Posts

A Duty of Care to Our Elderly

,

Schedule 4 of The Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026 was added to address the government’s secret rollout of AI algorithms to assess aged-care applications. For the past year, human assessors were strictly prohibited from overriding computer decisions (even when clinically wrong), leading to under-assessments, long waiting lists and a sixfold surge in appeals, with elderly Australians dying before their reviews were resolved.

One Nation believes that although AI can be used for background legwork, it must never be allowed to make final, unreviewable decisions over human lives. We will legislate to ban fully automated government decision-making.

This AI decision-making system is part of a broader pattern of attacks by the Albanese Government on our elderly, including:

❌ Reducing health insurance rebates, pushing up to 75,000 pensioners into the public system and costing taxpayers approximately an extra $2 billion annually.

❌ Attempting to impose co-contributions on basic personal care (which they were forced to roll back).

❌ Increasing means-tested accommodation fees and daily living costs for retirees.

❌ Creating backlogs through the Support at Home framework.

❌ Raising Centrelink deeming rates by 0.5%, effectively reducing pensions based on assumed, unearned interest.

❌ Capping allied health services for older veterans at $5,000 (which the Senate successfully blocked).

Basically stealing money from pensioners!

Finally, I foreshadowed a second reading amendment regarding Voluntary Assisted Dying. While VAD is legal across all Australian states, state laws currently force aged-care facilities to allow external VAD practitioners onto their premises.

My amendment does not restrict VAD access for individuals; rather, it protects the freedom of conscience and religion for faith-based aged-care providers by allowing them to conscientiously object and opt out of facilitating VAD on-site, provided residents are informed and assisted with transfers to participating facilities. Based on the sensible South Australian model, this ensures respect for differing moral convictions in our community.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: The Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026 amends the Aged Care Act 2024 to, firstly, establish yet another permanent statutory office, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner, within the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission; secondly, to incorporate temporary modifications made to the Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) (Aged Care System Modification) Rules 2025 into the Aged Care Act and Aged Care Rules 2025 and repeal the instrument; and, thirdly, to vary arrangements concerning refundable deposits, including their use while an individual awaits a means-test assessment, the ability to transfer deposits between providers and the treatment of deposits in aged-care means-testing. One Nation is in support of these long-overdue changes. Fourthly, it will make other administrative and regulatory amendments concerning direct-care staff, local government providers, specialised residential care homes, residential care subsidies, fee advice notices, deemed decisions and the recovery of Commonwealth overpayments.  

This bill has been referred to two committees for reporting—the second because the government added a new schedule late in the passage of the bill. Both reports recommend the bill be passed. I note once again that the Labor government has packaged something we do agree with—the improvements and technical clean-up in schedules 2, 3 and 4 of the bill—with something we do not agree with, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner. This is designed to force One Nation to oppose the bill and, in so doing, provide social media fodder for the ALP and the Greens at the next election. They want to claim One Nation opposed reforms to help our elderly. It’s a wedge, another bloody wedge—one of the many wedges this cynical Labor government have used lately to entertain themselves while everyday Australians continue to go backwards. You don’t care about the people.  

One Nation has moved an amendment on sheet No. 4177 to remove the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander commissioner provisions and leave the remainder of the bill intact. One Nation opposes discriminating against Australians based on physical characteristics, including ethnicity, age, sex, sexual orientation and disability. Positive discrimination is still discrimination. It seeks to present a morally superior position which inevitably fails in a perfect storm of cost escalation, empire building, self-interest, mission creep and unexpected consequences that the taxpayers pay for.  

According to the Guardian newspaper, Aboriginal children in Australia have historically been murdered at roughly three times the rate of non-Aboriginal counterparts—three times. Aboriginal children experience rape at five times the rate of non-Aboriginal children, a figure that’s underreported to the point of official data being useless—bloody useless. Aboriginal children are being left in squalor without adult supervision. All of this is under the watchful gaze of the virtue-signalling elites who advance bills like this and then crack open the chardonnay to celebrate how worthy they are. This government and state governments won’t stop Aboriginal children being raped and murdered, yet they have the money for a dedicated Aboriginal aged-care commissioner and their staff. This will of course lead to more regulations and higher costs for everyone. The entire idea, of course, will have no KPIs—not one—to measure progress, because for Labor it’s not about the outcome; it’s about feelings. 

