Health debate glosses over aged care
For Violet executives Kate Carnell and Melissa Reader the health debate between Mark Butler and Anne Ruston failed to give adequate attention to the aged care sector.
This week’s health debate between Minister for Health and Aged Care Mark Butler and Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care and Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Anne Ruston at the National Press Club was disappointingly lacking in its attention to Australia’s ageing population, Violet chief executive officer and founder Melissa Reader and chair Kate Carnell told Australian Ageing Agenda.
The two executives of the online care platform said the “fleeting references” to aged care during the debate failed to acknowledge the demographic revolution Australia faces, and with references to the sector largely limited to wage increases for staff, crucial aspects of the sector’s challenges were ignored.
“This isn’t merely an aged care sector issue – it’s a societal transformation that will impact our healthcare system, economy, workforce and family structures. Yet it received barely a footnote in what was supposed to be a comprehensive health debate,” Ms Carnell told AAA.
“The absence of substantive discussion reveals a concerning political blind spot. Both parties seem unwilling to confront the full scale of this demographic shift and the systemic reforms required to address it.”
Ms Reader and Ms Carnell pointed to three critical issues that they felt were ignored during the debate:
- recognition that the healthcare model fundamentally misaligns with Australians’ preferences of wanting to age at home
- plans of the two major parties on how they are going to support the “Sandwich Generation”
- solutions to help Australians plan meaningfully for life’s final chapter
Ms Reader and Ms Carnell are particularly concerned with the under-recognised work of carers – who are predominantly women – as they currently provide 2.2 billion hours of unpaid care while losing $15.2 billion in earnings. These numbers were also included in the Carers Australia February 2025 submission to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
This contribution is subsidising the care system, yet unpaid carers receive very little political visibility, which Ms Reader and Ms Carnell said could have profound implications.
They told AAA that Violet’s recent Sandwich Generation Speaks campaign collected hundreds of submissions from unpaid carers – 98 per cent coming from women aged 50-58 – revealing a growing political force united by a shared experience of navigating broken systems rather than party loyalties.
“They’re providing thousands of hours of unpaid care, sacrificing careers and financial security, and making impossible daily choices between professional advancement and family duties,” they said.
“When these voters enter polling booths, they won’t be thinking about party allegiance – they’ll be looking for anyone who acknowledges their daily struggle and offers real solutions to a care system collapsing under pressure.
“The political implications are profound. This isn’t merely a health or social challenge – it’s a potential electoral earthquake hiding in plain sight. The forgotten ‘Sandwich Generation’ isn’t just a sleeper issue – it’s a decisive force that could reshape Australia’s political landscape.”
Planning for life’s final chapter
Only 14 per cent of Australians have an end-of-life plan which drives up preventable healthcare costs, unnecessary suffering and care giver burnout – said Ms Reader and Ms Carnell.
“We need to stop relegating aged care and life’s final stage to the ‘health basket.’ This isn’t just a health issue – it’s about people, not medicine. By constantly framing aging as a medical problem, we compound the crisis and miss the fundamental human experience. We need to start talking openly about what our last chapter will look like, focusing on lives well-lived rather than merely managing medical conditions,” Ms Carnell reiterated.
“What struck me most while watching the debate was the stark contrast between how we approach different ends of the care spectrum. We meticulously plan for childcare, education, and workforce participation, yet remain stubbornly silent about planning for life’s final chapter.”
They also said the debate made it clear that Australia is thinking too narrowly about what constitutes aged care.
“What’s missing is recognition that our aging population will touch almost every Australian family and community. This isn’t just about improving conditions in aged care homes – it’s about fundamentally reimagining how we support aging Australians across the entire care continuum, particularly in their own homes and communities where the vast majority wish to remain,” said Ms Carnell.
“The real test of whether aged care is a national priority isn’t measured by incremental improvements to the existing system. It’s whether we’re preparing for the five-fold increase in Australians turning 85 in the coming decade – a demographic shift that will strain every aspect of our care infrastructure.
“Based on today’s debate, neither party is treating this looming demographic transformation with the urgency it demands. The silence speaks volumes about where aging Australians and their families truly rank in our national priorities.”
Ms Reader and Ms Carnell both expressed their belief that the debate was a missed opportunity to address what may become the defining demographic and economic challenge of the next decade.
“The question isn’t whether this crisis will impact Australian families and our healthcare system – it’s whether our political leaders will acknowledge it before it’s too late,” they said.
The full debate can be found below.
Comment on the story below. Follow Australian Ageing Agenda on LinkedIn and Facebook, sign up to our twice-weekly newsletter and subscribe to AAA magazine for the complete aged care picture.
Whilst I acknowledge the content of this article, another issue that should be considered is the number of staff like me (RN) who have almost 40 yrs of service who are planning to retire. Many are also considering leaving the industry due to the burden of change in this industry which is leading to staff just leaving for roles in another healthcare stream or in another industry.