review and to then seek external review if they’re still not comfortable.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. And I’m not pretending some of these cases are simple, but it’s badly affected the health of the two innocent senior citizens, who deserve an answer and for money to be put back into their package. A staff member of the minister contacted my office and assured us that the issue would be resolved and that money would be reimbursed quickly. The result, though, was that nothing happened, not even contact with the family. Five months have passed since the promise was made. Because of the depleted funds, the Smiths had to cancel some medical appointments that they could no longer afford.  

ACTING CHAIR: Again, Senator Roberts, the department is not going to be able to respond to this individual case in this setting.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, if I’m told by the minister’s staff that they’ve contacted the Smiths and they haven’t—  

Ms Hefren-Webb: I’m not aware of what the minister’s staff may have said, but I’m happy to go away and provide you with what advice I can about what engagement there has been in this particular case.  

Senator Chisholm: Just to add to that, we don’t want to be dismissive of the issue, and I’m happy to follow up with the minister’s office to see what’s gone on there. But I think we’re just uncomfortable responding to a couple’s circumstance in this forum. But I assure you that we’ll do what we can to follow up appropriately and ensure that we can do what we can, where possible, to resolve it. But that’s knowing that some of these cases can be difficult.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’d be great, Minister. Thank you. Could you contact my office?  

Senator Chisholm: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: The concept of co-payments is to be instituted into the aged-care packages. That will mean the cancellation of many services needed by package holders, because they’ll become unaffordable. The proposal is that many services will need to be paid for at more than $100 an hour—often more than twice the market labour rate. An aged pensioner cannot afford that. What are you doing about this situation?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: The department might wish to speak about the policy on contributions. But we are undertaking extensive work around unreasonable pricing. We’ve been in contact with a number of providers where we have concerns that their pricing is unreasonable and we’ve asked them to provide us with an explanation for how they’ve reached their prices. In some cases, they’ve agreed to adjust their price and have even provided refunds. So, certainly, we’re dealing with those cases on an individual basis, but the question of contributions is a policy question, so I don’t know—  

Ms Stewart: I’m happy to start. Thank you, Ms Hefren-Webb. In terms of the policy on co-contribution, that was a recommendation that was made by a taskforce to set co-contribution rates at a level where people who could afford to contribute would contribute to their aged care. We work very closely with Ms Hefren-Webb, and under the new legislation providers are required to be transparent in their prices, as well as reasonable. Older people can go and compare prices, and when they feel that they are not reasonable they can come to us. The last thing I’ll say before handing to my other colleagues is that the government has recently made an announcement for about $1 billion of funding to enable a change in the policy settings so that government will now pay for a category of service, which includes showering and assistance with dressing and continence. That’s been a significant announcement. I’ll hand over to Ms Trainor to talk in more detail. 

Ms Trainor: The other observation there is that there is a difference between the service price—so when you talked about the $100 per hour—and the co-contribution, which is the proportion of that service price that the participant rather than the government pays. So, when you talk about a pensioner, for a full-rate pensioner, those rates are five per cent of services that are in the independence service list category, and then 17.5 per cent of everyday living, which are our cleaning- and gardening-type services. So whilst you may have a service price of $100 an hour what a person pays out of pocket is a very small share of that actual amount.  

Senator ROBERTS: I get that. Thank you for your patience. I look forward to you calling our office. 

/0 Comments/by

The $3 Billion Senior Squeeze

,

I recently asked questions about the government’s decision to cut the private health insurance rebate for seniors. Senator Green and government officials said that the rebate will now be based solely on income rather than age, aligning support across all cohorts. The government expects to save $3 billion from this measure, which it says will be reinvested into aged care and public hospitals.

It’s estimated that 3.1 million people will be affected, experiencing an average rebate reduction (and effectively a premium increase) of $250. Additionally, it’s predicted that approximately 44,000 people may drop out of private health insurance entirely.

I expressed my concern that forcing seniors into the public system would worsen existing hospital shortages. Amazingly, I was told that the impact on the public system would be minimal (less than 1%) and spread out. It was also highlighted that $24.4 billion was being invested into the public health system, adding that workforce and bed management are ultimately the responsibilities of state and territory governments.

I accused the government of punishing seniors to fund wasteful spending and a “socialist agenda.”

Senator Green rejected this statement, framing the move as a necessary offset to fund record investments in aged care.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I want to talk about the private health insurance rebate being cut. It was announced in the recent budget that the rebate for premiums paid by seniors towards private health insurance would cease; why? Is this a socialist agenda, Minister?

