The delayed start to the flawed new Aged Care Act, now set for 1 November, will leave 83,000 home care-approved older people in limbo while the government and providers steady themselves for the debt collector disaster.
Pensioners and people on low incomes will pay upwards of $50 per week for basic stay-at-home care and be asked to pay $100–$200 each week to meet more complex needs. Wealthier self-funded retirees, still eligible for a Commonwealth healthcare card, will pay upwards of $200–$300 per week for the basic stuff-up or opt out.
But there’s more – there’s a problem, a much bigger problem. There’s no learning from mistakes or listening to the consumer who receives complex care. Consider the Auditor-General’s report, Administration of the Future Fit Program.
The auditors’ report into Meals on Wheels is surely another worrying example of a lack of oversight by the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing (DHDA) to manage the complexity of outsourcing and government will.
My perspective right now – and that may change – is that there is little advantage to positive advocacy by raising the enormity of the failures of DHDA and the new Aged Care Act.
Yes, same people, perhaps a similar outcome, but this must not be the case. My view is that while DHDA and the government of the day continue to spend billions on outsourced advice and a shadow workforce, independent analysis and input from senior people in both government and departments are not only compromised but, in practice, will always support political protectionism.
This current process of self-righteous neoliberal practice – of paying the rich to screw the poor – began with the Howard government and was put on steroids under Abbott and Morrison. Senior public servants knew that to survive, they had to serve the will of the government of the day, not counter too often with advice as they truly should.
The membership of the 2023 Aged Care Taskforce was represented by entities that collectively received billions in government funding. The lack of independence of the 2025 taskforce is not that different. Both report to the chair, who is the minister. This is of great concern, particularly if this trend continues.
The only recent independent review of aged care was the Royal Commission. Successive governments, after applauding the great work of the independent commissioners, have gone about rights-washing many of their primary recommendations.
This miscalculation by government did not take place with the Disability Royal Commission, where the majority of the 222 recommendations were outwardly disregarded with little analysis or further thought.
My thoughts are that if DHDA is hamstrung and unable to advise openly, we, the advocates, must do our best to encourage the necessary changes that will empower the good officers at DHDA to populate their independent advice, free of ideological outsourced spin.
We must keep in mind that there are many public servants who knew the penalty of calling things out. I suspect that there are still a number in very senior roles who have survived the current public questioning.
There are many more where sidelining would be seen as a kindness, and it is my hope that the current review by the finance minister will help with that process. It is not only the department that has failed us. More significantly, it is the shared ideology of Labor and the LNP, which so far has seen securing safe electoral wins as a preference to correcting wrongs.
It is my hope that Labor, with their massive majority and likely government for at least another two terms, will realise that it is not only possible but also the right time to put the needs of people before the processes of appeasing the mega-rich and powerful.
It is time to minimise the influence of those whose primary interest is personal financial gain and power from the indebtedness of government supply that supports growth and share dividends from global and institutional investment.
Australia has been long ripe for the picking. After decades of overharvesting, median wage earners cannot afford housing, which is now noted as the most expensive in the world. ‘Thank you’, Mr Howard OM AC SSI, for all you’ve undone.
Now, come on, Albo! Come on, Albo, come on! You’ve got some great people, mainly women. Hear their voices and those of the people; don’t get stuck on predetermined platform policy. Labor must do better. You’ve started with housing and youth. Aged care is in bed with debt and now personal disaster. Please start listening to those who know good care.
Great article,however there wasn’t anything tangible of what you consider should be changed prior to the roll-out.
The documentation I have sighted from LGC showed a charge of $149 per hour on top of the 10% fee. I phoned the care manager who advised me that it was government mandated but could not explain any further !!
I pray our misnisters do better, please goverment this is my mum .
Why are people apeing the words fed by govt/industry such as ‘care’ ehilst trying to demonstrate its absence. Do people not understand words are weapons – used to manipulate thinking and ensuing actions. Why do thosr calling themsrlves advocates for the aged use the same weapons that govetnment/industry use against them. How can they expect anything other than what has occurred – no change that benefits the aged, dishonesty in language used, misleading the aged and the public, no respect for the aged, no legally enforceable rights for the aged receiving government funded or partly funded services and not even standard consumer rights, no legal avenue to achieve acccountability for criminal conduct. Can it get worse? What will it take for people to change what they do to gwt change. ?
Well said Peter Willcocks! It’s a disgrace that aged care is being disrespected like this. As you said, it started years ago and has progressively worsened each election.
My experience with trying to coax my local government to continue Meals on Wheels, to no avail, proved to me that those in charge of aged care are young enough not to fear what they may face as they age.
Maybe their parents aren’t even in the category of forward-thinking and planning, and when their time comes, they will show surprise that the care they wished for had dissipated years before.
For we who need it now – pffft – forget it.
Disrespect and care by ther nature are uncompatible. They cannot coexist. Hence everu time – which is all the time people use the language of the industry ‘care’ then go on to describe the opposite ‘disrespect’ the create a cognotive dissonance and truth is overshadowed by fake claims of care.
Remember the ‘pink batts’ visionary sceme to insulate millions of homes? Imagine if instead of abandoning it, because of rorting by the private providers, the government of the day had strengthened regulation of the sector and fully insulated those homes. It would have been a win-win for all.
And a significant reduction in our energy use each and every year since.
Please stop throwing money away and get real services AND value for the tax we all pay.
Correct . If only more thought like this instead of banging on about care thus covering the reality of chaos without care
Don’t understand how the writer has persistent references to care in the first few paragraphs then acts with disregard to this by describing a woeful lack of it.
Lacks credibility. Simple: If
it is care then stop whinging. If it is not care then stop calling it care – irrespective of the industry/government terms.
Words are tge weapons of the industry. I don’ t understand why people use those weapons against the aged whilst claiming to be advocates for the aged. How much more history is needed for people to change the language. Govt and industry won’t – it is such a good weapon for them