Australia’s aged care reforms were sold as a long-overdue reset: safer, fairer and centred on dignity and choice. But beneath the policy slogans lies an uncomfortable reality. For many older Australians, particularly those ageing at home, the reforms are already undermining access to something far more basic than choice or flexibility: adequate food and nutrition.
The shift towards keeping people in their homes for longer is not inherently flawed. Most older Australians want to remain independent for as long as possible. The problem is that the system designed to support this ambition has been restructured without the funding, planning or capacity to sustain it. Nowhere is this failure more visible than in community meal services.
For decades, programs like Meals on Wheels have quietly filled a gap that policy rarely acknowledges. They do not just deliver food. They prevent malnutrition, reduce hospital admissions, support medication adherence and provide vital social contact for people who might otherwise go unseen. Yet these services operate under funding models that have barely changed despite dramatic population ageing.
Under the Commonwealth Home Support Program, demand has steadily outpaced supply. Allocations are capped, demographic growth is ignored and providers are expected to absorb shortfalls as community need rises. In many areas, that quiet strain has now tipped into crisis. Meal services that once prided themselves on universal access are being forced to ration support, introduce waiting lists or turn people away entirely.
This is not a marginal issue. Hundreds of thousands of older Australians rely on entry-level home support each year. As aged care reforms funnel even more people into the home-based system, pressure on food services will intensify sharply. Without increased capacity, the result is predictable: older people missing meals, relying on poor-quality alternatives or skipping food altogether.
The consequences are serious. Malnutrition among older Australians is already widespread, particularly for those living alone, managing chronic illness or experiencing cognitive decline. Poor nutrition accelerates frailty, increases falls risk and drives avoidable hospital admissions, placing additional strain on the health system. What appears as a “meal service issue” quickly becomes a hospital bed issue, a residential care issue and a budget blowout.
Regional and smaller providers are especially exposed. Unlike large organisations, they lack reserves to subsidise unmet demand. When funding does not match reality, they face impossible choices: run at a loss, reduce service quality or deny access to people who need help. None of these outcomes align with the stated goals of aged care reform.
The rhetoric of consumer choice rings hollow when there is no meal to choose from. A system cannot claim to promote independence while quietly eroding the supports that make independence possible. Food is not an optional extra. It is foundational care.
What makes the situation worse is the absence of transparency. Providers remain uncertain about how existing programs will transition into new frameworks, how funding will be indexed to population growth, or whether nutrition will be treated as a core outcome rather than a line item to be squeezed. Uncertainty paralyses planning, discourages workforce investment and ultimately harms older people.