Senator Green: No, it’s not. We did go through this quite lengthily this morning. I don’t plan to add too much to what the minister had to say in response to questions from Senator Ruston, other than to reiterate that, under the proposed changes, all Australians will now receive the same private healthcare support based on their income and not on their age. What we’ve set out is that, through this budget and as a consequence of this decision, we will be investing over $3 billion in delivering more aged care beds, more packages and better care for older Australians.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to get on to some specifics after this next question. Why does the government wish to punish seniors, most of whom have chosen to opt out of the public health system and pay premiums to receive private health treatment, by now wanting to make them pay even more than they currently pay?

Senator Green: I reject that assertion in your question. We are investing a record amount of funding into improving the healthcare system, particularly for aged care and older Australians, and that’s why we’ve made this decision. Of course, as you will stand up in the Senate many times over the next couple of months and decry the spending from our government, we know that it’s important to offset decisions that we have to make. That is why we have said that this decision will benefit older Australians through the aged care system.

Senator ROBERTS: How can you deny that older Australians on private health cover will not be paying more?

Senator Green: We’ve gone through this at length this morning. If you have a question about the impact or the policy decision, I will direct that to the officials. But I can say to you that, through this budget, we are making record investments in healthcare and aged care

Senator ROBERTS: And older Australians will be paying more, which is a point that I’ll get to in a minute, and this is during a cost-of-living crisis. Currently, how many seniors, effectively, will be forced to pay more for private health cover or enter the public system? Do you have any modelling?

Mr Hawkins: As we discussed this morning, 3.1 million people will be affected by the change in the rebate. We also put on record—we talked about this at length this morning—that our modelling would suggest that potentially about 44,000 might drop out of having cover and, therefore, would then no longer engage with the PHI system.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I was after. What would be the effect of the extra load being placed on the public health system? Hospitals are already short of beds now.

Mr Hawkins: As I’ve said, our modelling would indicate that it’s a less than one per cent impact on the public health system and, again, as we went through in quite a lot of detail this morning, that would be spread across the system, with not everyone needing to use the system at any one time. Also, we might find that people decide to opt out of PHI but then self-fund any care that they need.

Senator ROBERTS: We’re already critically short of beds in many hospitals due to mass immigration. Post COVID injections, cancer detection has increased dramatically. Cancer deaths have decreased, because of treatment. But the available beds have decreased. This is going to add more strain to the public health system.

Ms Street: An additional $24.4 billion has also been invested into the public health system, bringing it up to $220 billion over the five years. So, yes, there might be some ‘additional’ but, as we’ve said, it would be less than one per cent. We think that estimation is at the higher end, because we do think, potentially, people will self select into private, or they may be people who are less likely to use the services anyway, so a number of factors contribute to that number. So we think this investment and this measure will have a minimal impact on that element.

Senator ROBERTS: What would be the total value of the extra premiums raised by those who choose to stay in the private health system?

Mr Hawkins: We’ve calculated that there will be an average impact of $250 on those who will have their rebate reduced. Everyone was to have access to the rebate, but it’s the size of the rebate that is reducing, and our average calculation is about $250.

Senator ROBERTS: How much does the government plan to save by refusing to rebate premiums for older Australians, or by cutting them back?

Mr Hawkins: By cutting the rebate, we are looking at $3 billion.

Senator ROBERTS: Has the government modelled the extra cost to the public system by absorbing older Australians, who are more likely to require major healthcare in their elder years?

Mr Hawkins: No, we do not have that specific level of modelling. But as I’ve said, we have looked at and modelled what we think the impact would be, and that’s under one per cent.

Senator ROBERTS: What about the chronic shortage of beds, doctors, nurses, specialists and allied health professionals in public hospitals?

Senator Green: That’s veering a little bit into outcome 1, Public hospitals. But I’ve got Caitlin O’Brien from our public hospital team here, if you want to talk about the investment that the government is putting in through the NHRA agreement that we’ve put in place. Do you want to cover that?

Ms O’Brien: As Ms Street has said, an additional $219.6 billion over five years has been invested into the state- and territory-run public hospital system. Your questions in relation to workforce capacity and beds are best directed to state and territory governments who, under the National Health Reform Agreement agreed on 30 January, are very clearly listed as the stewards of their system.

Senator ROBERTS: Would you not have assessed that, though, before making the changes?

Ms Street: As we’ve indicated, we think the ‘additional’ is less than one per cent, and we think that estimation is at the higher end. So, in terms of the fiscal impact, it will depend on the services that people need and the conditions that they’re seeking treatment for.

Senator Green: The officials have made this point but, again, we’re investing almost $25 billion into the hospital system over the next five years.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister Clare O’Neill said, reportedly, that the budget is deliberately hitting older people. It’s a tax grab because you’re paying for so much waste in government.

