SENATOR THE HON ANNE RUSTON

SHADOW MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND AGED CARE

DEPUTY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION IN THE SENATE

SENATOR FOR SOUTH AUSTRALIA

TRANSCRIPT

INTERVIEW WITH TOM CONNELL, SKY NEWS ON THE HOUR

Tuesday, 22 September 2026

Topics: Aged care wait times and transparency; aged care administration and workforce; migration; birth rates and housing.

E&OE……………………………………

TOM CONNELL: Welcome back. The government has been talking about improved aged care responses, but there are still very lengthy wait times, either for people seeking to get some form of aged care in the home or, indeed, into residential care. Joining me live is Shadow Health and Aged Care Minister Anne Ruston. You're delving into this today. So what are you hearing? Because there are official stats on reduced waiting times along various metrics that the government's pointed to. So is it fair to say it's improving, albeit it still feels like a pretty poor system?

SENATOR RUSTON: Well, I think if you ask the older Australians who are interacting with the system, they'd say it's still a pretty poor system. But the other thing we found out this morning is that there is no transparency in the data that the government is providing around wait times and waitlists. And so there's every chance that the wait times on waitlists are actually way longer than the government's admitting to. So we're going to try and force the government to provide that data. But so far…

TOM CONNELL: So what was the evidence that the data we got, the official data — because I interviewed the Aged Care Minister and you have all these times coming down — is wrong? What was the evidence there today?

SENATOR RUSTON: Well, this morning we got evidence to suggest that they've changed the way they count people who are on the waitlist. So there is a waitlist, and they've moved people off the waitlist but only provided them with part of their packages. They call them interim packages. So those people are no longer counted, but they're actually not getting the package.

TOM CONNELL: So someone wanted five services and they get domestic cleaning — they get one of them. They don't get, say, personal care, showers and meals. They could be taken off the waitlist. Is that something that's been alleged? Where is that at? Is that what you're trying to clarify?

SENATOR RUSTON: Well, we've been asking the government for some time to provide us with greater transparency about this, but this morning that was the evidence that came from organisations like the Council on the Ageing and the Older Persons Network. They're very concerned that there are a lot more people on the waitlist, and the wait times that they are hearing about from the people they speak to are way longer than the government is admitting to.

TOM CONNELL: What about the system itself? There is a hell of a lot of outsourcing in this now, particularly aged care in the home. The Coalition usually tends to like outsourcing, the efficiency of it, supposedly. A lot of people dealing with the system — I mean, I could say I've dealt with it — get passed from one to the other. You get these codes and you're told this will work here, and then you call up the place and it doesn't. Would it be better if more was brought back to government on something so fundamental as aged care?

SENATOR RUSTON: Well, I think you make a valid point about the efficiency of the system. I don't think I've seen a system that looks more inefficient in my life. But it seems to be the administrative burden and all of these things. Every person who wants to be a provider has to actually register, you know, separately, depending on who they're dealing with. And I think there is just so much confusion. There's so much fatigue in the system. We just think people pull back from the system, and the government just keeps on putting layer after layer of administration on it. And none of it is ending up in care for older Australians. All it seems to be is everyone's filling out paperwork.

TOM CONNELL: Right, and that's what I mean. So, theoretically, you go, 'I've got a code and I can go anywhere. Here's my choice.' Whereas, realistically, if people knew it was just happening as quickly as possible — given aged care in the home, it's sort of like delayed access is often no access. People end up in a home, or in a hospital bed waiting to get to a home. Maybe that outsourcing or that independent nature of getting the provider you want, maybe that's actually not the best system when it comes to something like aged care, where you just need it quickly.

SENATOR RUSTON: Well, I would contest that the fundamental flaw with the system is all of this bureaucratic burden that's been put onto the sector. But I think the point you make is that, because older Australians are not getting the care that they need when they need it, there's the likelihood of them ending up in an aged care home or stranded in a hospital bed, or, worse still, dying while waiting for their care. And the government still has not told us how many people have died in the last 12 months waiting for care.

