Source: Department of Health and Aged Care — Support at Home Program data. ⚠ Figures on this poster are being verified against the latest government report. Some numbers shown are subject to confirmation.
Sheila Murphy waited while her care needs increased. Her story raises a much larger question: how many older Australians are approved, assessed or waiting for support while their health deteriorates?
For an 85-year-old Australian, a year represents more than 1% of an average lifetime. Time matters. (Counting from 24 December 2025, the backdated priority start date in Sheila's official Classification 3 determination — the one fixed, documented date in this case.)
Source: Department of Health and Aged Care — Support at Home Program data. ⚠ Figures on this poster are being verified against the latest government report. Some numbers shown are subject to confirmation.
Sheila Murphy's story started as one family's fight for appropriate aged care. It has become a much bigger question.
How many Australians are waiting for care they have been assessed as needing — and what happens to them while they wait?
MurphyCampaign.au exists to document the evidence, demand transparency and advocate for an aged-care system in which support arrives when older Australians actually need it.
Sheila Murphy's reassessment was delayed for approximately seven months. During that time, her care needs increased. She had a heart attack. She underwent spinal surgery. She spent months in rehabilitation. And still, the system asked her to wait.
This campaign begins with Sheila's experience, but it asks a question that belongs to every Australian: is the aged-care system working for everyone, or are people falling through the gaps while paperwork moves slowly?
The Support at Home program was designed to help older Australians remain in their own homes with dignity. But the distance between policy and lived experience can be vast. Reassessment delays, classification disputes, opaque billing, and a lack of transparent waiting-list data mean that families are left in the dark, navigating a system that asks them to trust it while providing little visibility into how it actually works.
Sourced from the Australian Government Aged Care Act 2024 Wait Times Report, June 2026 — pending final direct-link verification against health.gov.au
Every figure on this site is linked to its source. Where data is not publicly available, we say so.
SHOW US THE DATA.
Behind every waiting-list number is an older Australian whose time cannot be replaced.
The old, worn chair is the Murphy Campaign's recurring symbol — the same weathered chair, photographed in a hospital corridor, a kitchen, Parliament House, an empty family dining table, an aged-care waiting room.
In 200 days a baby changes enormously.
A government can pass legislation.
A hospital can treat thousands of patients.
A family can experience enormous change.
An older Australian can deteriorate dramatically.
Waiting isn't neutral.
This is Sheila Murphy's timeline, told in chronological order. Where the family and government disagree, both positions are shown.
and counting since Sheila's Support at Home priority start date (24 December 2025)
Sheila Murphy suffers a heart attack, prompting urgent review of her care needs.
A reassessment of Sheila's aged-care needs is initiated. The family waits for a determination.
Approximately seven months pass during the reassessment process. During this time, Sheila's care needs increase. She undergoes spinal surgery and rehabilitation.
An assessment determines Level 2 support. The family subsequently requests a higher level of support, citing Sheila's deteriorating health and increased care needs following surgery and rehabilitation.
Sheila undergoes spinal surgery and enters rehabilitation. Her care needs increase materially during this period.
The earlier Level 2 decision is set aside. A new determination assigns Support at Home Classification 3, standard priority, effective from 24 December 2025.
Government correspondence indicates an estimated 6-8 month wait at standard priority before Support at Home services commence.
The family disputes whether Classification 3 adequately reflects Sheila's needs, given her heart attack, spinal surgery, rehabilitation, and increased care requirements.
The matter is escalated to government ministers, regulators, parliamentarians, and advocacy organisations. The Murphy Campaign is launched to seek urgent resolution for Sheila and broader systemic reform.
The campaign is committed to presenting both sides of any dispute. Below are the respective positions on the classification question.
The family contends that Classification 3 does not adequately reflect Sheila's care needs following a heart attack, spinal surgery, rehabilitation, and ongoing deterioration. They believe a higher classification is warranted based on her clinical history and current functional capacity.
The government's 16 April 2026 decision determined Classification 3 at standard priority, effective from 24 December 2025. This represents the official determination under the Support at Home program. The estimated wait time for services at this priority is 6-8 months.
Note: The family has requested an independent review of the classification decision. The outcome of that review is pending.
Approval is not the same as funding. This map shows every stage of Australia's aged-care approval and funding process — and exactly where Sheila's case is stuck.
Source: My Aged Care (30 June 2026); Aged Care Act 2024. This map is a structural guide only, not legal advice.
The journey from needing care to receiving it should be transparent. This scoreboard tracks what we know - and what we don't.
Every older Australian who needs support at home passes through these stages. How many are at each one?