Senator Green: I don’t think that’s what Minister O’Neill would have said. I think you might be verballing her.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m just going on reports. It is a fact that the budget is also hitting young people. What I’m getting at is that this is a cover for the massive waste within your government spending, and now you’re going to ask older people to share in that.

Senator Green: No. We are making record investments in once-in-a-generation reforms in aged care and healthcare. That includes investing almost $25 billion into public hospitals, funding the states and territories to do the very important work that they do in making sure that the public hospital system is free.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a fact, Minister, that older people will be paying more.

Senator Green: We’ve changed the rebate so that now it’s means tested, so it’s based on income now. We can take you through how that might impact certain cohorts, but we have changed the rebate so that now it is means tested on income.

Senator RUSTON: On a point of clarification, Minister, you just said that you’ve changed the rebate so that it’s means tested on income. Are you suggesting that it’s currently not means tested on income?

Senator Green: No, that’s not what I said.

Senator RUSTON: You just did say that.

Senator Green: I’m not going to go back over the evidence that Senator Gallagher gave to you this morning. What I’m saying to Senator Roberts is that there is a means test for the rebate that is based on income.

Senator RUSTON: Now?

Senator Green: How semantic do you want to get?

Senator RUSTON: You just said that it is now going to be means tested. It has always been means tested.

ACTING CHAIR: I think, as the secretary has said, it is ‘solely’.

Mr Comley: ‘Solely means tested’. In fact, it hasn’t always been means tested.

Senator RUSTON: It was means tested prior to this change.

Mr Comley: I think it was, but it was not means tested on introduction in 2000.

Senator RUSTON: It has been means tested up until now.

/by

Aged Care: Rights, Not Rules

,

In this session, I question the Aged Care Safety & Quality Commissioner on why some Commonwealth-funded aged-care facilities are banning family visitors without a legal or public health mandate. Many constituents are raising this issue, and I wanted to find out what was the lawful basis for these “operational discretions.”

I was pleased to get a direct admission from Ms. Metz that there is no legal basis under the Aged Care Act for a provider to unilaterally ban a visitor. In fact, the Act explicitly protects the resident’s right to have visitors.

The ACQSC confirmed that they view an unjustified visitor ban as a serious breach of residents’ rights.

I questioned why funding continues to flow to these providers while they are under investigation for unlawful bans. Ms. Hefren-Webb clarified that while they don’t control the “funding lever” (which sits with the Department), they do have the authority to pursue civil penalties and compliance notices.

It was concerning to hear from Mr. Day that the Department hasn’t issued explicit guidance to providers telling them they can’t use visitor bans as a lazy substitute for proper staff discipline or complaints management.

The Commission could not provide immediate data on visitor ban complaints or subsequent enforcement actions, and took these questions on notice.

We must ensure that our elderly are not isolated from their loved ones just because a provider finds a family member “difficult.”

– Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Ms Hefren-Webb: Hi, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think my questions are fairly straightforward, so we should be able to move through them pretty quickly. On what lawful basis does the ACQSC permit Commonwealth funded aged-care facilities to impose visitor bans where there is no public health order, no tribunal decision or no resident request?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Can you just repeat that last bit of your question? Where do we allow them to impose visitor bans where there is no—  

Senator ROBERTS: No public health order, no tribunal decision or no resident request.  

Ms Hefren-Webb: I’ll have to take that question on notice. I think. Is there a specific circumstance you’re referring to?  

Senator ROBERTS: No—I don’t want to bring it up now but constituents are asking us. Does the ACQSC accept that a provider may unilaterally ban a family member as a matter of operational discretion? If so, where is that power derived from in law or regulation?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: I might ask Ms Metz to come forward who heads up our Sector Capability and Regulatory Strategy area. I am aware that there are cases where family members are alleged to have caused issues or disruption, and that’s been the subject of the service, maybe, seeking that they don’t attend, but I’m not aware of a ban per se. I’ll just see if Ms Metz has anything to contribute.  

Senator ROBERTS: What I’d like to know is where their power is derived from in law and legislation. 

