With the implementation of the new Aged Care Act only two months away, a 79-year-old pensioner revealed to HelloCare that voluntary assisted dying may be his most appealing option in response to the Government’s co-payment requirements for Support at Home.
This chilling sentiment, shared in response to an article by self-funded retiree Peter Wilcocks, exemplifies the palpable sense of dread spreading among Australia’s elderly who require support to stay in their own home.
The Act’s introduction of co-payments for essential home care services like showering, dressing, and cleaning threatens to force large cohorts of seniors into impossible financial decisions, eroding their independence and dignity. As the deadline approaches, many worry the reforms prioritise profit over people, pushing vulnerable older Australians toward residential care or worse, leaving them feeling betrayed by a system meant to support them.
The Support at Home program will require co-payments based on pension status, income, and assets. Full pensioners face 5% contributions for “independence services” like showering and 17.5% for “everyday living” support like cleaning, while self-funded retirees could pay up to 50% and 80% respectively. For those on fixed incomes, these costs are daunting.
Peter Wilcocks, who lives with the late effects of childhood polio, warns, “This approach risks stripping people of their money and dignity, forcing many into privatised residential care.” His words echo the fears of seniors who see the system as punishing vulnerability rather than fostering independence.
Imagine Ellen, an 80-year-old full pensioner in Perth, surviving on a $572.20 weekly pension. Needing help with showering and housework, she could face co-payments of $50 per week, nearly 10% of her income. To cover this, Ellen might skip meals or delay medical visits, risking malnutrition or infections.
An elderly HelloCare commenter voiced a similar concern: “What country with any human decency places their seniors in a position where suicide is a potential option or choice in lieu of accepting the multiple substandards of aged care?” The prospect of choosing between basic care and survival is a growing fear.
The Act’s restrictions extend to home modifications, capped at a lifetime limit of $15,000, with another $15,000 for assistive technology. Wilcocks notes that the previous system allowed saving package funds for essential upgrades like ramps or accessible showers, but now, with only $1,000 carry-over permitted per quarter, such options are nearly impossible.
“By not enabling older people to stay at home longer, the new restrictive home support system will create a nation burdened by nursing homes instead of a country that respects and values its elders,” he argues. A commenter agreed, stating, “The system is totally unfair, we all paid taxes for many years.”
The misconception that seniors are wealthy fuels further frustration. With nearly 60% of those over 65 relying on the age pension, often less than $30,000 annually, even small co-payments can be crippling. One HelloCare reader, a podiatrist, shared, “I see people every day who are hopeful they will die before they have to enter into aged care.” Another wrote, “I would like to choose my own death, rather than going into an aged care home.”
These comments reflect a deep mistrust in a system that is still being touted as a way to keep seniors at home for longer..
Consider Tom, a 77-year-old part-pensioner in regional Queensland with $12,000 in savings and a superannuation income of $40,000. Needing 10 hours of weekly support for showering, meal preparation, and transport, he could face co-payments of $7,500 annually, nearly a fifth of his income. Unable to sustain this, Tom might forgo care, risking falls or hospitalisations that cost taxpayers more.
As one commenter noted, “The new Aged Care Act will not improve rights for older people or empower them.” The fear of being forced into residential care, where “people live appallingly,” as another commenter put it, looms large.
The Act’s failure to adopt the 2021 Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety’s call for a levy-funded, equitable system intensifies the outrage.
Wilcocks states, “The ACRC envisioned a different future: a new Act ensuring universal access to high-quality care, free of fees, rooted in the dignity of the individual.” Instead, the government’s model, influenced by industry insiders, has been branded a “national disgrace” by commenters.
One wrote, “Where there is money, there is corruption, governments allow corruption by failing to simplify legislations.” Another added, “The ageing population is growing, throwing money around in the wrong places doesn’t help those requiring help.”
As 1 November 2025 approaches, seniors are bracing for a system that seems to betray the Royal Commission’s promise of dignity. Wilcocks’ call to exempt pensioners from co-payments and restore human oversight resonates with those who feel “they would like us dead,” as one commenter starkly put it.