The government has not published current figures for each stage of this pipeline. That absence is part of the problem.
| Metric | Classification 1 | Classification 2 | Classification 3 | Classification 4 | Classification 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| People waiting | Not published | Not published | Not published | Not published | Not published |
| Median wait time | Not published | Not published | Not published | Not published | Not published |
| 90th percentile wait | Not published | Not published | Not published | Not published | Not published |
| Entered hospital while waiting | Not published | Not published | Not published | Not published | Not published |
| Entered residential care while waiting | Not published | Not published | Not published | Not published | Not published |
| Died while waiting | Not published | Not published | Not published | Not published | Not published |
| State/Territory | People Waiting | Median Wait (Days) | Adverse Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|
| NSW | Not published | Not published | Not published |
| Victoria | Not published | Not published | Not published |
| Queensland | Not published | Not published | Not published |
| WA | Not published | Not published | Not published |
| SA | Not published | Not published | Not published |
| Tasmania | Not published | Not published | Not published |
| ACT | Not published | Not published | Not published |
| NT | Not published | Not published | Not published |
Where data is not publicly available, we display that absence honestly. The fact that Australians cannot see how many people are waiting, for how long, or what happens to them while they wait is itself a campaign issue.
How many older Australians deteriorate while waiting for care?
How many enter hospital while waiting?
How many die while waiting?
If government doesn't publish it, Australia cannot scrutinise it.
Transparency is not a radical demand. You cannot manage what you refuse to measure - and Australians cannot judge the system without seeing the data.
You cannot manage what you refuse to measure - and Australians cannot judge the system without seeing the data.
This is not a request for individual data. No one's personal health information needs to be exposed. We are asking for aggregate, de-identified reporting published regularly - monthly or quarterly - so that Parliament, journalists, advocates, and families can see whether the Support at Home program is meeting its purpose.
We believe the following data sets should be published as a matter of routine:
Where we state a fact, we cite the source. Where we express an opinion or campaign position, we label it as such. This library is the foundation of our credibility. Source documents are being added as they are redacted for privacy.
Personal information is redacted unless Sheila Murphy has specifically consented to its publication. Documents are presented in good faith for the purpose of public interest accountability.
The Senate Community Affairs References Committee is examining the Support at Home Program. This is a critical opportunity for accountability.
4 November 2025 - Inquiry referred by the Senate
31 July 2026 - Submissions closed
24 November 2026 - Final report due
⚠ UPCOMING: 22 September 2026
Canberra Public Hearing - Senate Community Affairs References Committee
This is a key opportunity for the Committee to question departmental officials directly about waiting-list data, reassessment delays, and adverse outcomes.
The following questions should be put to departmental officials and the Minister:
These questions are not gotchas. They are the basic accountability questions that any publicly funded program should be able to answer.
Before, during, and after 22 September 2026 — tracking what we asked, what was answered, and what happens next.
The 15 questions above, submitted to the Committee ahead of 22 September.
Key statements and evidence will be logged here live as the hearing takes place.
Every question tracked to: Asked / Answered / Evaded / Action Promised — through to the 24 November 2026 final report.
We asked → they answered → did they answer the question? Updated as responses are received. No responses have been logged yet.
| Question | Response Received | Answered? | Correspondence |
|---|---|---|---|
| How many people are currently waiting, by Classification? | No response yet | — | Track here |
| What is the median and 90th-percentile waiting time? | No response yet | — | Track here |
| How many died while waiting for approved services? | No response yet | — | Track here |
Legend: 🟢 Yes 🟠 Partially 🔴 No. Rows will be added as each question is put to officials and a response is logged, with the original correspondence published alongside.
Families are asked to trust the billing without being able to see where the money goes. This section examines specific concerns raised by Sheila Murphy's family and broader questions about aged-care pricing.
Occupational Therapy Charges: The family disputes charges associated with this service and has requested explanation and review. The family is not alleging fraud. The family is asking for transparency and an explanation of what was charged, by whom, and for what service.
No allegation of fraud is made on this site. Where charges are disputed, we present the evidence and state that the matter is under review. Any determination of wrongdoing must be made by an appropriate authority, not by a campaign website.
Sheila's family has raised questions about:
Where documentary evidence supports a specific concern, it is published in the Evidence Library with appropriate redactions.
Sheila's experience raises a question that applies to every recipient of aged-care funding:
What proportion of aged-care funding actually reaches the person receiving care, and what proportion is consumed by administration, management, and overhead?
We believe every aged-care recipient and their family should receive simple, transaction-level statements showing exactly what was charged, by whom, for what service, and at what rate. This is standard in nearly every other consumer context. Aged care should be no different.
The Murphy Test is a simple accountability framework. Any aged-care policy, program, or decision should be able to answer these five questions. If the answer to any one is "no," the system hasn't passed the test.
Is care available when it is needed?
Is the decision understandable?
Can the decision be challenged quickly?
Can families see where the money goes?
Is somebody accountable when the system fails?
The Murphy Test is designed to be applied by anyone - families, journalists, parliamentarians, regulators - to any aged-care policy or program. It doesn't require expertise. It requires honesty.
