Aged Care Amendment (Restoring Human Override for Aged Care Needs Assessments) Bill 2026
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Manager of Opposition Business) (13:00): I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the second reading be considered immediately". On the last sitting day prior to the winter recess, the Senate sent a clear message about putting older Australians first, and it's now time the House of Representatives do the same.
The bill that is the subject of the motion is about one fundamental matter: ensuring that humans, not computers, make decisions when it comes to our elderly. This is critically important because elderly Australians are deeply concerned at the moment with the way that the aged-care system is treating them. They do not want a faceless algorithm determining their outcomes when it comes to aged care.
They want this matter addressed immediately because, if it isn't, what we're going to see is more and more perverse outcomes for elderly Australians. We're also going to see backlog after backlog after backlog, because people will seek review after review after review of the decisions that these algorithms are making. I have to make the point that those opposite, who are now in government, made a huge fuss about anything being automated when they were in opposition, yet here they are, using algorithms to determine outcomes for our elderly.
We say enough is enough, and we would like to bring the debate and the discussion on so that we can make sure that this is fixed. If this bill can pass the parliament today, if this bill is considered immediately, then we will be able to address this issue, and we will go a small way to add in some sort of comfort to elderly Australians. There are still a lot of issues under which elderly Australians are buckling because of this government, but this is one thing that we could address.
That is why we want to see this brought on and why we think it is critical that it is brought on. I'll look forward to hearing from the government as to why it shouldn't be, because there is no real reason why it shouldn't be. We have ample time in the chamber to make it happen.
If the government votes to not allow this to be considered today, each and every one of those members of the government who votes accordingly should be able to go back to their electorates and explain to their constituents why they're happy for an algorithm to do the work when it comes to our aged-care system. That's what they all should be prepared to do. My hope is that constituents right around Australia will be going to their local member and saying, 'How did you vote when it comes to this?' There is no question whatsoever that people are worried about our aged-care system.
The government made a lot of noise about our aged-care system and how they were going to fix it. I remember—this is going back now a little way, because they've been in government for four years—in the lead-up to the 2022 election, the government made a lot of promises when it came to our aged-care system. But I don't remember one of those promises being about using algorithms to fix the system to determine outcomes for our elderly.
I just cannot recall that, so I'm looking forward to that being explained by those opposite, those in government. Where was it in any of your policy platforms? I know you've just had your national conference.
Where was it at your national conference that you highlighted the fact that algorithms would be embedded in our aged-care system and in making determinations in our aged-care system? That is what we need to hear from the government on. At the moment, all we're hearing—and this is becoming far too common from the government—is just denial.
They just say point blank, 'Oh, that's not happening.' We've seen the Prime Minister do it on numerous occasions. He just denies anything's happened: 'I deny I fell off a stage!' An opposition member: Down an escalator. Mr TEHAN: 'I deny I tripped down an escalator.
I deny I said this before the budget. I deny I said this before the election.' Well, they seem to now be denying that the algorithm is doing the job, yet there is proof that it is doing the job. That's why the government need to address this, and the best way they can address it is to bring on this debate now.
There is no good reason why they shouldn't. Speaker, you will recall that, before we went into the winter recess, we raised this as a serious issue, so the government has had five weeks to consider what it needs to do. That is why we think the bill is urgent and should be considered today.
There's plenty of time for the House to debate it today, and there is no valid reason why the government shouldn't. Let's be very clear. Those of us who have been in our electorates for the last five weeks—members from both, I'm sure, the government side and, I know, the opposition side—will have heard that the system is failing.
More and more we're getting people coming to us saying, 'What is going on?' I heard a particularly bad case from a resident in Casterton in my electorate just on the weekend. She is the wife of someone who needs urgent help, urgent support. They are being messed around, and it did seem like an algorithm was being used, because every time they approached the aged-care sector to say, 'Surely we can get help nearer our community,' they were told, 'Well, we'll have to see.' I don't know how the checks or balances work, but they kept being told they had to go over an hour and a half away to get that assistance when the help was right there in their local community.
Even though they kept raising and saying, 'That's going to cost more,' it seemed like the request just went into the system, and the algorithm spat out the outcome, which said, 'No, you've got to drive over an hour and 20, an hour and a half to have the support services that you need.' That's why this needs to be fixed. That's just one of numerous examples that I've heard in my electorate, and I'm sure everyone, over the five weeks of the winter, has heard something similar.
That is why I have moved that we should now bring this on, debate it and deal with it—because if we don't, sadly, we're going to see more and more examples like the one I heard recently from a constituent in the town of Casterton. We want to make sure, on our side—and I'm sure, on the government's side, they don't want elderly Australians suffering. But that is what's occurring because of the problems the system is facing today, especially when it comes to a system that seems wholly and solely reliant on algorithms and not wholly and solely reliant on humans putting a human face to decision-making and making sure we get the right outcomes, the whole time, for elderly Australians.