1. Post-Reform Landscape: A Structural Reset, Not just a Cosmetic Change 

The 2021 Royal Commission laid bare systemic neglect, abuse, and fragmentation within the aged care system, especially in residential settings. Its final report, Care, Dignity and Respect, identified the over-institutionalization of aged care and recommended a reorientation toward care at home, embedded in rights-based principles and personalized supports (Royal Commission, 2021). In response, the federal government committed to significant structural changes, including a new Support at Home Program, greater regulatory oversight, and increased transparency. 

While these reforms mark an important shift, they also expose unresolved tensions in the prevailing discourse on ageing in place. The Commission rightly pointed out that residential aged care must no longer be the default destination for older Australians. However, simply diverting demand from institutions to homes without radically rethinking how care is delivered, integrated, and experienced, risks replicating old problems in new settings (Fine, 2020). 

2. From Policy Rhetoric to Practice Realities 

Despite bipartisan endorsement of ageing in place, policy implementation has been uneven. Home care packages remain underfunded and overstretched, with long wait times and regional disparities (AIHW, 2023). Informal carers, predominantly women, shoulder increasing burdens without adequate support. Moreover, marketisation and consumer-directed care models often assume that older people are willing and able to navigate complex systems, which is not always the case (Ellis & Simons, 2022). 

There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that ageing in place, when poorly supported, can lead to isolation, unmet care needs, and health deterioration (Wiles et al., 2012). This is particularly true for those living alone, with cognitive impairments, or in unsafe or unsuitable housing. The Australian context—characterized by geographic dispersal, cultural diversity, and persistent social inequalities—demands a more nuanced approach than the current policy architecture allows. 

3. Reframing “Place” as Relational and Embedded 

Too often, ageing in place is narrowly interpreted as “staying in one’s home.” This reductive view overlooks the importance of place as a relational, social, and infrastructural construct. Recent scholarship urges a shift from “ageing in place” to “ageing in the right place,” where the focus is on matching environments to evolving needs, preferences, and capacities (Golant, 2015). 

In the Australian context, this reframing is vital. For Indigenous communities, for example, place carries deep spiritual and cultural meaning, which cannot be reduced to property tenure. For older migrants, familiar language and cultural practices shape their sense of home and belonging. For all older Australians, access to transport, local services, digital technologies, and safe public spaces are as critical to successful ageing in place as in-home care supports.