Being the minister for Aged Care or Seniors is hard work and it is not a glamorous portfolio.

The history of older Australians having to depend upon the commercial aged care sector is a history of financial abuse within a number of poorly regulated industries!

During the life of the previous Coalition Government, the curatorship of aged care had firstly been handed to Sussan Ley, followed by Arthur Sinodinos, then Ken Wyatt (acting) and, finally, Richard Colbeck. In the dying days of the Morrison Government, Colbeck could not even make a media statement about the release of the Royal Commission Report — that task was handled by health minister Greg Hunt — and the fact that the government agreed with the overwhelming majority of the recommendations signalled they would likely go nowhere.

Therefore, it was a relief to many of us that with the election of the Albanese Government, the recommendations of the Aged Care Royal Commission may see the light of day, starting with Recommendation One, a new Aged Care Act. This has taken a grindingly slow four years and hopefully the new Act may be implemented before the end of 2025. It should be noted that under Albanese, the ministerial portfolio of Aged Care was firstly held by Mark Butler along with his enormous portfolio of Health. Since then, younger, junior and extraordinarily ambitious ministers, namely Anika Wells, and now, Sam Rae, have been handed the portfolio. Albanese has had to balance gender, state, experience and factional considerations when dispensing ministerial posts. Irrespective of the colour of the Australian Government or any other considerations, Albanese has demonstrated that Aged Care remains at the bottom of the portfolio pack.

Yet every government in Australia has introduced legislation to outlaw “elder abuse” without specifically identifying corporate financial abuse of the aged by the providers of aged care services, and particularly accommodation for those living in a retirement village. Elder Abuse legislation and the National Plan are a confidence trick. This legislation and the National Plan read like an episode of “Yes, Minister”. This is no more than appeasement of the conscience of legislators and a false hope for the community; the legislation lacks both merit and teeth. As Katie Hepworth stated “the ‘care’ in ‘aged care’ has been secondary to the financial interests of providers since the introduction of the 1997 Aged Care Act under prime minister John Howard”. Nothing has yet changed.

The residential aged care industry and the home care package industry are both the responsibility of the Australian Government and, since 1997, the retirement villages industry is the province of each state and territory government. All are replete with every form of aged care services and industries across every jurisdiction. These industries are riddled with national and international developers, all of whom have peak bodies with extraordinary levels of capital and resources to advocate on behalf of their respective industries. They have been very successful when applying their craft to successive governments who have acquiesced to their every demand.

The most recent example of industry providers and their overreach came after the shocking revelations made by Rebekha Sharkie MP, picked up by journalist, Adele Ferguson on 7.30 in October 2024. Every government was caught short-footed and the matter was forwarded to the Council of Australian Government’s Consumer Affairs meeting on 10 December 2024. The Albanese Government was under intense pressure to do something about the retirement village industry. The Retirement Living Council, the peak body, had received the intelligence about the COAG meeting and went into overdrive. The former Labor minister for Consumer Affairs, Stephen Jones, was lobbied and was complicit in giving in to the industry. “The ministers agreed to report on progress throughout 2025 as they continue to identify opportunities for harmonisation and meaningful uplift in standards to protect consumers in these (retirement villages) areas” and nothing was done about new and better regulation of the industry. Consumer Affairs now falls within the purview of Treasurer Jim Chalmers and/or the Assistant Minister, Andrew Leigh, and is part of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

Meanwhile, residents of retirement villages are left with possibly a moribund residents’ committee, individual “do-gooders” in the community or an ineffective branch of COTA (Council of the Aged); and/or a state or territory government reluctant to do anything for the residents by regulating the industry. The RLC was satisfied they have “dodged a bullet”. It will be interesting to see what exactly the various state and territory governments provide back to the ACCC before the end of 2025. The residents need much more than harmonisation or uplifting in standards. They need proper and decisive legislation to protect their financial interests.

Here in the ACT is a perfect case study. After much lobbying by the Vintage Reds of the Canberra Region, a group of retired trade unionists, the (then) ACT attorney-general, Shane Rattenbury, established a Retirement Villages Working Group in 2023 with industry representatives to consider a range of changes to the current territory Act. The VRs were seeking to improve the lot of people living in retirement villages by having (1) a comprehensive register of retirement villages; (2) a statutory registrar empowered to oversee the register and the industry; (3) standardised contracts included in the Act; (4) a share of the capital gains for all residents when they move away from their retirement village homes, and (5) that the RV Act be included in the Working with Vulnerable People legislation. So far, all that has happened in the ACT is the inclusion of the elder abuse clauses into the Retirement Villages Act. What a cop out!

I have the privilege of being one of those appointed to the RVWG; the last meeting was held in May 2025, some four months ago, and in the meanwhile, simply nothing has happened.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.