TOM CONNELL: So when you look at this system, you're hearing evidence. Are you thinking this needs to be run better, or this needs to be run a different way? Whether it's what I'm saying around maybe the outsourcing isn't working that well, isn't it more than just tweaks? We hear so often, 'I'll do it better,' but is the whole setup here just not working?

SENATOR RUSTON: Look, I think there is certainly an element of doing what we're currently doing better. And the evidence we heard this morning is that there are a lot of people who believe there's plenty of money in the aged care system; it's just being spent inefficiently. So that would be absolutely the first place to go: work out how we can actually get the money spent on care instead of administration and compliance. So I think that's very important. But I do think that, if you have a look at the evidence we've received, there are some structural problems with the system. And people are suggesting that we do need to go back to the drawing board with some elements.

TOM CONNELL: One of the government's reasons for delays has been workers. Now, the Coalition is pledging to have more of an immigration crackdown than the government. Can we afford to cut any workers coming into aged care or, indeed, healthcare — nurses, doctors, etcetera? Are any of those numbers going to be reduced under the Coalition's plan?

SENATOR RUSTON: Going back to the aged care inquiry this morning, we heard from UnitingCare, who are a huge, huge provider of aged care services. And I asked them straight out: if the government released all of the packages that were sitting on the waitlist at the moment and put them into the system, could you cope with increasing your resourcing to be able to cope with that? And they said, 'Absolutely, yes, we could do it very, very quickly.' So in the aged care system, the government is rationing care and blaming workforce when, quite clearly, the sector itself is saying workforce is not…

TOM CONNELL: But it is very reliant on immigration, isn't it?

SENATOR RUSTON: Absolutely.

TOM CONNELL: So is your plan going to include — or would you hive off, would you separate — aged care workers from cuts to immigration, or is that on the table?

SENATOR RUSTON: Look, obviously Jonno Duniam and the migration team will make their announcements around the details of their migration programme, but…

TOM CONNELL: But you'd surely be part of the discussion to say, 'Hey, we need these workers.'

SENATOR RUSTON: But certainly one of the things that we do need to recognise is that there are certain sectors of the economy — and aged care is absolutely one of them, the care sector is absolutely one of them — where we are very, very reliant on an overseas workforce. And so we need to make sure that our migration settings are working for Australia. And part of that is making sure that the sectors that need these particular workers will still be able to get access to…

TOM CONNELL: Get access to them. They would be immune from cuts?

SENATOR RUSTON: Look, as I said, I'm not making announcements about the migration policy.

TOM CONNELL: When you present your case, though, you'd surely be saying we can't afford to reduce this intake.

SENATOR RUSTON: As I said, I think we need to make sure our migration programme works for Australia. And I think Jonno Duniam and Angus have been very clear about that. And I don't think anybody is going to dispute that the care sector relies very heavily on an overseas workforce.

TOM CONNELL: Just finally, about Andrew Hastie: we're talking about the intergenerational report and population. He says maybe a baby bonus is needed again. What do you think?

SENATOR RUSTON: Well, consideration of a baby bonus is not something that's on the table in front of the Coalition at the moment, but I think Andrew makes a very good point. The IGR makes some pretty sobering reading for Australians: deficits as far as 2065, and the birth rate in Australia is dropping. And, you know, I think one of the things that we must do is focus on those things that help young families get ahead, because I think they're feeling very despondent at the moment about being able to be in a position to afford to start a family.

TOM CONNELL: Because a few thousand dollars might change some minds, but I guess being able to afford a house — would a baby bonus be a bad use of money compared to something where you've actually got to change someone's outlook for life?

SENATOR RUSTON: Well, I think everybody understands that getting access to housing is something that is a fundamental driver for prosperity in Australia. And we want to make sure that young people have got access to housing. And whilst there's not necessarily a direct correlation, I would think many people looking to have a family would think that having a house and home ownership are pretty important.

TOM CONNELL: Anne Ruston, thanks for your time.

ENDS