The Aged Care Act risks forcing older Australians into unbearable choices: unaffordable care or a loss of independence. With two months to go, the fear is palpable, will Australia’s elders be left to fend for themselves in a system that values their dollars over their dignity?
I’ve seen what my what happened to my mum after she had to go into care because of Alzheimer’s, the care place looked lovely but it was all about her money. This company has 65 care places in Australia and owned by overseas companies. I’m 79 and I’m going to do a VAD so I don’t have the horrible ending that my mum had.
I am absolutely appalled by this. As an elderly woman in my mid 70’s it scares the hell out of me.
The Government are treating the elderly like they are vermin. “What can we do about all these pests we have”? They always advocated that the best place for the elderly is in their own homes, with the addition of home help this is the promise they made.
Now it seems what they really want is our homes!
With the government bringing in over 8000 migrants weekly, with no way to house them our homes are crucial!
They would like us all to move out sign over our houses to them and then they will stick is in an institution for the remainder of our lives! I personally would rather die than go into a nursing home.
My husband and I have worked our whole lives, we had our own business, my husband often worked 7 days a week. We have paid taxes, huge taxes for over 50 years. We have contributed to Australia, it is the right of the elderly to feel safe in their latter years, but I feel anything but safe!
This Albonese government is worse than Hitler, at least Hitler looked after his own people!
As a couple. I am on a HCP. But my husband is not he is managing at the moment I help but we could not afford for him to go on the NEW Age care. If he at any stage will need help with a shower. ? They will find two old foggy’s. On the floor. Sounds funny. ??
But this will be the reality for many.
Addressing Key Issues in Aged Care Policy and Practice
Clinical Procedures: The Importance of Showering Assistance
According to the Australian Aged Care Quality Standards and various clinical guidelines, assistance with showering is recognized as a clinical procedure. This process allows healthcare professionals to assess essential aspects of an individual’s health, such as skin integrity, flexibility, body movement, thermoregulation, peripheral circulation, cognitive function, and emotional wellbeing. Overlooking the clinical significance of showering assistance may compromise patient care and safety. For instance, regular monitoring during showering can help identify early signs of pressure injuries or mobility decline, leading to timely interventions.
Government Review of Data and Risk Management
When governments indicate that they will “carefully review the data presented,” it is important to reference existing policies and the associated risks. For example, the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (2018–2021) documented the consequences of insufficient oversight, including increased risks of neglect and compromised care standards. Authorization of practices that do not adhere to established guidelines may inadvertently permit unreasonable risk, which is contrary to the principles of quality, safe care and human rights.
Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) versus Residential Care Admission
There is ongoing public discussion about voluntary assisted dying (VAD) as an alternative to entering residential care facilities. However, current VAD legislation requires a thorough assessment and does not generally consider a preference for avoiding residential care to be a primary criterion. In most cases, individuals expressing reluctance about residential care are referred for counseling and advocacy to explore supportive options within community settings, rather than proceeding with VAD.
Public Perceptions and Realities of Residential Care
The fear of residential homes often stems from anecdotal reports and negative media portrayals. While some concerns are valid and must be addressed, it is important to recognize that not all facilities fit the negative stereotypes of being restrictive or lacking privacy. Many residential homes promote dignity, identity, and well-being for their residents. Engaging in open discussions about real experiences, rather than relying solely on hearsay, can provide a more balanced perspective. For example, transitional care programs and respite stays often reveal positive aspects of residential care that may be overlooked in public discourse.
Legislative Changes and the Need for Constructive Dialogue
Recent reforms, such as the new Aged Care Act and the Support at Home program, have prompted much debate. While there are areas that require urgent review and improvement, it is essential to focus on factual information and collaborative problem-solving. Avoiding disinformation and embracing constructive dialogue will better serve the diverse needs of older adults and their families.