Mr Metz: Under the Aged Care Act, residents have a right to visitors and people who are important to them. There’s no legal basis under the Aged Care Act for a visitor to be banned. In fact, it’s the opposite, that people have the right to have visitors. We often, through our complaints process, will work through some of those difficult issues that Ms Hefren-Webb mentioned, where providers have difficult situations with certain family members. We do work through those, with both the providers and the families, to resolve those issues.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many complaints has ACQSC received, since 1 January, relating to family or visitor bans in residential aged-care facilities?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: We would have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine. Of those complaints, how many resulted in enforcement action, compliance notices or findings of noncompliance with the aged-care quality standards?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Again, we’ll have to take that one on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can understand that. Does ACQSC consider the imposition of an unjustified visitor ban to be a serious breach of residents’ rights and if not, why not? I think you’ve already answered that.  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Yes, we would consider it to be a serious breach of rights.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is Commonwealth funding continued to providers while they are subject to unresolved complaints regarding unlawful visitor bans?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: We have complaints that cover a wide range of matters. Our focus is on working with the provider and the complainant and their family and carers to resolve those matters as quickly as possible, to make necessary restoration, if needed, to undertake mediation or other activities. We have no responsibility for the funding of the facilities. That’s the department. Our enforcement activities go to things like enforceable undertaking, civil penalties et cetera. There’s no direct link between if we consider that a provider has failed to respect someone’s rights and a funding lever. We would be taking action through other means.  

Senator ROBERTS: You have the authority to do that.  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has the department of health issued any guidance to providers clarifying that visitor bans cannot be used as a substitute for proper complaints management or staff discipline processes?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: I’m not aware whether or not there’s been direct guidance on that matter. We can follow that up for you though.  

Mr Day: We haven’t provided explicit guidance on that specific issue. We have provided guidance on the impact of the statements of rights that came into effect with the new act, including, as Ms Metz indicated, the right to have access to individuals that are important to an aged-care resident.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question, Chair. In the context of the new Aged Care Act and rights based reforms, what steps are being taken to ensure residents are not isolated from family due to provider convenience, disputes or risk aversion?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: We have a number of mechanisms by which we are assessing the extent to which providers are respecting the rights of residents. Obviously, complaints are one source of information that we can follow up on. We also receive reports—  

Senator ROBERTS: Those are complaints direct to you?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Yes, that’s correct, as well as serious incident reports that come through to us. We also, as I mentioned before, undertake audits of all residential care facilities every three years. In that, we will be interviewing a number of residents, family members and staff to make sure that residents’ rights are being upheld and respected. We also receive anonymous complaints, tip-offs and whistleblowing. So there are a range of ways that those matters can come to our attention. If we were made aware that someone’s right to have family or friends or loved ones visit them was being impeded, we would take that extremely seriously.  

Senator ROBERTS: Where do you have offices around the country? If someone in Central Queensland made a complaint, how would you address it? Through the phone?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Initially, we do address matters over the phone. But, if the matter raises significant safety concerns for us, we will send a team, and we can do an unannounced visit of a facility. We have staff who are trained to go and assess what’s happening, find out, investigate. Our staff are based in all the capitals around Australia. In that case, if it were Central Queensland, we’d send a team probably from our Brisbane based staff. 

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I want to put on the record that I rushed my questions because of another deadline, but I want to acknowledge the three respondents. They’ve been very prompt and concise with their answers. Thank you very much.  

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts, for using your eight minutes very efficiently for us. That’s very generous of you today.  

/2 Comments/by

When Care Turns Into Exploitation

,

I spoke with Ms. Liz Hefren-Webb and raised the issue of overcharging by service providers, which is depleting the limited funds available through Aged Care packages.

I highlighted the case of David and Sandra Smith, whose package was debited $3,000 for a small, incomplete gardening job. As a result, they were unable to access certain medical services because they could not afford them. Their complaints to the Commission fell on deaf ears; the Commission provided no explanation for its decision and refused to discuss the matter with the Smiths.

I also raised the case of Mr. Garry Bayliss, who had $14,000 taken from his My Aged Care account simply to replace some timber railings on a fence. Again, the Commission failed to take any action to remedy the situation.

Ms. Hefren-Webb suggested sending the details to the Agency for re-examination. I also raised concerns about the proposed introduction of co-payments into Aged Care packages, which will reduce the actual services provided. Many recipients cannot afford these additional costs, with some services charged at rates of $100 per hour or more. I stated that these shortcomings do not constitute quality care and amount to institutional elder abuse.

– Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. Since the introduction of personalised aged-care packages, there has been an abject failure, it seems, of monitoring how funds allocated are actually spent. This is
one of the major failings of the administration of the NDIS that may well bankrupt Australia and be responsible for the death of vulnerable Australians. My question is specifically about the case of David and Sandra Smith. Under their package, they are entitled to some assistance in minor property maintenance. They needed some minor trimming of half a tree and a few branches of another on the property. That was not even completed. They found that $3,000 had been taken out of their package and given to the contractor without discussion between the Smiths and the service administrator of the package. Having raised the issue as a complaint, the Smiths have been ignored. Because of the depleted funds, the Smiths had to cancel some medical appointments they could no longer afford. This issue is gravely affecting their health at an age when they can ill afford such events. The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission closed off their complaint and refused to even discuss it with the Smiths. They refused to even discuss it, and no explanation was given. To me, this seems like elder abuse by a government agency that is supposed to help older Australians, not abuse them. What is the cover-up, and why was $3,000 paid for next to no work?