We do not need an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner. We need our aged-care system to support everyone that it’s tasked with supporting. A One Nation government will send its attorney-general into Aboriginal communities, along with ministers for housing, health and infrastructure, to fix the crime and the structural problems behind these heartbreaking, unacceptable statistics—unacceptable to most Australians but not the government.  

We will create jobs to restore the future of Aboriginal communities, using mining and value-adding of raw production, including in agriculture. We will oversee Australia’s largest infrastructure project, the northern rail crossing from east to west, part of the national rail loop, to bring rail transport, water, electricity and the internet to remote communities. That’s our idea of helping the Aboriginal community, not this window dressing BS. 

Anyone who thinks this is a good idea need only look at Closing the Gap. A measure there intended to reduce the life expectancy gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians has in part failed, completely failed, with life expectancy in recent data getting worse for Aboriginals, not better. An analysis of government outlays over the first eight years of the strategy alone, from 2008 to 2016, calculated that total combined spending towards meeting the Closing the Gap targets exceeded—wait for it—$130.2 billion. The source of that data is Adam Creighton in the Australian quoting the Productivity Commission data on 12 February 2018. The Productivity Commission estimated in 2017 that federal government spending on Aboriginal affairs was $25 billion a year. I see nothing to suggest that that number has been going down since then. And then add the state spending. 

I hope the Senate will realise it’s time to change course on the Aboriginal industry. Stop funding more parasites in consultants, academics, lawyers, bureaucrats and larger top-end supervisors. Instead, directly fund the communities where it’s needed. I’ll say it again. This is what we’re advocating: instead of the parasites getting the money, let’s get it to the communities, to fund the communities, where it’s needed directly. 

Moving on, the new schedule 4, added in the House of Reps, makes changes to take account of criticism of the government’s use of AI for decision-making. Applications for aged care have for the last year been determined using AI, not human beings. The Albanese government implemented a system last year which featured strict prohibition of human override. Expert, qualified human-needs assessors were explicitly barred from altering or overriding the algorithm’s outputs, even when they knew a decision was clinically wrong. Second was the systemic under-assessment of vulnerable people. Critics noted that the rigid computer program frequently failed to capture the complex realities of ageing, leaving vulnerable older Australians without adequate funding or essential homecare packages. Without their packages—so much for care! Third was the lack of consultation and transparency. The automated tool was introduced quietly with no public consultation, no industry trials and no transparency regarding the underlying algorithm—no openness; just a secretive AI. Fourth was the severe bureaucratic backlogs. Appeals against robodecisions ballooned sixfold after the system rolled out, meaning many elderly citizens faced extensive waiting lists, with some tragically dying before their reviews were resolved. Robo decision-making is a counterproductive efficiency measure, and I wonder about the real motivation for robo decision-making. 

This Labor government has declared war on the elderly. Just listen to these: removing their health insurance discount rebate, forcing more elderly Australians into the public health system and, in the end, costing taxpayers at least $2 billion more a year in public health to save $350 million on the rebate. That $2 billion figure is likely conservative, with up to 75,000 elderly Australians being forced to give up private health, almost double the government estimate—your estimate, doubled. The Albanese government tried to introduce co-contributions on personal care for aged pensioners. This was so badly received that the government backed down—you backed down—and agreed that vital personal care, like bathing and dressing, would not require out-of-pocket fees. Increased costs for capital and daily living—self-funded retirees and part pensioners must pay significantly higher means tested fees for everyday accommodation, capital contributions and clinical assistance. 

