A recent Senate inquiry, chaired by the Greens, has laid bare critical shortcomings in Australia’s aged care system, especially the Labor government’s handling of home care packages under the new Support at Home program.
The investigation, focused on delays in the scheme’s rollout, condemned the current framework as an intentional curb on services that risks severe harm to older Australians, including avoidable fatalities. While there was consensus on tackling shortages, the inquiry underscored a deep partisan rift, with Labor senators opposing efforts to dismantle rationing entirely, prioritising vague concerns about sector stability over urgent human needs.
The inquiry’s majority report, tabled on 1 October, depicted a troubling reality of systemic neglect.
These care bottlenecks arise from the government’s choice to dole out packages in limited tranches instead of responding to demand, a method the report termed a “calculated denial of service.” Echoing the Aged Care Royal Commission’s guidance, the document contended that capping access via finite funding forces frail individuals into prolonged waits, frequently resulting in “life-altering” and at times deadly repercussions.
Greens senator Penny Allman-Payne, the committee chair, lambasted the government for sustaining these deficits. She observed that although the panel, which included cross-party representation, aligned on eliminating aged care gaps, Labor’s position locked in yearly restrictions on package numbers. “By enforcing shortages, Labor guarantees that people perish on waitlists deprived of essential aid,” Allman-Payne declared, deeming it indefensible in an affluent country and a deliberate policy failure.
Independent senator David Pocock, who successfully advocated for an accelerated rollout of 20,000 packages before the program’s November 2025 debut, amplified these critiques in his supplementary remarks to the report.
He branded the government’s early decision to hold back 83,000 pledged packages as “unconscionable,” particularly amid exploding waitlists and the disclosure that 5,000 individuals died last year while awaiting suitable care.
Pocock emphasised the wider fallout, including carers curtailing employment or resigning, and preventable hospital stays that strain public health resources. “Rationing fosters distorted results,” he noted, pushing for a pivot to universal access grounded in need, consistent with royal commission principles.
The report robustly advocated for a demand-driven framework, allocating care based on evaluations rather than budgetary ceilings. Recommendation 3 presses the government to abolish package rationing within a schedule that matches sector expansion capabilities.
This approach, the committee asserted, would fulfil the royal commission’s blueprint for a rights-based system, averting the “tax on frailty” where those requiring extensive support endure the longest delays or steepest expenses.
Co-payments in the new program faced intense scrutiny. Starting November 2025, those approved post-mid-September 2024 must cover 5 to 50 per cent for “independence” tasks such as showering or medication help, possibly amounting to $50 per shower at median rates.
The report voiced profound alarm that this might compel pensioners and those on modest incomes to forgo vital services, jeopardising their wellbeing and autonomy. Contributors labelled it as harsh, with one organisation terming it a “tax on frailty” that burdens those with acute needs irrespective of their constrained earnings.
Testimony from the inquiry, including from specialists like Professor Kathy Eagar, cautioned against fallout: heightened use of unregulated aides, hasty shifts to institutional care, or even homelessness threats for older women, who shoulder uneven care loads.
The Inspector-General of Aged Care’s 2025 progress report, cited in the inquiry, bolstered these apprehensions, observing that co-payments clash with the Aged Care Act’s tenets of fostering independent living and may deepen disparities for at-risk groups, including First Nations Elders.
Labor senators Dorinda Cox and Michelle Ananda-Rajah, in their minority response, conceded irritation with delays but resisted swift package expansions. They referenced departmental input on potential “unintended consequences,” like quality erosion, market upheaval, or service interruptions from abrupt supply boosts.
While expressing sorrow over revisiting co-payment disputes, they upheld the framework as crucial for enduring viability, with protections for the financially strained.
However, critics argue this stance overlooks the royal commission’s core warnings against rationing, prolonging suffering for political caution.
The inquiry also tackled interconnected problems, such as the Commonwealth Home Support Programme being overburdened as a makeshift for those awaiting advanced care, causing scope creep and provider fatigue. Recommendation 4 proposes an additional Senate review of the programme’s shift to Support at Home after 2027, assessing effects on delays, home alteration limits, and end-of-life timelines.
Transparency surfaced as a major issue, with the committee rebuking the government’s hesitance to disclose current waitlist figures. Recommendation 5 mandates real-time public updates on assessment and package timelines, alongside enhanced outreach to maintain older people’s involvement instead of fostering disillusionment.
Further recommendations address deficiencies in assistive aids, home adaptations, and provisions for those with disabilities or in palliative stages. For example, Recommendation 9 calls for a prompt evaluation of assistive tech provisions, while Recommendation 8 advocates harmonising aged care with the National Disability Insurance Scheme to bridge support gaps.
Provider preparedness was highlighted, with testimony indicating the industry was equipped to supply more packages sooner, thwarted only by governmental inertia. Recommendation 10 demands a transparent timetable for upcoming releases, detailing quantities, schedules, and areas, to facilitate staffing strategies and minimise upheavals.
Pocock encapsulated the inquiry’s thrust: “This marks a beginning, not an end. Ending rationed care is essential for a respectful system.” With aged care demand escalating alongside population ageing, the report cautions that absent meaningful change, the toll on lives and finances will intensify.
The government has pledged 83,000 packages by July 2026, yet detractors contend this piecemeal tactic inadequately addresses the pressing, holistic overhaul required, reflecting Labor’s reluctance to fully embrace reform.