Mr Comley: I think the commissioner will provide a response, noting, of course, that it’s difficult for us to talk about individuals in this forum. I will ask Ms Hefren-Webb to comment.

Ms Hefren-Webb: Obviously, I can’t comment on any individual case, and I don’t have any knowledge of the case you’re talking about. We receive around 10,000 complaints a year. Each of them is triaged and assessed, and we do provide a comprehensive response to people. I am not aware that we would ever refuse to provide a response, so I would be very happy to follow up the case you’re talking about.

Senator ROBERTS: So we can put you in touch with them?

Ms Hefren-Webb: That would be great. I’d be very happy to get in touch.

Senator ROBERTS: It does raise issues of accountability, the level of care and the attitude in the department.

Ms Hefren-Webb: It sounds like it’s an issue of pricing that they’re concerned about.

Senator ROBERTS: It might actually be fraud as well.

Ms Hefren-Webb: Potentially. I think the third-most-common complaint we receive around home care is about pricing of services. We do investigate those complaints and we do follow up to see what has driven the
particular pricing. You weren’t here earlier when I said we will compare providers and, if another provider is offering the same service for a lot less, we will ask the provider to explain how they arrived at that price.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you normally get quotes?

Ms Hefren-Webb: We don’t get quotes; we ask the provider how they have come up with their quote.

Senator ROBERTS: So you do not insist on a second quote, but you ask them the source of their quote?

Ms Hefren-Webb: It’s the provider who is managing the package. If there’s a price that the consumer feels is excessive, we will investigate how that’s come about. That’s our role. If we suspect that there is a fraudulent
aspect, we will obviously refer that through to the department, because they’re responsible for fraud and assurance and we’re responsible for compliance with the standards.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. We will send the contact details.

Ms Hefren-Webb: That would be great.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you check on notice if you have dealt with this or if Aged Care have dealt with this? We would like to know what happened.

Ms Hefren-Webb: Will do.

Senator ROBERTS: This disgrace has badly affected the health of two innocent senior citizens who deserve an answer and money put back into their package. Is that what happens when something is found to be incorrect, wrong or unfair?

Ms Hefren-Webb: I think the department has responsibility for dealing with fraud and how that is dealt with in terms of the individual’s package.

Senator ROBERTS: If there’s something wrong specifically, is the money given back to the aged person?

Ms Snow: I think there would be a range of options. If it’s okay, it might be best to work with the commission really closely to have a look at the case, have a look at what’s been undertaken to date and come back to you.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you. I see the caveat, but, if appropriate, can money be put back into their account?

Ms Snow: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Then there is the case of Mr Gary Bayliss, who had $14,449 taken from his My Aged Care account to replace some worn-out timber rails from a fence. Again the commission failed to take action to remedy the fraud. Now the minister has announced that the concept of co-payments is to be instituted into the aged-care packages. That will mean the cancellation of many services needed by package holders, because they will become unaffordable. Minister, the proposal is that many services will need to be paid for at a rate of least $100 per hour, often at more than twice the market labour rate. An age pensioner cannot afford this. From the absurd to the impossible, this is not care, as I said earlier. It’s abuse. Minister, what can you do to fix this?

Senator McCarthy: Thank you for your questions and the concerns that you’re raising on behalf of your constituents. Clearly, there are many stories there that you’re hearing that really hit at the heart of how people are
feeling in terms of their own care. I will take your questions on notice if that’s okay and get back to you with regard to that particular question.

Senator ROBERTS: Please also take on notice the bigger picture of what can be done.

Senator McCarthy: Sure.

Senator ROBERTS: Commissioner, could you take on the case of Mr Gary Bayliss?

Ms Hefren-Webb: Yes, absolutely.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. We’ll be in touch.

/by

Medicare and Bulk-Billing: One Nation’s Practical Solutions

,

Listening to everyday Australians across Queensland, I’ve heard your concerns about the rising cost of health care. When Labor first took over, they increased the Medicare rebate, boosting bulk-billing rates. But by 2025, that effect has faded. According to Cleanbill’s 2025 report, nearly 80% of GP clinics no longer bulk-bill adult patients. The percentage of bulk-billing GPs in Queensland has halved since Labor came to power, and out-of-pocket costs have risen by 9%.

Medicare is crucial for timely medical treatment, helping people get back to work faster. In the US, unpaid medical bills cause 40% of bankruptcies. One Nation won’t let that happen here. One Nation will increase the Medicare subsidy to encourage bulk-billing, funded by cracking down on Medicare and PBS fraud, which costs $3 billion a year. We’ll also delay social security, including Medicare, for new arrivals.