The Support at Home mess—the government absorbed existing homecare packages into the new Support at Home framework. Seniors groups have heavily criticised the measure for severe package backlogs, long wait times and plans to fold the entry-level Commonwealth Home Support Program into it, which critics say threatens independent living in regional and remote communities. The government lifted social security deeming rates by 0.5 per cent—half a per cent!—which means that, even if pensioners’ bank accounts are not yielding high interest, Centrelink now legally assumes they are anyway and adds made up unpaid interest to their income, reducing their pension. That’s what you’re doing. You’re basically stealing money from pensioners. For older veterans reliant on specialised treatments, the government produced a $5,000 annual cap on allied health services. Older veterans who require year-round support were told to pay for it themselves—’Just pay for it yourself’—a measure that the Senate forced the government to withdraw. It’s no wonder the government wanted to use robo decision-making to deflect the blame for this attack on elderly Australians away from themselves—cowardly, dishonest, a lie. 

Schedule 4 in this bill will help in improving rules around robodecisions. It must be the law that any decision taken using AI be subject to human review. A One Nation government will introduce legislation to prevent computerised decision-making anywhere in the government. AI can do the legwork, sure. It should never, though, be used to make a decision, let alone make final decisions that a qualified staff member cannot overturn when an error is detected. 

I foreshadow second reading amendment 4176, which has been advanced in response to many constituent concerns around the expansion of and advocacy for voluntary assisted dying. Voluntary assisted dying is now legal in all states. Nothing in our amendment advocates against voluntary assisted dying occurring. It simply seeks to protect aged-care providers who have a conscientious objection to providing voluntary assisted dying services on their premises. A religious objection is the most common conscientious objection. New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia have a law in place which explicitly regulates institutional objections. They mandate that residential aged-care facilities must not block external voluntary assisted dying practitioners from entering the premises. Because an aged-care room is legally considered a resident’s home, facilities are required to allow all stages of the voluntary assisted dying process, from consultations to death, to take place onsite. In Ontario and British Columbia, provincial governments in Canada have removed the right for aged-care facilities and hospitals to refuse voluntary assisted dying. This is very troubling to me, and it’s troubling my constituents. Our amendment seeks to provide support for aged-care facilities with encouragement that they’re not alone and to hold the line and uphold their convictions. 

This amendment is not about voluntary assisted dying as much as it’s about freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Currently, in South Australia, healthcare providers can opt out of voluntary assisted dying if they advise residents that the facility does not offer voluntary assisted dying. This allows the resident a transfer to a facility that does offer voluntary assisted dying. My amendment reflects this sensible compromise. The South Australian model works and should be the national model. In the very difficult, emotive space of euthanasia, it’s very important to respect the differing views in the community and to allow residents to choose a non-voluntary-assisted-dying facility if they so want and for providers to opt out of voluntary assisted dying if it conflicts with their values. I ask the Senate to support my amendment 4176. 

The Vote

/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

Scrap Net-Zero, Not Health Rebates

, , ,

One Nation strongly opposes the Albanese government’s plan to remove the private health insurance rebate for older Australians (65+).

Removing these rebates will ultimately cost taxpayers billions more than it will save and will put immense strain on the public hospital system.

One Nation rejects the government’s “intergenerational fairness” narrative. It is nothing more than a diversion.

The true causes of financial hardship for Australian people are immigration, net-zero policies, inflation and high living costs.

Rather than cutting health rebates for the elderly, we should stop mass migration and abandon all net-zero targets, which will help ALL Australians.

Transcript

I thank Senator Ruston for this motion, which One Nation supports. Currently, all Australians get a rebate on their contributions to private health insurance. For the people under 65, it is 24.1 per cent, for those 65-69 years of age it is 28.1 per cent and for those over 70 it is 32.2 per cent. These are adjusted for income. Minister Butler described the system as ‘not fair between generations’. The government has announced the additional amount paid to our elderly will be removed, making everyone equal. How very communist and how self-defeating. The rebate is higher the older you get, because the cost to the taxpayer of a person moving from private to public care is higher the older they get. The extra payment encourages older Australians to stay in the private health system and save the taxpayers from having to carry the full cost of their health care. 

