The introduction of the new Aged Care Act to Parliament remains in limbo as the Federal Government and opposition are at odds over two critical issues: the enforcement of fines and prison sentences for errant directors, and the adjustment or elimination of lifetime contribution caps.
Phillip Coorey, the political editor at the Australian Financial Review, reports that negotiations have reached a severe impasse. As a result, the Coalition is calling on the Government to release the proposed reforms publicly to aid in the decision-making process.
Anne Ruston, the Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care, has been vocal about the Government’s opacity, using the recent National Retirement Living Summit to highlight her concerns.
“My advice to the Government is to avoid secrecy. Make this information available to the public. Allow the public to have their input because they are the true experts,” she said.
Despite these recommendations, Anthony Albanese’s administration appears unresponsive. Seven months have passed since the exposure draft of the Aged Care Act was issued, and despite confirming a delay until mid-2025, little information has been disclosed.
While the Government has not publicly addressed the Aged Care Taskforce’s final report and recommendations, it seems they are planning to implement some of the proposals, leading to the current deadlock.
The Taskforce’s report suggested, “If the government does not fully fund care, it should review the current arrangements for care fees, including the possibility of removing annual caps and reassessing lifetime caps.”
The Government is considering increasing the residential care lifetime contribution cap to $190,000, more than double the current $76,096, and abolishing any cap for home care services. However, this was not the Taskforce’s preferred recommendation. They advocated for the Government to fully fund direct care services, with older individuals making means-tested co-contributions for accommodation and daily living expenses.
The Albanese Government reportedly resisted the idea of increasing the threshold for the value of a family home in the means-tested system, preferring a $200,000 threshold and favouring an increase or elimination of lifetime caps for home care.
While the opposition demands more clarity on this issue, they are firmly against the proposed jail terms and significant fines for aged care directors who breach new standards. Proposed penalties include fines up to $313,000 and up to five years imprisonment for severe statutory duty violations.
Though some outside the sector support these penalties, aged care providers are concerned about their impact on attracting skilled and experienced professionals. Financial impacts are already being felt, with insurance costs rising sharply.
Ms Ruston continues to criticise the proposal, and with her party’s backing, Prime Minister Albanese’s team has substantial work to do to gain the Coalition’s support for the new Aged Care Act.
Who is ultimately responsible for an Aged Care Facilty, especially as most are in the private sector? This question was recently put to ACQSC regarding a particular facility, by an Advocacy group. There was no clear response, other than pout a complaint in. The complaint system through ACQSC is onerous on recipients of Aged Care Services or their representatives and often does not end up with a satisfactory outcome.
So, who IS ultimately responsible? It might be reasonably assumed that it would be the CEO?
In the light of the changes to the New Aged Care Act and the issue of penalties which may or may not make it into the new Act. This question needs urgent exposure and investigation
I don’t recall any government Minister being held accountable for the grief, misery and suicides that the Robodebt debacle caused. Yet here they are wanting a proportion of aged care people to be held criminally and financially accountable for making a wrong decision. That is irony at it’s best.