Aged Care Minister Richard Colbeck (Image: Private Media)

Crikey has been swamped with letters from readers responding to Michael Bradley’s article that the aged care minister needs to resign or be sacked. Almost all of you agree. Here is a selection of your letters. And please keep sending them in to letters@crikey.com.au.

The case against Richard Colbeck

Dr Patricia Rego: Richard Colbeck’s culpable lack of performance as minister for aged care is a reflection not only on himself but also on his boss, Scott Morrison, who apparently believes hundreds of thousands of vulnerable human beings are not important enough for a dedicated ministerial portfolio.

Colbeck had singularly failed in his responsibility to ensure adequate care for the elderly even before COVID struck. Post-COVID, the carnage is manifest. Colbeck has done nothing to increase training, staffing and qualification levels, and has failed to raise employment standards and salaries for aged care workers. He has not even bothered to mount a case on behalf of the workers to the Fair Work Commission.

What those in aged care need and deserve from the minister is competent compassion. His prioritising a three-day visit to the cricket bespeaks not only a dereliction of duty at a critical time, but also a lack of insight and sensitivity to the optics.

The incompetent, uncaring, overpaid Colbeck cannot be trusted to carry out the duties of minister in such an important portfolio. He should be sacked.

Fiona Underwood: Colbeck is an insult to the aged care sector, Australian voters and humanity at large. Why hasn’t he been sacked?

Kevin McCann: The prime minister set the standards for senior government employees’ job retention when he insisted that Christine Holgate be fired for a minor transgression. Her error of judgment didn’t actually break any rules; it just couldn’t pass the so-called pub test.

On this basis, and almost any other standard one can contemplate, Richard Colbeck does not deserve to stay in his job. If he or Scott Morrison don’t act on this, let’s hope the Tasmanian electorate does.

Joan Christensen: It seems to me the argument on the situation of Richard Colbeck, the allegedly incompetent minister for aged care, is valid. The man does appear incompetent and, worse, appears to have no commitment or interest in the portfolio.

His weak excuses when questioned regarding details of his portfolio have been stunningly facile and without conscience. His statement that the sector is doing well demonstrates a clear lack of the grasp of the situation to the extent of disinterest. 

Yes, in my opinion, Richard Colbeck should stand down immediately — or his PM should stand him down (not hopeful that will happen, though). Colbeck must be an embarrassment to the current government — or is it all too witless to notice?

Sally Mair: At no point has either the federal or NSW Coalition governments supported the doctrine of ministerial responsibility. The buck stops nowhere; rather, we’re encouraged to “move on”. 

It is truly appalling that such incompetence, ignorance and apparent deceit incurs no penalty. There are so many highly paid MPs to whom this applies.

Colbeck surely should go. I agree with Anthony Albanese that if he doesn’t resign, the PM should sack him as soon as today.

Doug Cox: It’s one thing to have an incompetent individual in charge of a major portfolio with massive budgets. It’s another thing entirely if the individual appears totally lacking in human qualities like empathy. Minister Colbeck’s reported volunteering that 60% of the deceased “were in the absolute last days of their lives” indicates a breathtaking level of callousness.

It echoes the general subtext of the government’s policies and outpourings: old people are no longer of value, choking the health system and are, in aggregate, an expensive burden on the budget. The clear message is don’t get old.

Minister Colbeck must go!

Has something in Crikey got you fired up? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name if you would like to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.