The Australian Government’s new Support at Home program, has been promoted with a glossy new advertisement from the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing.
But the video has drawn sharp criticism from aged care advocates, who have labelled it misleading, condescending, and out of touch with the realities of aged care in Australia.
Adrian Morgan, General Manager of Flexi Care, a not-for-profit aged care provider, has been one of the most vocal critics, calling for the advertisement to be referred to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) for its misleading claims. In a recent LinkedIn post, Morgan slammed the ad’s assertion that “the support you need to stay at home is there when you need it,” calling it “demonstrably false” given the lengthy waiting lists for assessments and funding allocation.
In an interview, Morgan elaborated on his concerns, pointing to the significant delays faced by older Australians seeking support. “There are very long waiting lists even to be assessed, in many parts of the country, six months, up to maybe 12 months in some areas,” he said. “Even after assessment, you’ve got a further waiting period to actually get the services you need, and that could be another 12 months quite easily. So, to say the support is there when you need it is so far from accurate.”
Morgan shared a stark example of a 99-year-old client with multiple serious medical conditions who has been waiting for an assessment since January 2025. Despite repeated efforts to prioritise her case, she ended up in hospital last week due to insufficient support. “A compassionate community would not allow that to happen,” Morgan said, highlighting the real-world consequences of delays in the system. “It’s not a joke that a substantial number of people on the waiting list die before they get the services they’ve been assessed for.”
Beyond the misleading claims, the advertisement has been widely criticised for its portrayal of older Australians. Morgan described the ad’s slow-motion filming technique as “condescending” and “infantilising,” likening it to “nappy commercials for babies.” He argued that the ad fails to depict seniors as active, independent members of the community.
“It’s not respectful,” he said. “Older people move naturally, some are a bit slower, but not everybody. The assumption that everybody needs this sort of treatment is quite extraordinary from a government department responsible for setting the tone on how the community views older people.”
The ad’s omission of participant contributions, financial contributions required from some seniors, particularly those not in the grandfathered category, has also drawn ire. Morgan noted that this omission could lead to a “shock” for pensioners and others who rely on the ad for information, only to discover significant financial obligations and lengthy wait times.
“If you just watched that ad and relied on it, you could be misled,” he said. “It undermines confidence in the sector because providers like us have to tell people, ‘I’m sorry, I can’t do what that ad says.’”
Morgan’s LinkedIn post sparked a wave of agreement from other aged care advocates, who echoed his concerns about the ad’s patronising tone and lack of transparency. One commenter noted that the ad “skips the reality check,” while another described the My Aged Care system as “a complete disgrace,” citing personal experiences of delays and dismissals. Others expressed frustration at the ad’s failure to show seniors engaging actively in the community, instead portraying them as vulnerable and passive.
The backlash has prompted calls for the Department of Health to withdraw the ad and rethink its approach. Morgan suggested that future campaigns should focus on portraying older people positively, sharing accurate facts, including “uncomfortable” ones, and consulting directly with seniors to ensure their voices are heard.
“There are a growing number of older people speaking for themselves with a loud voice because they don’t see their interests being well represented,” he said. “The department could talk to them.”
Morgan also highlighted the need for truth in advertising to build trust in the aged care sector. “If you can build the sense that you won’t be lied to or misled, it’s much easier to build trust in the whole system,” he said. He pointed to strengths in the Support at Home program, such as support for end-of-life care and access to equipment like wheelchairs without needing to save up funds, but stressed that these positives must be balanced with honest acknowledgment of challenges like wait times and contributions.
As the Support at Home program’s launch looms, the controversy surrounding the advertisement underscores broader issues in aged care reform. Advocates like Morgan hope that organisations such as Ageing Australia, COTA, and OPAN will raise these concerns with the department to ensure more accurate and respectful communication. “The whole sector, including the government, should be speaking with one voice,” Morgan said.
With trust in the aged care system already fragile, the Department of Health faces a critical challenge: to deliver campaigns that reflect the realities of the system while empowering and respecting the older Australians they serve. For now, the Support at Home ad has missed the mark, leaving advocates and providers calling for change.