One Nation is committed to practical solutions for the cost-of-living crisis. We’ll reduce overseas student numbers to create more university places for Australians, especially in health disciplines, and expand bursaries for students from rural areas. While Labor offers bandaids, One Nation offers real solutions.

Transcript

In listening to everyday Australians across my home state of Queensland, one of our highest concerns is the cost of health care. This Labor government increased the Medicare rebate when they first took over. It was a long overdue move which increased the rate of Medicare bulk-billing. In 2025 the effect of that increase has worn off, much like the lustre on this government. According to Cleanbill’s 2025 report, nearly 80 per cent of GP clinics no longer bulk-bill adult patients. When Labor came to power, 26 per cent of GPs in Queensland bulk-billed. In 2025 the figure is projected to be 14 per cent—halved. As a result, the out-of-pocket cost of visiting a doctor has risen by nine per cent. 

Any economist can easily make the case for Medicare. As a national insurance policy, it matches medical treatment to the time the person needs it rather than to the time they can afford to pay for it. This optimises health care and gets the person back to the productive economy faster. 

In the United States, unpaid medical bills cause 40 per cent of all bankruptcies. One Nation will not accept that happening here. One Nation will increase the Medicare subsidy to encourage bulk-billing. This subsidy will be paid for through cracking down on Medicare fraud, estimated to cost $3 billion a year. This figure doesn’t include fraudulent loaning out of Medicare cards. Some areas in Sydney have more adults using Medicare cards than they have eligible adults. One Nation will delay the granting of social security, including Medicare, to new arrivals. That announcement will be made separately. One Nation have already announced a policy to reduce overseas student numbers and create more places for Australian children to go to university in areas where Australia needs graduates, which includes health disciplines. One Nation will expand bursaries for students to attend from the bush or to practise in regional and rural areas. While Labor offers bandaids, One Nation are offering practical solutions to the cost-of-living crisis. 

/3 Comments/by

Major parties team up to vote down Aged Care Amendment

,

Last night the major parties teamed up to vote down my amendment to the Royal Commission Response Bill which would have ensured at least one registered nurse is on duty at an aged care facility 24/7 by February instead of July.

The entire crossbench voted for my amendment including the Greens, the Jacquie Lambie network and David Pocock. Why the major parties would team up to vote down good legislation, caring for our aged should be a concern for Australians. My amendment is available here and the record of who voted for and against is available here.

/by

Where’s the death data for Aged Care Vaccinations?

, ,

I would have thought COVID data on deaths in Aged Care would be on hand for the Government, especially at Senate Estimates. Instead they’ve taken the questions on notice. I was also surprised to find that there had been no improvement in breaches of the Aged Care Quality Standards.

Transcripts

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for attending today. I have three sets of questions. The first is pretty straightforward: it’s only one question. How many aged-care residents died of COVID-19 by state per month since March 2020; and how many died in aged care within four weeks of receiving a COVID-19 injection?

Dr Murphy : I don’t think we could provide that information other than on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m happy for that.

Dr Murphy : We can certainly provide that on notice. That sort of level of detail wouldn’t be available to officials today.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you provide data by state per month on the deaths due to COVID; and the deaths within four weeks of receiving a COVID-19 vaccination?

Mr Lye : Regarding the second part of that question about the relationship to vaccinations, I think that the work that Professor Kelly’s leading may shed some light on that question but it might be harder to get than the other. But I think that we can get the other data quite simply. The second one might take a bit longer.

Senator ROBERTS: I would have thought—

Senator HUGHES: Senator Roberts, can I ask a question maybe through you for the real COVID death rate. For example, what is the death rate for people who had cancer or were in palliative care but also had COVID; did they die of COVID or did they die of the cancer that they had? When you get those figures, can we actually have a look? I know a lot of COVID deaths were put down as the person dying of COVID—as opposed to with COVID—and that other factors were involved.

Dr Murphy : As we said at the last estimates, I think that the Victorian health department did some detailed analysis on their aged-care deaths and found that 44 per cent of people who died with COVID had died primarily from another cause such as cancer or severe dementia. We always report them as COVID deaths because we want to be absolutely inclusive; however, in many of these vaccinated people who’ve had another condition, the COVID is incidental to the cause of death.

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Lye, before I move to the next question, I would have thought it would be fairly simple, given the aged-care records, to know whether or not a person died within four weeks of getting a COVID injection.

Mr Lye : I’m outside of my area of competence but, to save other officials coming up, I think the complexity is working with states and territories around settled death data, which takes some time, and then the additional linkage to the system that covers immunisation.