In summary, by providing evidence-based explanations, adopting inclusive language, and clearly organizing related topics, we can foster understanding and advance meaningful improvements in aged care.
It is very sad that so many elderly people fear residential aged care as a result of what they may have heard or read. There may have been places like that, but my experience of residential aged care is exactly the opposite.
Warrigal Hughes in Canberra (formerly St Andrew’s Village) is a residential aged care place of the highest standards. The nursing and care staff are wonderful people who look after us with love and dedication. In fact, everyone, from the Warrigal management down, is committed to the demanding tasks of caring for us and they do their work cheerfully, skilfully and with devotion.
In the almost seven years I have lived here (with my wife until she passed away at 91 two years ago) I have found this to be an excellent place to live. Indeed, when I lost my dear wife, several people asked me where I was going to live now. I told them I was going to stay here because I knew and had become friends with many of the residents and with many of the staff who I hold in the highest regard.
Will they be left to fend for themselves? They sure will!
Especially since all the care partners whose employers have cut due to case management funding being slashed by two-thirds won’t be there to help them. Not to mention the companies who have had to close their doors altogether.
The system works!!
here here!!!! they have in no way simplified an already over complicated system nor made it more accessible. The biggest problem is outsourcing to profiteering private enterprise. Perhaps they should get an independent enuiry into existing amounts of money the government pays to these profiteers and compare it to what it would cost to put it back into government hands where it can be hopefully properly monitored. Why should an elder have to go through three levels of private suppliers to get one service. e.g. step 1 after references from My aged Care, ring around several private providers to no avail. step 2 if you’re lucky enough to find one, an occupational therapist from one of these private suppliers, step 3. getting the service, again if you can find anyone with availability. It is all totally inefficient and overcomplicated and unnnecessarily expensive.
I totally agree with the comments made in this article.
I am the Owner of a highly successful, family owned and operated Home Care Provider in regional and rural NSW. The vast majority of our Clients are full or part Pensioners. Many of them will struggle to afford the co-payments but the Commonwealth Government will force the Home Care Provider to charge the co-payment or else become insolvent. Instead of concentrating on being a provider of care we are being forced to become the Government’s Debt Collector, for fees people simply cannot afford.
The Government response is that people in difficulty can apply for a waiver by submitting an “Aged care claim for financial hardship assistance.” That form is 16 pages long – with complex additional documentation requirements. Many of our vulnerable aged Clients will find it impossible to navigate without help.
And then – for those who do manage to complete that task – the co-payment cannot be collected while the application is being processed. Which sounds positive… BUT:
The Home Care Provider will not receive extra Government funding to cover the missing co-payment. Instead, we will have to keep providing the full Home Care services but without the full budget to cover the costs. Effectively the Commonwealth is telling Home Care Providers to deliver services to Hardship Application clients at a loss for as long as it takes the Department of Services to process the Hardship Application.
Experience tells us that is likely to be a long wait. The Dept of Services says it aims to process applications within 28 days, but if any extra information is required then the Client has 28 days to submit that evidence, and then the Department gets another 28 days to assess it. So even a single missing document can blow the time frame out to as long as 84 days – 3 months!
Meanwhile, the Provider will still be expected to deliver that service at a loss – effectively carrying the Client’s debt to the Government. Across the many Clients likely to apply for hardship this will pose a very real risk of Home Care Providers going broke.
In rural and regional Australia there is a genuine risk of total market failure, with severe consequences for Home Care Clients struggling to find a Provider and for the workers who lose their job when a Provider is forced into insolvency.
The government has forced women into the workforce. They are greedy wanting all the extra taxation payments and less they have to pay in family assistance. Because of the greed there’s now none to look after their elderly family members or children. Look what it’s costing them. Not to mention so many single lonely people. Too sad.
Have any of these idiots on their $500.000 know what an old person looks like?
I am fearing the worst as I live in an Amana Living Retirement Village and they deduct $633 (!!) per month for maintenance fees (with less services).
