Is 18 Hours of Gardening Support Per Year Enough for Seniors to Live Safely at Home?

The Australian government’s proposed caps on domestic assistance services like gardening and cleaning as part of its new Support at Home Program have sparked significant concern among seniors and aged care advocates.

These proposed changes, which aim to streamline resources into clinical services, could have unintended consequences for elderly Australians, particularly those living in larger homes or with more complex needs.

Paul Sadler, an aged care expert with decades of experience, spoke candidly about the challenges these caps could create.

He noted that when the Home Care Packages and the Commonwealth Home Support Programme (CHSP) were first considered for integration in 2015-2016, there were concerns that too many resources were being allocated to services like cleaning and gardening, at the expense of clinical support.

“The concern was realistic,” Sadler explained, referring to a shift in focus towards increasing clinical services in the Support at Home Program.

The government’s intention is clear: they want to prioritise clinical care by removing co-contributions for clinical services, a shift that Sadler described as a “big message.” However, this shift comes at a cost, as these same reforms introduce caps on domestic assistance services, which have long been considered vital for older people living at home.

The proposed caps are stark—just 18 hours of gardening per year and one hour of cleaning per week—restrictions that Sadler believes fail to recognise the unique needs of many older Australians.

“Gardening and cleaning are services that older people need but also have difficulty accessing on the open market, especially if they are on a full pension,” he stated. While many may view gardening and cleaning as optional services, for some seniors, they are essential to maintaining a safe and liveable home environment.

Sadler recalls the many cases he encountered during his career as a community social worker, where older people struggled to maintain their gardens and homes.

“Thirty-five years ago, a major reason people were moving to residential care was because they couldn’t manage their gardens anymore,” he said. “It’s still a real issue for people today, particularly for those with larger homes or gardens.”

He highlighted that, although managing a garden may have been a personal responsibility throughout someone’s life, the need for help with these tasks increases significantly as people age.

Gardening, in particular, holds a sentimental value for many older people. “A lot of elderly people take great pride in their gardens,” Sadler explained. “For them, it’s a form of self-expression and often their only remaining link to the outside world.

“For those with larger gardens, the proposed 18-hour cap could severely limit their ability to maintain this important aspect of their lives.

Claire, the owner of Valley Care Gardening Services, which regularly organises gardening services for seniors as part of their home care packages, also voiced strong concerns about the proposed caps. “It’s crazy. It’s crazy the idea of only having 18 hours of gardening per year,” Claire said.

“Often, their gardens are their pride and joy. It’s also a safety issue if the lawns are so long that they can’t get out and enjoy that space or walk down a pathway because that work hasn’t been done. I think it’s disastrous.”

She went on to explain the practical implications of these caps. “Even a small back and front yard takes an hour, and you would need that done twice a month to keep things safe. That’s 24 hours of gardening for the year at a minimum,” Claire said.

“And places with bigger gardens could be upwards of 50 hours a year quite easily.” For many seniors, this level of care is essential not only to maintain the aesthetic and emotional value of their gardens but also to ensure their safety.

The implications of these caps are far-reaching. As Sadler highlighted, even current recipients of aged care services could find themselves facing reduced support. “The government intends for this cap to apply to everybody after 1 July, including those already receiving a greater level of domestic assistance,” he said.

This means many elderly Australians will be required to adjust to reduced service levels, despite having relied on more extensive support in the past.

While the government has stated that clinical services will not attract co-contributions, Sadler expressed concern over the broader impact on service recipients.

“The problem is, you’re effectively asking people to pay more for less,” he said, referring to the reality that seniors may need to cover the costs of services that were previously provided under their care packages. “It’s going to create a lot of difficult conversations between providers and clients.”

Interestingly, the government has not applied the same caps to the CHSP, which provides low-level support services. Sadler found this disparity baffling, noting that if the government is intent on capping services for Support at Home recipients, there should at least be consistency across all programs.

“It seems contradictory that you would apply a cap to Support at Home but not to CHSP,” he said. “CHSP funding is relatively modest, averaging around $3,500 per person annually, so it seems there’s less concern about its impact.”

The push to prioritise clinical services, while important, could leave vulnerable seniors without the necessary support to live independently. Sadler warned that, in the rush to refocus resources, the government might be overlooking the practical realities that many older Australians face.

“There’s a real contest between setting a cap that is realistic and its impact on older people,” he said. “Services like cleaning and gardening, although often overlooked, are fundamental to maintaining a dignified life at home.”