MOTIONS

Senator ANANDA-RAJAH (Victoria) (15:26): Thank you to Senator Ruston and Senator Allman-Payne. I've worked with both of these colleagues on the community affairs committee and on the Support at Home program, and all three of us are committed to improving the care and dignity of older Australians, particularly those Australians—and there are many of them, thousands and thousands—who want to age at home.

This motion is important, but it is not urgent. It is not urgent for the reason that the government is aware of the problems with the Integrated Assessment Tool, which is at the heart of the controversy with regard to Support at Home, and is working methodically through these issues. As you know, Minister Rae has announced a rapid review into the Support at Home prioritisation mechanism— The PRESIDENT: Senator Ananda-Rajah, I'm also going to remind you that you need to focus on the motion at hand, which is to suspend the business of the Senate.

Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: As you know, we are methodically working in the background on the issues that have been raised by the Greens political party and the coalition with regard to this urgency motion. We do not believe that an urgency is required, mainly because we are working to amend and rectify the issues with the Integrated Assessment Tool, which have been ventilated in many fora in this place, both in hearings at the committee level and in this very chamber today.

Minister Rae has instigated a rapid review into— The PRESIDENT: Senator Ananda-Rajah, once again, you are getting on to the substantive motion and not speaking to the reason to oppose or agree to the motion to suspend. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: President, I'm trying to just relay the fact that it is not urgent, because we are working in the background to rectify the problems.

I speak to those steps that we are actually taking to try and address the concerns that have been raised by my colleagues as well as members of the community with respect to the Integrated Assessment Tool. This tool was initially developed many years ago, about six years ago, and it has been clinically validated. It had a lot of clinical and technical and statistical input.

We know it's been rolled out now, mainly because the previous system, when we first came to government— The PRESIDENT: Senator Ananda-Rajah, you were again going to the substance of the motion and not the reason to suspend. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: We are attempting to iron out the problems with this tool in consultation with the sector. We do not believe that it requires an urgency motion, because the work is currently going on in the background methodically, carefully and in consultation with the sector and with stakeholders and with aged-care providers and, indeed, with families.

We also know that the care of older Australians is at the heart of this government, and this is why we brought in generational reform with the Aged Care Act. The PRESIDENT: Senator Ananda-Rajah, I'm going to remind you once again to confine your remarks to the suspension before the Senate. Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: I accept that those opposite feel that an emergency motion is required.

I don't accept that at all because I have been part of the process trying to delve into the issues raised by the coalition and the Greens political party with respect to this act and the integrated assessment tool. We know that the parliament is working through these issues in a hearing, and the minister is also working through these issues. This is why I don't believe it requires an urgency motion.

We know that the care of Australians is an issue close to the heart of families all around this country. Does it require an urgency motion to elevate it? It has already been elevated in the national consciousness and in the national debate over many, many months since the rollout of the new Aged Care Act in November last year.

We know that the rollout, while it is generational reform, has had some issues, and they have been brought to light by families and by members of parliament, the coalition and the Greens political party. Does it warrant an urgency motion? I don't believe it does because we are working methodically through these issues in the background.

When those issues are done in a careful, consultive way, I'm confident that we will have resolution of this and do not require taking this further in this chamber through an urgency motion. I don't see how it's going to, in any way, advance improvement to the fundamental problems that have been raised by families, cited by those in the coalition and the Greens and aired in the ABC Four Corners report last night.

I do believe that the only way to resolve these problems is to do it in a consultive, careful, methodical way, which is how we are approaching this problem. That's why I am not in support of this urgency motion; I do not believe it is required.