This leaves me with less than 3 pensions per month to live on. Not to mention paying for my food, clothing, medication, Specialist fees, utilities, insurances, etc etc to pay.
How can the Govt exoect me to contribute? I was told by my Provider I’ll be grandfathered but was told nothing else? Only 10% per month on fees was mentioned but nothing else…
When I asked for more info from PlanCare a few weeks ago, I was told “no one knows anything, we’ll inform you when more info comes to hand”?!
These changes have upset us elderly more han the Govt can ever imagine. Elderly like to know where they stand. Why are the Providers put ahead of us?
The changes are all about making the Providers richer by allowing them to slug on extra charges on each invoice yet, the Recipients’ well being is totally ignored. These changes are in my opinion, more about profits instead of Aged Care’s well being, we’re seriously left in the lurch…
Thank you for publishing. We have to speak out. We have seniors experiencing a cost of living crisis and a government who wants to charge pensioners for necessary suppprts when their income cannot even cover the cost of expenses and they are forgoing essentials such as heating. Why are we not seeing outrage in the streets? Why are we not seeing advocacy bodies protesting against these unethical changes. It will be a sad day for our society if these changes proceed on 1 November.
It is amazing how money can be sent overseas to assist people in need , yet you can’t help your own elderly people or homeless. There is something seriously wrong with the way our political delegates think and act.
We read with interest your article about seniors’ concerns about aged care and co-payments.
Of particular interest was the reference to voluntary assisted dying (VAD) and the suggestion that it might be the most appealing option for older people who cannot afford the government’s new proposals.
https://hellocare.com.au/australian-seniors-slam-new-aged-care-act-will-government-ignore-their-pleas/
Being elderly or disabled do not make a person eligible for VAD. The person must have a terminal illness that is advanced and the person must be suffering intolerably. They must also have full decision-making ability and not be acting under any coercion or pressure. And these factors must be determined by two independent doctors and approved by an independent board. Even being frail-aged and with multiple comorbidities does not qualify a person if they are not expected to be imminently dying. The pensioner in your story certainly would not be considered for VAD simply because they found the government’s co-payment too steep.
It may be true that the Aged Care Act risks forcing older Australians into unbearable choices — but VAD is not one of them.
In the interests of accuracy (and not misleading older Australians at a difficult time) a line must be added to your article making it clear that the 79-year-old pensioner in question would not qualify for VAD simply because of financial hardship.
It’s important that the right information gets out to people about their end-of-life rights and choices. It can be very upsetting for people — especially older people — when misleading information is circulated, even as throwaway lines.
Steve Offner
Communications Director
Both Aged Care and the NDIS have no relevance whatsoever to old people or people with a disability.
Both are heavily funded by the taxpayer but that funding is abused mercilessly by the Government bureaucrats and the Providor bureaucrats with the Politician being led around the nose in true Yes Minister fashion.
With both lots of bureaucrats building their amazing empires, surprise, surprise, there is no money for the little old lady or the fellow in a wheelchair.
I speak from the experience of watching a frail elderly friend, suffering recent loss of husband; the results of a nasty stroke; no family support; stressing herself to another stoke; all under the ever watchful eye of paid public servants who, are probably overworked at the coalface, but dont actually care.
With multiple health issues I am fast approaching the situation where taking her to ED and having her admitted so she at least gets to eat regularly and have her medication administered is the only solution.
And, having lived her whole married life on a boat (now a derelict) is battling the commercial rental world and slipping through all the cracks.
I am so tired of weasel mouthed pollies and their manipulative bureaucrats and their destructive so called policies. I wouldn’t feed any of them.
Under the new Support at Home program, carers are no longer able to access Cottage Respite services, which previously provided them with essential breaks. This change will leave some families with no alternative but to consider placing their loved one into residential care earlier than would otherwise be necessary
Jail is a better option. You get paid , food ,medical Some prisoners get looked after better than the people that helped build this country of ours. It’s disgusting how the government treat our senior citizens of course the people in government power won’t have to worry about any of this because they have the extra assets that we don’t