The ABC is once again turning its attention to Australia’s aged care system, launching a new investigation just five months after sweeping reforms came into effect.
The question at the centre of it is a pointed one: have the Albanese government’s “once-in-a-generation” changes improved care, or are the same failures continuing under a different framework?
The investigation revisits the findings of the 2021 Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which concluded the system was “fundamentally failing” older Australians after more than 10,000 submissions detailed widespread neglect, substandard care and systemic disregard for dignity.
Now, with a new Aged Care Act and the Support at Home program in place since 1 November 2025, attention is shifting from promises to outcomes.
The ABC is seeking accounts from across the sector, including residents, families, workers and providers, as it looks to test whether the reforms have delivered meaningful change or simply reshaped existing problems.
→ Have you been affected by the changes? Share your experience on the form at the end of this article: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-20/share-your-story-about-aged-care-with-abc-investigations/106465428
The investigation echoes the broadcaster’s 2018 Four Corners program Who Cares?, led by journalist Anne Connolly, which exposed widespread mistreatment inside residential aged care.
That reporting triggered an immediate political response. Then prime minister Scott Morrison announced a Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety just 24 hours before the program aired, in what Connolly has long argued was a pre-emptive move after the government had been briefed on the findings.
“There’s absolutely no doubt,” Connolly said of the government’s awareness ahead of the broadcast.
Ministers had been questioned directly about allegations of abuse, neglect and chemical restraint. The announcement, she suggested, was classic damage control rather than coincidence.
“I’m happy because we all know it absolutely needed it,” she said.
The Royal Commission that followed forced aged care into the national spotlight and led directly to the reforms now being tested.
It also reinforced a broader reality within the sector: meaningful change has often followed sustained media pressure and public scrutiny, rather than emerging unprompted from within government.
While the reforms were framed as transformative, early feedback suggests not only that many underlying problems remain, but that in some cases outcomes may be getting worse.
Connolly says the early response to the investigation has been immediate and familiar.
“Every time I did a small aged care story, I’d get inundated with emails from people,” she said. “The same thing is happening this time, but this time it’s about the reforms.”
Those contacting the ABC are raising a consistent set of issues: long waits for assessments, delays in receiving packages, and people receiving only a portion of the support they were approved for.
“It’s about people waiting to be assessed, people waiting for a package, people getting 60 per cent of the package instead of the whole thing,” she said.
Cost has emerged as a major fault line. Changes to co-payments under Support at Home are already reshaping who can afford care and how much they receive.
Self-funded retirees approved after the September 2024 cut-off are facing significantly higher daily fees for the same level of support. Some families report costs rising to a point where services are reduced or declined altogether.
“There are so many knock-on effects,” Connolly said, pointing to the broader consequences across the system.
There are also signs that financial pressure is flowing directly through to care outcomes.
At the same time, access delays persist, and concerns are growing about flow-on pressure into residential care.
“Once support at home becomes a problem for people and they can’t get that care, the big fear is what will happen in residential care when there’s a lack of beds,” she said.
Questions without clear answers
Beyond the immediate impact, Connolly says there are fundamental questions about how key parts of the new system were designed.
“There’s not really any public accountability,” she said.
“Who decided on what the co-payment should be? Who decided on the 80 per cent for self-funded retirees and some part pensioners?”
She also raised concerns about the algorithm now used to assess people for in-home care, particularly whether it has been properly tested.
“Who developed the algorithm that’s been used to assess people? Was it trialled? There’s nothing publicly that says so,” she said.
The government has pointed to large-scale trials of assessment tools, but Connolly notes these did not necessarily extend to the scoring system now determining access to care.
“There are lots of questions,” she said. “And people are writing about real problems on the ground. Some people are at their wits’ end.”
The government has placed strong emphasis on a new Statement of Rights for aged care recipients, positioning it as a cornerstone of the reforms.
However, some experts argue those rights are difficult to realise in practice without sufficient workforce capacity and funding.
Aged care economist Professor Kathy Eagar has questioned whether the changes will materially alter people’s day-to-day experience, suggesting there is little evidence so far that care outcomes are improving in a meaningful way.
The shift towards greater user contributions, particularly for non-clinical services, is also raising concerns about equity and access, especially if higher costs result in less care.
The reforms have been accompanied by a large-scale digital overhaul, with more than $1 billion allocated to new systems and infrastructure.
But missed deadlines, cost overruns and limited transparency around contracts have added to concerns about whether the investment is delivering value or improving frontline care.
The ABC’s latest probe lands at a critical point, when expectations remain high but lived experience is beginning to test the policy.
It also revives a dynamic that has shaped aged care reform for years: when problems are exposed publicly, governments tend to respond quickly, particularly when the issue cuts through politically.
For the government, the risk is not just that the reforms fall short, but that they are seen to be making things harder for the very people they were meant to support.
For older Australians and their families, the question is becoming harder to ignore: is the system improving, or slipping further out of reach?
→ If you have first-hand experience of the system, you can contribute to the ABC’s investigation by filling out the form at the end of this article: ABC Investigation Form
What emerges from this process may do more than test the reforms. It may determine whether further change is forced back onto the political agenda.
I am so pleased this is happening. I hope now that all will be revealed and any skulldugery exposed. It is time the government took accountability for the mess the aged care sector is in.
Can you ask someone why Lite’nEasy is THE product being offered by providers who no longer have the preferred Meals on Wheels option?
Seems odd to me.
I live in an Over 55’s village and the processes that control the operation of these sort of residential facilities is broken. While Fair Trading are making some changes to their operation , these changes are superficial. In some cases they are non existent’ In many cases these organisations are not accountable and they just do as they wish which in many cases is nothing. These include but not limited to NSW Police, Fair Trading, Legal Services Commission, Age and Disability Commission and NCAT. ICAC do not have jurisdiction for these. I have has much communication and some meetings with these groups and they refuse to get off their seats and prosecute problems that occur which are many. These villages are run by committees that are voted in by the residents and have no knowledge on how to operate these places and usually do it for their own purposes and not for the residents as a whole. The honesty level is in the gutter. There deeds to be accountability for these organisations. This is a jenuine Human Right that needs to be addressed.