"Fix aged care" is not a policy. These are specific, measurable, achievable reforms that would make the system more transparent and more accountable.
Dear Minister,
We aren't asking for another promise.
We're asking for the numbers.
How many Australians are waiting?
How long are they waiting?
What happens to them while they wait?
Publish the data.
Add your voice. Share this letter with your networks and your representatives.
Change happens when enough people speak up. Here are practical, respectful actions you can take right now.
Share your experience of the aged-care waiting room
Write to your federal Member of Parliament
Write to your state's Senators
Official complaint to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission
Request aged-care data under Freedom of Information
Write to the Community Affairs References Committee
Share MurphyCampaign with your networks
Receive updates on campaign progress and actions
Respectful, customisable letter templates you can send to your MP, Senator, or the Senate Committee. Factual, non-partisan, and focused on accountability and transparency.
References the 7 Show Us The Data questions
References the 15 accountability questions
Targets aggregate waiting-list data
Share your experience of the aged-care waiting room. No pressure to include your name.
If you or someone you love is waiting for aged-care support, your experience matters. We are collecting anonymous data to build the first independent picture of Australia's aged-care waiting room.
Your privacy is paramount. This survey is anonymous. No names, email addresses, or identifying details are required. We collect only the information you choose to share, and it will be used solely to produce aggregate, de-identified statistics.
Consent: By submitting, you consent to the anonymised use of your experience in campaign reporting and the Murphy Campaign Waiting Index. You may withdraw your data at any time by contacting us.
Data retention: Raw responses are stored securely and retained for the duration of the campaign. Only aggregated, de-identified data is published.
Not a substitute for official channels: This survey does not replace official complaints to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission or your MP. It complements them.
Once the sample is sufficiently large, we will publish the Murphy Campaign Waiting Index - an independent, community-sourced picture of waiting times and outcomes across Australia. Full methodology and limitations will be published alongside the data.
We believe community-sourced data is essential because the government has not published its own. This is not a scientific study - it is a transparency tool, and we will be honest about its limitations.
Everything a journalist needs to understand and report on the Murphy Campaign in one place.
One-page summary of the campaign
Timeline and key facts
Sourced figures with links
Ten specific reforms
Statements and media alerts
"Older Australians Don't Have Unlimited Time" A4 graphic
106,977 waiting, five reforms, source-cited
Full system map, with Sheila's case overlaid
Key documents for backgrounding
media@murphycampaign.au
THE MURPHY CAMPAIGN
Australia's aged-care waiting room needs transparency. 106,977 Australians are currently waiting in the National Priority System. The typical wait at standard priority is 7-8 months. The median time from application to care commencing is 297 days.
Sheila Murphy waited approximately seven months for reassessment while her health deteriorated. The campaign asks: how many others are waiting, for how long, and what happens to them while they do? We demand transparent waiting-list reporting, rapid reassessment for deteriorating patients, and independent review of disputed classifications. The Senate Community Affairs References Committee is inquiring into the Support at Home Program. Public hearing: 22 September 2026, Canberra. Final report due: 24 November 2026.
Not "we embarrassed somebody." A specific, achievable outcome:
When these five things are true, MurphyCampaign will have done its job.
Credibility is everything. This site uses three clear labels to distinguish between documented evidence, disputed claims, and campaign positions.
If you believe any information on this site is inaccurate, please contact contact@murphycampaign.au with the specific claim, the correct information, and supporting evidence. We will review and correct promptly.
No. Sheila's case is the human story that illustrates a much bigger question — how many Australians assessed as needing aged care are still waiting, and what happens to them while they wait. The campaign uses her experience as evidence, not as its sole subject.
No. Where charges or decisions are disputed, we say so explicitly and label them "Disputed / Under Review." No allegation of fraud or wrongdoing is made unless determined by an appropriate authority.
Every statistic on this site links to its original source — government reports, correspondence, or official determinations. Where data is not publicly available, we say so rather than guessing.
No. MurphyCampaign is non-partisan and does not endorse any political party or candidate.
Your response is anonymous — no name, email, or phone number is collected. Data is used only to produce aggregate, de-identified statistics for the Murphy Campaign Waiting Index, published with full methodology and limitations.
The Senate Community Affairs References Committee is examining the Support at Home Program, including access, pricing, transitions, and thin markets. Its public hearing is 22 September 2026 in Canberra, with a final report due 24 November 2026. It's a direct opportunity to put accountability questions to government officials.
Visit the Take Action page — tell your story, contact your MP or Senator, make an FOI request, or complete the Are You Waiting? survey.
Email contact@murphycampaign.au with the specific claim, the correct information, and supporting evidence.
Every Australian deserves to know whether the aged-care system is working. Not in theory. In practice. For real people. Right now.
Take Action