HAK Birthdays: Henry Kissinger Turns 100

“Once you’ve been to Cambodia, you’ll never stop wanting to beat Henry…

Yes is inclusive, No is divisive

The words speak for themselves, but I shall return to them briefly…

Modi in Australia: Down Under Bliss for Hindutva

There is an interesting thread that links the Indian Prime Minister, Narendra…

Why the Conservatives cannot win the next election…

You are probably thinking, referring to the headline, that it is a…

Five Things That Don't Make Sense (OK, But…

I've often said that I can accept that people will disagree with…

Education at the Showground

In the conurbation that is South East Queensland, most of the towns…

New coal mines and protests crushed: is Labor…

It is more shocking watching Labor governments implement draconian anti-protest measures than…

Visits of Justice: Stella Assange’s Plea to Australia

It certainly got the tongues wagging, the keyboards pressed, and the intellectually…


John Howard wrecked Aged Care for all Australians

There is a definite turning point in the quality and the humanity of Australia’s care for the elderly. The Aged Care Bill 1997 (Cth) was introduced as part of the new Howard Government’s 1996 Budget measures. It was to prove a huge gamble, which still wreaks havoc in the Aged Care sector. And it created a distinctly new group of players in our economy. It showed a government naively putting its faith in the market.


It started with John Howard

It was a curiously shallow and unsophisticated Bill, which did not even bother to hide its malicious intent. Each of the recommendations was ‘loaded’ against the elderly, and the Opposition of the time was ineffective in their efforts to mitigate the harm of the Bill, even if they had wanted to. It was led by Kim Beazley, and he was powerless at the best of times, let alone when he faced Howard’s massive majority.

The private (for profit) sector has six big players, who do what ‘for profits’ do; they maximise profits, usually at the expense of their customers – tick. They feed on their smaller competitors – tick. They amass market power – tick. They become too big to fail – tick. They refuse even basic accountability, although they are massively subsidised by taxpayers – tick. That subsidy currently sits at over 70% of revenue.

The worst part is that the governments of the day, (and both sides have been at fault) continue to believe that corporates are better at delivering value for money. This belief endures, even though successive Governments have watched as their performance declined, while their revenues increased. So there is no recognisable corporate ‘efficiency’ being exercised; there are only tax avoidance measures, increased fees and reduced costs, which apparently can include starving their residents. And they continue to sting the Government.


What did the Act change?

The proposed changes in the 1997 Act were to consolidate funding arrangements for the then separate nursing home and hostel sectors, and provide for a single residential care system to determine the level of Australian Government subsidy for each resident.

They outlined a greater reliance on resident contributions to the cost of care, including through a system of accommodation bonds, and residential care benefits subject to income testing. They also proposed a relaxation of previous regulatory requirements, such as tight financial acquittal requirements, and their replacement by a ‘lighter-touch’ accreditation approach.

This grab-bag of ‘nothing regulation’ was the jackpot. It satisfied the neo-liberals, by making the system essentially ‘user-pays’; it consolidated the two areas of accommodations into one bite-sized chunk for the private equity groups, waiting on the sidelines; and best of all it really did use the term “lighter touch accreditation approach”, which just really means no oversight. (You have to love the euphemism team who drafted this Bill. Fun fact: euphemism: a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.)


What did the Royal Commission find?

There are so many issues which affect the Aged Care system that we needed another Royal Commission. That is because although we have had several in the last twenty plus years, no government has felt constrained to follow their recommendations, and so we are stuck with the ideologically driven mismatch of profit-takers and neglected frail clients.

The latest, which produced the Interim Report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety was tabled on 31 October 2019. It stated that:

“… the aged care system fails to meet the needs of its older, vulnerable, citizens. It does not deliver uniformly safe and quality care, is unkind and uncaring towards older people and, in too many instances, it neglects them.”

Commissioners Richard Tracey AM, RFD, QC and Lynelle Briggs’s AO investigation into Australia’s aged care system led them to describe the aged care system as “a shocking tale of neglect”.

