A Federal Court case involving one of Australia’s largest aged care providers could become a litmus test for how the industry counts mandatory care minutes, with a nurses’ union alleging workers were recording tasks such as washing dishes and folding laundry as direct care.
The NSW Nurses and Midwives’ Association (NSWNMA) has launched proceedings against Opal HealthCare, alleging the provider breached its enterprise agreement by failing to meet mandatory care minute requirements and misreporting the work being counted towards those minutes.
At the heart of the dispute is a seemingly simple question: when does work performed by an aged care worker count as care? The answer could have significant consequences for providers across the country.
The NSWNMA filed its Federal Court application on 26 August, following a dispute with Opal that began in early 2025 and was subsequently taken to the Fair Work Commission.
The union alleges workers at Opal facilities across NSW were required to perform duties including washing dishes, folding laundry and running group activities, with the time subsequently recorded as direct care minutes.
The union says that after Opal adjusted and resubmitted its care minute data to remove duties it considered non-direct care, more than 50 of its NSW homes were shown as failing to meet their care minute requirements. More than 95 per cent of Opal’s NSW facilities were subsequently rated either one or two stars for staffing on My Aged Care, according to the union.
The NSWNMA’s position is that workers should not be able to spend time performing non-care duties and then have that time contribute to a provider’s mandatory care minute target.
The union says its members reported being required to perform duties such as washing dishes and folding laundry, despite those activities not falling within the government’s definition of direct care.
It alleges Opal’s previous methodology effectively counted the worked time of RNs, ENs, AINs and PCWs as care minutes, apart from situations where an entire shift was directed away from the floor.
Opal has previously taken a different view of where the line should be drawn. The company has argued that the definition of care has become too narrow and excludes ordinary activities that are an unavoidable part of looking after residents.
Examples raised by Opal include giving a resident a glass of water, making them a cup of tea or remaking a bed when it has become soiled. That argument raises a difficult practical question for the sector.
If a personal care worker spends five minutes helping a resident drink a glass of water, that is plainly connected to the resident’s wellbeing. But if the same worker then spends five minutes washing dishes, where does the care stop and the hospitality or domestic work begin?
The government’s current rules draw a line. The Federal Court case could help determine what happens when that line becomes disputed.
The importance of the case is that care minutes are no longer simply a reporting exercise.
From 1 April 2026, the government began linking care minute performance to funding for non-specialised metropolitan residential aged care homes. Providers that do not meet their targets can receive less of the available care minutes supplement.
That makes accurate classification increasingly important. A provider that counts work which the government says is not direct care could potentially appear to be meeting its staffing obligation when it is not.
Conversely, providers argue that if the definition is too restrictive, they will need additional workers to perform tasks that still have to be done.
That is part of Opal’s argument.
The provider has supported mandatory care minutes but has called for what it considers a more practical definition of care, arguing that a narrow interpretation could require substantial additional funding.
The dispute also exposes the operational reality inside aged care homes. Someone still has to clear the plates. Someone has to change the sheets. Someone has to make the cup of tea. Someone has to help a resident participate in an activity.
The question is whether that work should be performed by a worker whose time is being counted towards the government’s mandated direct care target.
There is another reason the case matters. The rules around care minutes have become increasingly detailed.
The government has continued to update its guidance, including new guidance published in May 2026. The department’s current material makes clear that providers must deliver a defined amount of direct care each quarter and that care minutes are based on specified categories of workers and activities.
The government has also introduced a new Care Minutes Performance Statement. From the 2025-26 financial year, providers are required to prepare the statement, have it externally audited and report information including direct care minutes, labour hours and costs, RN coverage and occupied bed days.
In other words, there is now considerably more scrutiny over not just how many minutes are being delivered, but how providers arrive at that number.
Nationally, only 45.9 per cent of residential aged care services met both their total care minute and RN care minute targets in 2024-25, according to the Productivity Commission.
The Federal Court is not being asked to determine whether washing dishes is useful work.
It is being asked to consider alleged breaches of Opal’s enterprise agreement, including provisions requiring the provider to comply with the department’s responsibility guide when calculating and implementing care minutes. The agreement also requires Opal to make necessary rostering changes and provide staff with transparent information about care minute calculations.
The NSWNMA is seeking civil penalties over what it describes as serious breaches. The maximum penalty cited for a serious contravention is $218,000 per breach.
But the bigger question for the sector is what a court finding would mean for everyone else.
If the union succeeds, providers may face greater pressure to separate direct care from domestic, kitchen and lifestyle work when rostering staff and reporting their minutes.
If Opal’s position gains traction, it could strengthen the argument that the current definition of care is too narrow to reflect what workers actually do during a shift.