Across forward estimates, this measure will cost taxpayers—including young people—billions more than it saves, and it will put more pressure on public hospitals already dealing with bed block and long waiting times. Our young people will not always be young. A measure that helps more than three million older Australians today will help younger Australians tomorrow. 

The Albanese government is promoting division in order to set one age group against another. How dishonest! Classic communism! This is the politics of envy, designed to cover up the real reasons young people are struggling, which are immigration, net zero, grocery prices, energy prices, inflation—destroying industry, making lives harder and robbing our young of the opportunity to own their own homes, to enjoy the life that my generation enjoys. To pitch to younger voters, start there. Introduce negative immigration until housing and infrastructure catches up, reducing house prices. Terminate this net zero madness and let business get on with creating breadwinner jobs that provide a future for our young. 

Intergenerational wealth transfer is a term that is a furphy, a lie, a dishonest diversion. Labor is crippling the young. In reality, this is an excuse from Labor to increase taxes on people with assets who, after a lifetime of work, are the older generations. Remember, today’s young adults are the future older people. This aims to hit all Australians, including the young. You will eventually get hit. This is a lie that is masquerading to steal more taxes. One Nation will unwind this petty, dishonest, counterproductive measure. We are one nation, one community and One Nation will not set one Australian against another.  

/2 Comments/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

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

One Nation and Pensioners on the Cashless Debit Card – Misinformation

Misinformation has been spreading that One Nation, Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts support putting pensioners on the cashless debit card. This is categorically untrue. My position on this is very clear in the HANSARD.

During debate on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020 an amendment was moved which stated:

At the end of the motion, add “, but the Senate calls on the Government to provide a commitment that no recipient of the Age Pension or a Veteran or Service Pension will be placed on the Cashless Debit Card, with the exception of those who volunteer or are referred by the Family Responsibility Commission, child protection workers, social workers or the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Tribunal in the Northern Territory”.

Senate HANSARD, 9 December 2020

I voted YES for this amendment protecting pensioners and veterans which is shown in the official HANSARD division (voting) data, as did the Government, indicating that this commitment was accepted by them.

Senate HANSARD, 9 December 2020

With a Federal Election approaching some disingenuous actors are trying to stir up fear based on lies about One Nation. Pensions are not welfare like JobSeeker (formerly the dole) payments are.

I do not support pensioners being put on the Cashless Debit Card. My voting record on this issue couldn’t be more clear. This scare campaign against pensioners appears to have been led by Labor and activist groups aligned with them. Early in 2022, QLD State Labor MP Brittany Lauga had to apologise for misleading Parliament when she said there was a plan to put all aged pensioners on the Cashless Debit Card.

One Nation supports a raise in the Aged Pension. While the major parties will continue to play politics with the Aged Pension only One Nation can be trusted to stick to its word.

/3 Comments/by

RBA props up banks with $100 Billion

The Reserve Bank of Australia has just given $100 billion to prop up the banks but why is the government ignoring spending that would increase our productive capacity like road, coal power stations and dams?

Transcript

[Marcus Paul] All right, the RBA this week cut the interest rate down to you know, virtually nothing. 0.1% interest rates. So I mean, it’ll help people buy or stay in their homes, but there is a cost of course, self-funded retirees as we’ve talked about on the programme, who rely on investment income, and seeing their returns fall to basically nothing.

[Malcolm Roberts] That’s right. And then so, these people providing for their so-called own retirement is just hot air, because the legs had been cut out from under them now. We’re now at the point where retirees are having to spend their capital, because the return on their nest egg is almost non-existent and heading negative. And what’s disturbing is that, you know, this is going to create a lot of pressure for people at a time when people don’t need it. And by printing another a hundred billion, and giving it to the banks, they’re going to prop up the banks to do more mortgage lending. This government, the state and federal are completely ignoring the need to invest in productive capacity. We need to invest in power stations, dams, roads, ports bridges. The Iron Boomerang Scheme, the Bradfield Scheme. These and many other prime investments, opportunities in our country

[Marcus Paul] Yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts] Are being neglected. And we need to get into building the productive capacity of our country.

/by