“The neglect that we have found in this Royal Commission, to date, is far from the best that can be done. Rather, it is a sad and shocking system that diminishes Australia as a nation.”

We wonder why the sector refuses to countenance proper, honest auditing of their work, or their costs. We must wonder anew as to why the stewards of our taxpayer dollars do not insist. It is our parents’, and our grandparents’, lives at stake here.

According to Professor Joe Ibrahim, Head of Monash University’s Health Law and Ageing Research Unit, residential aged care facilities (RACFs) are currently not required to disclose how many staff they have, nor how they spend government funding.

It is hard to understand how a responsible Government can sit idly by and allow itself to be rorted so spectacularly. Matthias Cormann, Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenburg have all been robbed blind, even as they were apparently ‘on duty’, protecting the revenue. Perhaps their attention wandered, as they had to keep watch on the unemployed, who are always plotting some form of chicanery.


How much are we paying for the system?

Australian Government expenditure for aged care throughout 2018–19 totalled $19.9 billion, an increase of 10 per cent from the previous year.

In 2018–19, over 1.3 million people received some form of aged care. The great majority received home-based care and support, and relatively few lived in residential care:
• 840,984 people received home support through the CHSP
• 133,439 people received care through a home care package
• 65,523 people received residential respite care, of whom 34,984 (approximately 53 per cent) were later admitted to permanent care
• 242,612 people received permanent residential aged care.

The sector, notwithstanding its perceived inadequacies, is expected to continue to grow its revenue by an annual rate of 5.4%. Its profit is expected to grow by an annual rate of 4.4%.

When asked about the finding that up to 50% of Aged Care residents were malnourished, Sean Rooney responded that the daily allowance for food per resident was $6, however that was at wholesale prices, and there were possibly supplements added, for some residents, and really that aged residents should not be compared to prisoners because they needed less calories. He leads the peak body, Leading Aged Services Australia.

The sector appears to be hugely profitable, and to pay very little tax. Although how would we know? They keep their operating costs secret, so we know their revenue, but we do not know their operating costs, so their profit remains a mystery. According to the ATO, the total combined income of all for-profit aged care providers was just over $5 billion in 2015–16, with a total profit of $529.3 million and after-tax profit of $402 million.

Companies can use various accounting methods to avoid paying tax. One method is when a company links (staples) two or more businesses (securities) they own together, each security is treated separately for tax purposes to reduce the amount of tax the company has to pay. Aged care companies are known to use this method as well as other tax avoiding practices.

Another practice is by ‘renting’ their aged care homes from themselves (one security rents to another) or by providing loans between securities and shareholders. See Tax Avoidance by For Profit Aged Care Companies Australia Report 2018.


The big players

Bupa, Australia’s largest for-profit aged care provider made over AU$ 663m in 2017. Over 70% (AU$ 468m) of this was from government funding.

Opal, the second largest for-profit company had a total income of AU$ 527.2m in 2015-16 (76% Government funding).

Allity had total income of $315.6 million, 67% of which came from government funding.

Japara had a total revenue of AU$ 275.5m in 2018, 72% (AU$ 198.7m) of which came from government funding.

In FY2018, Estia had a total revenue of AU$ 266.8m, 74% (AU$197.3m) of which came from government funding.

In 2018, Regis had total revenues of AU$ 280.5m, 71% (AU$ 198.2m) of which came from government funding.

As a basic principle, companies that receive millions of government subsidies must be held to a higher standard of transparency and must be publicly accountable. The fiasco which is the Aged Care sector has been sold off to profiteers, and we get what you would expect. If you don’t pay attention, they exploit the system, and the aged suffer.

