Why is robotics care entering aged care in Australia?

Australia’s aged care sector is facing a demographic and workforce crisis. By 2050, the number of Australians aged 85 and over is projected to more than triple. At the same time, the workforce needed to support them is shrinking. The 2021 Intergenerational Report warned of a growing gap between care demand and supply, with aged care workers already underpaid, overworked, and leaving the sector in high numbers.

In this context, robotics care is being explored as a stopgap—or even a long-term solution. These technologies range from robotic lifting aids and automated medication dispensers to social robots like “Paro,” a therapeutic robotic seal used in dementia care. Some aged care facilities in Victoria and New South Wales have begun trialling robotic assistants to help with cleaning, mobility, and even emotional engagement.

Advocates argue that robotics can reduce physical strain on staff, improve efficiency, and allow human carers to focus on tasks requiring empathy and judgement. The Aged Care Industry Information Technology Council has promoted digital transformation as key to modernising the sector. In 2023, the federal government allocated $18.3 million to support innovation pilots in aged care, including robotics trials.

However, the adoption is not just about innovation—it’s about necessity. Chronic understaffing, especially in regional areas, has left some providers with few alternatives. Robots don’t solve the workforce crisis, but they may help providers stay afloat. Whether this is a viable or ethical path forward remains contested.

What are the risks of robotics care?

While robotics care offers technical solutions, it introduces serious risks—many of them human. The most immediate concern is the erosion of personal connection. For many older Australians, especially those with dementia or limited mobility, carers are not just service providers but lifelines to the outside world. Replacing human interaction with programmed responses may deepen isolation and worsen mental health outcomes.

There are also accountability issues. If a robotic assistant malfunctions or causes harm, who is responsible? The provider, the manufacturer, or the programmer? Australia’s regulatory framework for medical and assistive robotics is still underdeveloped, creating grey zones in liability and oversight. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has limited jurisdiction over non-clinical robotic devices, leaving a regulatory blind spot.

Ethical concerns run deeper still. Can a robot provide dignity? Can it recognise subtle signs of distress or abuse? The 2021 Royal Commission into Aged Care highlighted the importance of respect, empathy, and human rights in care delivery. These are not easily programmed. The risk is that robots become a technological fig leaf for systemic neglect: a way to appear modern while avoiding the hard work of reforming workforce conditions and funding models.

Finally, the introduction of robotics may exacerbate inequality. Wealthier facilities may afford cutting-edge systems, while under-resourced centres rely on outdated or poorly integrated tech. This creates a two-tiered system where the quality of care depends not on need, but on postcode and profit margins.

What does this mean for Australia?

Aged care is becoming a test case for how Australia balances innovation with ethics. The integration of robotics care is not just a technical shift—it is a cultural one. It forces a national reckoning with how we value the elderly, what we consider “care,” and who we trust to deliver it.

Policy reform must keep pace. The current regulatory environment is not equipped to handle the complexities of robotics in care settings. Clear standards, safety protocols, and ethical guidelines are urgently needed. Without them, innovation risks outpacing accountability.

Workforce development remains critical. Robotics should not be seen as a substitute for human carers, but as a support tool. Investment in training, fair wages, and career pathways is essential if the sector is to attract and retain skilled workers. Otherwise, Australia risks automating care not because it is better, but because no one else is left to do it.

Public trust is at stake. Australians have already expressed deep concern about the quality of aged care. Introducing robotics without transparency or consent could further erode confidence. Any rollout must involve consultation with residents, families, and staff—not just tech firms and administrators.

Finally, the ethical debate must remain front and centre. Technology can enhance care, but it cannot replace compassion. As robots enter aged care homes, Australians must decide: are we using machines to support dignity, or to sidestep it?

How is Japan using robotics in aged care?

Japan, facing one of the world’s oldest populations, has been a global leader in robotics care. The Japanese government has actively subsidised the development of care robots, including mobility aids, exoskeletons, and social companions. In some facilities, robots like “Pepper” greet residents, lead exercise classes, and monitor wellbeing.

However, Japan’s experience also highlights the limits of technology. Studies have shown mixed results in terms of patient satisfaction and staff relief. Cultural factors—such as a higher baseline acceptance of robots—may not translate to Australian settings. Even in Japan, human carers remain essential, and robotics is viewed as augmentation, not replacement.

Australia can learn from Japan’s cautious optimism: embrace innovation, but not at the cost of human dignity or oversight.

Are we outsourcing care, or redefining it?

Robotics care is not inherently good or bad—it is a tool. But how we use it reflects our values. If deployed thoughtfully, it could ease burdens and improve safety. If used as a shortcut, it risks dehumanising the most vulnerable. The future of aged care in Australia will be shaped not just by what robots can do, but by what we choose to let them replace.