Dr Murphy : Yes, we certainly can link to the immunisation record, and that data analysis can be done. As you know, Senator, the TGA also does get reports of deaths reasonably close to vaccination. Many of those are considered completely coincidental and not related to the vaccination. We can explore what we can do by data linkage to see if we can come up with an answer.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d be surprised if you couldn’t tell me if someone died within four weeks of getting their injection, but anyway we’ll see what happens.

Dr Murphy : With 1,000 people per week in aged care dying and a busy immunisation program, there will definitely be some who die within a month of their injection just as a matter of course.

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that, but we’ll see if there is any trend.

CHAIR : Senator Roberts, we have to break at 11 am, so you need to conclude by then. I am just giving you a heads-up.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. I move to the second set of questions. One in three nursing homes continue to spend less than $10 a day per resident on food, despite being given an extra $10 a day by the Morrison government. How are you checking whether the cash that the government gave providers is being used for its intended purposes?

Mr Lye : I might hand over to Ms Laffan and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner on this. The short answer is that we have required people to report to us on nutrition based on that uplift in funding. Those people who hadn’t given us assurance that they would report to us have had their additional funding stopped. Then we have a process by which people who haven’t met the standard are referred to the quality and safety commissioner. I’ll let Ms Laffan give you a complete answer and then the commissioner, who is here, can give you more detail again.

Ms Laffan : As Mr Lye said, first we require providers to provide an undertaking that they will use the money with a focus on food and nutrition and then we require quarterly reporting on matters of food and nutrition. We’ve recently released the data from the first two quarters. We found that 75 per cent of providers reported on-site only spending on food and ingredients, with an average spend of $12.25 in the July quarter and $12.44 per resident per day in the quarter starting in October. Those providers that spent less than $10 per day were referred to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. Ms Anderson may be able to tell you what she has been doing with that information.

Ms Anderson : We received a list of 883 services—referred from the department—which had reported less than $10 expenditure per day on a calculated basis. We looked closely at that list and then we added some services to it on the basis of our analysis of risk. We added to it services who appeared to use only preprepared food and then added a further number who use a combination of fresh and preprepared food where they had relatively low expenditure on food and associated labour. We looked at a list of 955 services, so a larger list than came across from the department, and we made an assessment of their food and nutrition profiles.

We looked at that in the way that we assess risks generally, by looking at a number of different parameters. We looked at their relative ranking in relation to the quality indicator for unplanned weight loss and at the top percentile of concern there. We looked at the relative number of complaints that we had received about that service in relation to food and nutrition and rated those low, medium and high. We also looked at any findings of noncompliance that we had made about those services in relation to the standard in the Aged Care Quality Standards specifically relating to food, 4(3)(f), which says: ‘Where meals are provided, they are varied and of suitable quality and quantity.’

On the basis of that analysis of the 905, 4.5 per cent of those services were rated as high risk for noncompliance with the expectations in relation to food and nutrition, and another 41.3 per cent were rated at medium risk. The balance were rated at low risk, or they had not yet submitted their quality indicator data which meant that we weren’t able to do a full risk profile. We then looked at the high- and medium-rated risk services. Those services we rated as having a high-risk profile will be prioritised in our monitoring schedule in terms of their compliance specifically with that requirement in the quality standards. I won’t go into more detail about that because if we are to undertake a visit, our visits are unannounced. But I can say that there will be a greater intensity in the monitoring that we undertake of those services. Services which have been rated as high or medium risk will be required to participate in an education program that we’re currently putting together which will give them more information and be clearer about the expectations that the Australian community has of them in relation to food, nutrition and the dining experience. We’ll be expecting both staff and management to participate in those educational sessions.

Senator ROBERTS: Would it be fair to say that they know they’re being watched?

Ms Anderson : Yes, that would be accurate.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

Senator WATT: Do the high-risk facilities—I’m not going to ask you to name them individually—tend to be major providers or smaller independent providers? Is it a mixture? Is there any sort of trend there?

Ms Anderson : I’m sorry, I really don’t have access to that detail. It is an interesting question, I agree with you, but I really can’t answer it today, I’m sorry. I’ll have to take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand you measure quality and safety standards—has the rate of breaches of quality and safety standards improved specifically? Can you quantify it?

Ms Anderson : No, there’s been no material improvement in assessed compliance with the Aged Care Quality Standards. However, it’s a complicated question to answer succinctly, because we have been improving our capability as a risk based regulator, which means that we are more able to identify the higher risk services because we are more proficient and skilful in understanding bits of intelligence that come to us. We put them together as information in a risk profile for individual services, and we understand how that profile relates to other profiles for peer organisations. In that risk profiling exercise, we pay greater attention to those who are rated as higher risk. Our detection rate for noncompliance has actually improved because we know where to look. We are finding high levels of noncompliance, but we’re also looking in the right places for noncompliance. That is why I can’t say categorically that we are seeing overall improvements in quality and safety, because as a regulator we are becoming more efficient and effective in identifying noncompliance.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, would it be possible for one of my staff to go and have a talk with the agency?