The system is way too important to leave in the hands of companies whose first allegiance is to their shareholders. We need to re-build a strong public sector, augmented by not for profits. Throw away the neo-liberal playbook. Sink some money into aged care, because the community wants it. Our politicians have probably got a cosy little retirement haven set up for themselves, and probably paid for by us. The rest of the community should not dread old age, because our government of the day is too miserable to provide for ALL of its citizens.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button



Login here Register here
  1. New England Cocky

    Yet further evidence that Little Johnnie Howard betrayed Australian voters at every opportunity. Thank you for this excellent objective analysis.

    ”As a basic principle, companies that receive millions of government subsidies must be held to a higher standard of transparency and must be publicly accountable.” Worth repeating. Worth enacting for the sake of the Baby Boomer generation at least.

  2. Loi Hayes

    It’s not only parents and grandparents lives at risk here, it’s also ppl who have no children or grandchildren to speak for them. That’s even scarier.

  3. leefe

    There is almost nothing that the Lying Rodent did that wasn’t a massive step back for Australia, both socially and economically. Desppite the damage done by both the Mad Monk and ScoMoFo, Little Jonnie Howard still takes the mantle as our worst ever PM.

  4. Ross

    Everything that is wrong now was caused by little Johnny

  5. Kevin Carey

    From the Moran enterprise

  6. Patricia

    The statement that the aged need less food than prisoners is a fallacy. Any nutritionist will tell you that a diet with adequate protein will ensure that muscle wastage is reduced and together with adequate exercise will maintain muscle mass in the elderly, which results in better balance and in fewer falls which would have an impact on the lifestyle and the health system. Adequate vitamin and mineral intake from natural sources builds tissue and muscle, fruit and vegetables provide bulk for bowels and reduces intestinal function issues. The elderly need a good diet to maintain good health and feeding them some of the swill that passes for food in some care (?) facilities adds to their health issues.

  7. leefe

    The whole concept of “they’re older so they need less food” is just vile. It’s part of their philosophy of performring to the lowest possible standard and bugger the results as long as the profit keeps growing.

  8. Gerry

    Has privatisation of government services ever worked? The state of the electricity and gas industries, aged care, employment services and public transport would suggest not

  9. Harry Lime

    Cousin of mine used to be an active member of the CPG when the little bastard was PM,and as such,used get a ride with the press scrum(scum?) when Ratso scuttled forth overseas.Try as I might,I could never convince cuz to pass on my thoughts,much as he would have liked to.

  10. andyfiftysix

    Gerry, you have a point. Not only was/is howard a shit human, he also had/has a deep desire to privatise everything with that peculiar liberal wish that the market knows best. As we very well know markets usually run on survival of the fittest. Markets dont give a shit about us humans. Hence why non of the privatised “industries” works in our favour.

    My recent trip to griffith amplified this reminder. Country people put up with shit mobile reception. Another brilliant Howard move to privatise telstra. We made $50b on the sale only to spend way way more for an inadequate NBN. Talk about total waste of resources, money that could have been better spent. Yet some people are so fucking stupid to keep voting liberal.

    Truely, privatisation should become a swear word and banned from dictionaries.

    What makes me such an unrepentant hater is the fact the bastard has never akcnowledged his failures. And there have been plenty of them.

  11. leefe

    It”s worked really well for the companies who now run those services.

    You mean he was a bodyguard? I hope he never even contemplated taking a bullet for the Lying Rodent.

  12. Gerry

    Harry: CPP – Close Personal Protection?

  13. Gerry

    leefe : correct, the only winners were them and people who bought shares in those companies – oh, and the LNP coz no doubt they were generous donors to the Tories

  14. Harry Lime


  15. Michael Taylor

    frances, my honours thesis in Aboriginal Studies was on that very thing, coincidentally.

  16. frances goold

    @Michael Taylor: So many sinister applications…I think there was also a bit of it about during the first year or so of the pandemic!

  17. Michael Taylor

    frances, so many comparisons to Howard’s racist scare campaigns to the colonial attitudes in the 1890s on the eve of Federation.

    Howard set race relations back 100 years. He destroyed a century of hard work.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: