A warning raised on a recent episode of the Time Well Spent podcast has sparked fresh questions about whether Australia’s new aged care regulatory settings are unintentionally shutting new providers out of the residential care market at the worst possible time.
Speaking with hosts Dane Mitchell and Rose Plater, Rockpool Residential Aged Care chief executive Melissa Argent described what she believes is a serious flaw in the pathway for organisations trying to build new residential aged care homes under the new regulatory framework.
Her concern is simple, but potentially significant.
To secure finance to build a new residential aged care home, Argent says banks typically require the operator to already hold registered provider status.
But under Australia’s new aged care laws, an organisation cannot deliver Commonwealth-funded residential aged care unless it first becomes a registered provider through the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. That registration process requires providers to demonstrate governance capability, financial systems, operational readiness and compliance across multiple regulatory categories.
The problem, Argent says, is that in the real world many organisations cannot complete a major development project without debt finance.
And if lenders will not release that funding until provider registration is in place, new entrants may find themselves stuck before construction is even completed.
“In order to get funding to build new residential aged care, you have to be a registered provider,” Argent said during the podcast.
“You can’t finish a project without having debt funding.”
When host Dane Mitchell put the issue back to her directly, asking whether a completely new organisation could realistically enter the market under the current rules, Argent’s answer was blunt.
“Yes. Essentially.”
It was a moment of awkward laughter on the podcast.
But for those working in aged care development, it raises a much bigger policy question.
If Australia says it needs more aged care beds, but the pathway to build them is becoming harder for newcomers, who exactly will deliver the next generation of residential care?
The issue emerges from Australia’s biggest aged care regulatory overhaul in decades.
The new Aged Care Act 2024 officially came into effect on 1 November 2025, replacing the old legislative framework and introducing a universal provider registration system.
Under the new model, any organisation seeking to deliver government-funded aged care services must be registered with the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. Existing providers were transitioned into the new framework through an automatic deeming process, but new entrants must go through the full application pathway.
The reforms were designed in response to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which found systemic failures across governance, accountability and care quality.
Few in the sector dispute the need for stronger oversight.
The challenge, according to Argent, is that policy settings designed to protect residents may now be clashing with the commercial realities of building new infrastructure.
Rockpool’s experience gives the issue added weight.
The Queensland-based provider spent several years building a reputation for premium residential aged care, opening four homes across south east Queensland before making the surprise decision to sell its operating portfolio to Regis Healthcare.
The sale allowed Rockpool to retain its brand, development sites and leadership team while recapitalising for a second growth phase.
But because Rockpool surrendered its provider status as part of the transaction, the organisation has had to go back through the full provider registration process despite much of the same executive, operational and development team remaining in place.
Argent told the podcast that Rockpool currently has a partially completed project at Hamilton North Shore, but because of the provider registration reset, it has encountered serious complications with financing arrangements.
“We’ve got a half-built home at Hamilton North Shore,” she said.
“Under bank policy, we should have that registered provider status, but I’ve got to go through a full reapplication.”
Rockpool, she said, has managed to keep construction moving because of longstanding relationships with lenders who already know the organisation’s track record.
But Argent questioned what would happen to a genuinely new operator without that history.
“What would you do if you didn’t have a relationship with the bank that knew what we’ve achieved in the past?”
The timing could hardly be worse.
Australia’s aged care sector is already under significant pressure to increase residential capacity as the population ages.
Government reforms have shifted residential aged care places away from provider allocations and attached them directly to older Australians, creating a more consumer-driven market and theoretically encouraging competition and expansion.
But many providers argue the infrastructure pipeline is not keeping pace with demand.
State health systems are already feeling the consequences, with hospitals in multiple jurisdictions reporting growing numbers of older patients medically ready for discharge but unable to access residential care due to bed shortages.
In New South Wales alone, reports last year showed the number of hospital patients waiting for aged care placements rose sharply within months, putting further strain on already crowded hospital systems.
Argent says creating barriers to new providers entering the market risks making the problem worse.
“We’re in a bed crisis now. We need more people to enter the market.”
That concern is not isolated.
Across the sector, developers have warned that construction costs, higher interest rates, labour shortages and increasing compliance requirements are already making residential aged care projects more difficult to finance.
If provider registration becomes another barrier, some fear fewer organisations will even attempt to enter the market.
One of Argent’s strongest criticisms was directed at what she sees as a disconnect between policymakers and financiers.
She argued that banks, as the largest private funders of residential aged care construction, should have been involved more directly in shaping the registration and licensing framework.
“If we don’t have the banks on board, there is no funding,” she said.
That comment touches on a commercial reality not always visible in public policy discussions.
A modern residential aged care facility can cost tens of millions of dollars to design, construct, fit out and commission.
Banks assess not only the physical asset, but the operator’s ability to maintain occupancy, meet regulatory obligations, attract staff and generate sustainable returns.
For lenders, provider registration is often viewed as a risk mitigation measure.
For developers, however, that same requirement can become a barrier if registration cannot be practically secured before funding is required.
Argent said she has already raised the issue with both the Commission and government officials in Queensland, and praised regulators for trying to help.
But she believes the underlying policy conflict remains unresolved.
“This is a bigger industry problem that we’ve now got to put on the table and say, just a minute, we’ve got this new legislation, but is it fit for purpose?”
Argent also used the podcast to push back on another long-running debate in aged care, whether the sector is an attractive investment at all.
She argued Australia needs to stop treating profit in aged care as a dirty word if it wants private capital to help deliver future capacity.
“If we don’t start building a sustainable industry and celebrating some profit, then we’re not going to get anywhere,” she said.
Her argument reflects a growing tension inside the sector.
On one hand, the Royal Commission highlighted serious failings among some operators.
On the other, providers say stronger compliance, higher wages, tighter governance rules and rising construction costs all require significant capital if aged care is to modernise.
Without private investment, many argue, the government alone will not be able to deliver the number of new beds Australia needs over the next two decades.
Argent suggested Rockpool may have found a workaround, largely because of its existing credibility with lenders and regulators.
But she is concerned the same pathway may not exist for others.
And if that is true, the implications stretch well beyond one provider.
The federal government’s reforms were designed to improve quality, strengthen accountability and protect older Australians.
But if those same reforms unintentionally make it harder for new providers to build new homes, they may also be constraining supply at a time when demand is only accelerating.
Argent’s final message was less about criticism and more about collaboration.
“Let’s bring the banks to the table. Let’s try and work together.”
Because if the sector cannot solve the financing puzzle, the question may not be whether Australia needs more aged care beds.
It may be whether anyone new can still build them.