Senator Reynolds: I’m sure that would be fine.

Senator ROBERTS: Senior Australians have different needs and health issues to younger people, yet they’re treated as part of a larger community segment. Why do we not have purpose-built seniors focused healthcare facilities, including seniors’ hospitals? Wouldn’t that be a way of not only improving the service but saving money?

Dr Murphy : The average age of the in-patient in our major state and territory public hospitals is about 70, so effectively we do have hospitals that are looking after the elderly, because—as you obviously realise—chronic disease and the disease burden mostly increase as we get older. But I think your point is valid. There are some specialist services that are very much directed toward dealing with the elderly, and we have a very strong focus in the department to enhance working with the states and territories to get geriatric services into aged-care facilities. There are now some very good models of in-reach where those aged-care services get those specialist geriatric services and specialist mental health services. But, essentially, our hospitals are largely for the treatment of people of more advanced years, given that’s the nature of disease.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a useful point you raise, because I and many people find hospitals daunting, so for an elderly person it’s even more daunting. Some doctors say it’s better to stay out of hospital; they’re not being derogatory, they’re just saying—

Dr Murphy : You don’t want to be in a hospital unless you really need to be in a hospital—

Senator ROBERTS: Right, that’s what I’m getting at.

Dr Murphy : That’s absolutely right.

Mr Lye : The multidisciplinary outreach measure in the budget is precisely about bringing gerontologists and some of those health experts into residential aged care to give that access in the home setting. When people have a more complex set of health circumstances, what we don’t want is the residential aged-care facility just quickly admitting them to hospital all the time, and them having that experience, when it could be delivered in the residential facility.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Who do we contact, Secretary, for the previous question?

Dr Murphy : I think we can seek a briefing from Minister Colbeck’s office.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

CHAIR: So, on that note, we’ll take our break and then continue with outcome 3.

/2 Comments/by

Healthcare workers don’t support mandatory vaccines

,

Over 100 healthcare workers and supporters turned up at short notice to Underwood Park to show their opposition to mandatory vaccines. Within 2 weeks, many of these people will walk off the job because they refuse to be forcibly vaccinated under the threat of losing their livelihood. This was my speech at that meeting.

/20 Comments/by

Sending your mandatory vaccine concerns straight to the Prime Minister

,

As soon as Aged Care workers were told they would be forced to take a vaccine of lose their livelihood my office was flooded. I’ve received thousands more phone calls and emails than the package I am sending here. The Prime Minister needs to step up and stop all vaccine mandates.

Transcript

I wanted to hand deliver this to the Prime Minister but COVID restrictions have stopped that.

These are personal letters from Aged Care workers who do not want to take a vaccine but will quit their job if they are forced.

We’ve received thousands more from aged care workers and Australians across all industries.

I’ll send this to the PM today.

It’s apparent Scott Morrison isn’t listening to Australians who have hesitations about a vaccine that does not have a full approval, only provisional. It’s time he started listening.

You have a right to take a vaccine, you have a right to refuse one. PM, have some guts, stop the vaccine mandates.

/12 Comments/by

MEDIA RELEASE: Albanese out of touch with aged care workers’ vaccine fears

, ,

Senator Roberts’ office has received around 1000 emails and calls from aged care workers all over Australia who do not want the COVID vaccine, yet the Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese stated on Sky News this morning that he has never met an aged care worker that didn’t want the vaccine. 

Senator Roberts said, “Mr Albanese needs to widen his net and meet more aged care workers since I know there are hundreds of workers who are deeply distressed and terrified at having to get the vaccine. 

“The opposition leader is conveniently ignoring any dissenting voices against the vaccine and his statement is misleading,” he said. 

Many of these emails explain how people are being forced to choose between their jobs or the jab, because this vaccine has been made mandatory and they are in fear of the vaccine’s side-affects.  People are already walking away from their jobs in the aged care sector. 

Senator Roberts stated, “People are being confronted with a loss of liberty and now a loss of a job and it is unconstitutional that we are making them chose. 

“Emails from hospital staff tell of the serious side-affects including death in healthy people, and the fact it never makes the news.  

“There are many Australians who are literally terrified to be rounded up for this mandatory vaccination.  “Mr Albanese’s office will be better informed over the next few days as I have written to the hundreds of aged care workers who have contacted my office and suggested they email Mr Albanese and bring him up to date,” he said.

Anthony Albanese’s contact details can be found here.

/by