CHINA INSIGHTS | Part I
1 December 2025
China's $5,000 direct tech subsidy for older people
Older attendee testing a smart diagnostic mirror that performs real-time facial and vital-sign analysis at the 11th Silver Industry China Expo in Guangzhou, November 2025.
China is facing the same pressures as aged care systems worldwide: a rapidly ageing population, workforce shortages, and the desire for people to remain in their homes longer. In this first part of my insights from China, I'm focusing on something Australia hasn't previously considered--directly subsidising technology adoption for older people.
The current policy in China is that all residents can receive a discount of up to 30% on ageing-friendly products or home modification costs, with no assessment required. The maximum subsidy varies by province, but can reach RMB 20,000 (approximately $5,000 AUD). What this covers is extensive: from smart monitoring devices for fall detection and vital signs tracking, to smart beds and toilets, to AI-powered voice assistants, to home modifications. The subsidy removes the price barrier that typically prevents early adoption, allowing families to equip their parents' homes with assistive technology before a crisis forces the issue, rather than rushing to retrofit after a fall or hospitalisation.
The family member can be the purchaser claiming the subsidy, rather than requiring the older person themselves to navigate the bureaucracy. This reflects China's collectivist culture, where families naturally manage these decisions together. Australia's system, by contrast, typically requires the older person to be the direct recipient and decision-maker—a model that excludes many of our migrant communities. Greek, Italian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and countless other Australian families from collectivist backgrounds expect to manage ageing decisions as a family unit, yet our aged care system forces them into an individualistic framework that doesn't match how they actually live.
We've built a system that presumes everyone is making independent consumer choices, and then we wonder why uptake is low in certain communities.
The digital divide problem—and China's response
You could argue that pushing technology adoption would exclude many older people, especially given how much has moved online. In China, this concern is particularly acute—Alipay and WeChat have created complete ecosystems where everything from banking to private messaging to booking taxis to paying bills happens through app integration. If you can't navigate these platforms, you're effectively locked out of daily life.
But China doesn't just subsidise the technology and hope people figure it out. In busy public squares throughout Chinese cities, I saw government-run kiosks helping citizens with their daily dealings—including specific support for older people navigating technology. Staff and volunteers assist with setting up e-banking, explaining smartphone functions, and demonstrating how smart home devices work. The assumption is that technology literacy requires active, accessible support, not just the availability of devices. The subsidy and the support infrastructure work together.
Why Australia should consider this model
The predictable objections will come. It's too expensive for the budget. We can't just copy China's policies. Privacy concerns make smart home tech problematic. Why should we subsidise wealthy people who can afford this themselves?
Let's discuss each.
On cost—the argument that we can't afford this ignores what we're already spending. We're pouring billions into aged care. A universal technology subsidy that keeps people in their homes longer is just a reallocation. Every month someone stays home with proper assistive technology is a month they're not in residential care at substantially higher annual costs. The subsidy pays for itself through delayed transitions to residential care, reduced hospital presentations from preventable falls, and lower crisis intervention costs.
On "we can't just copy China"—this objection reveals more about our cultural anxieties than our policy capacity. We routinely adopt healthcare models from Britain, Scandinavia, and Japan without triggering concerns about national sovereignty or cultural appropriateness. And yet we've simultaneously built an aged care system that ignores the collectivist decision-making patterns of a large portion of our population. If we're willing to import individualised consumer-choice models from Anglo, or Anglo-adjacent systems, why are we suddenly precious about learning from a collectivist one? Good policy is good policy. If we choose to ignore China's approach based on ideology or discomfort, we prevent ourselves from learning from a country that's dealing with demographic ageing at a scale we can barely comprehend.
On privacy and surveillance—yes, smart home devices collect data. Yes, this raises legitimate concerns, particularly given some of these products originate from companies with opaque data practices. But these concerns exist regardless of whether government subsidises the technology. The answer isn't to refuse subsidies and leave people to navigate these risks alone—it's to establish clear data protection standards, require transparency about what data is collected and how it's used, and mandate that subsidised devices meet minimum privacy thresholds. More on this in an upcoming update.
On means-testing—this objection resonates with me too. On one hand, universal subsidies sound fiscally irresponsible. But means-testing requires assessment bureaucracies and may create anti-incentives where people avoid beneficial technology because it might affect their pension eligibility. Uptake suffers because of complexity. I think the answer sits somewhere in the middle. Let's not spend years on consultation and new eligibility criteria. Let's base our assessment on an existing model we already have and just implement it. Yes, there'll be a margin of error—some people who shouldn't benefit will, whilst others who should might miss out. But a 10% error rate with 90% coverage is better than stalling whilst 100% miss out waiting for the perfect system. The goal isn't perfect targeting—it's maximum adoption of technology that keeps people safer and more independent.
The case for action
The benefits are substantial: earlier technology adoption means better safety monitoring, reduced social isolation, support for family carers, and extended capacity for independent living. The subsidy signals that government sees technology as essential infrastructure for ageing. It activates a market for aged-friendly products, driving innovation and competition. And it supports families in equipping their parents' homes proactively rather than reactively.
Australia has the aged care funding, the technology sector, and the ageing population that would benefit from this approach. What we lack is the policy imagination to implement it.
The current policy in China is that all residents can receive a discount of up to 30% on ageing-friendly products or home modification costs, with no assessment required. The maximum subsidy varies by province, but can reach RMB 20,000 (approximately $5,000 AUD). What this covers is extensive: from smart monitoring devices for fall detection and vital signs tracking, to smart beds and toilets, to AI-powered voice assistants, to home modifications. The subsidy removes the price barrier that typically prevents early adoption, allowing families to equip their parents' homes with assistive technology before a crisis forces the issue, rather than rushing to retrofit after a fall or hospitalisation.
The family member can be the purchaser claiming the subsidy, rather than requiring the older person themselves to navigate the bureaucracy. This reflects China's collectivist culture, where families naturally manage these decisions together. Australia's system, by contrast, typically requires the older person to be the direct recipient and decision-maker—a model that excludes many of our migrant communities. Greek, Italian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and countless other Australian families from collectivist backgrounds expect to manage ageing decisions as a family unit, yet our aged care system forces them into an individualistic framework that doesn't match how they actually live.
We've built a system that presumes everyone is making independent consumer choices, and then we wonder why uptake is low in certain communities.
The digital divide problem—and China's response
You could argue that pushing technology adoption would exclude many older people, especially given how much has moved online. In China, this concern is particularly acute—Alipay and WeChat have created complete ecosystems where everything from banking to private messaging to booking taxis to paying bills happens through app integration. If you can't navigate these platforms, you're effectively locked out of daily life.
But China doesn't just subsidise the technology and hope people figure it out. In busy public squares throughout Chinese cities, I saw government-run kiosks helping citizens with their daily dealings—including specific support for older people navigating technology. Staff and volunteers assist with setting up e-banking, explaining smartphone functions, and demonstrating how smart home devices work. The assumption is that technology literacy requires active, accessible support, not just the availability of devices. The subsidy and the support infrastructure work together.
Why Australia should consider this model
The predictable objections will come. It's too expensive for the budget. We can't just copy China's policies. Privacy concerns make smart home tech problematic. Why should we subsidise wealthy people who can afford this themselves?
Let's discuss each.
On cost—the argument that we can't afford this ignores what we're already spending. We're pouring billions into aged care. A universal technology subsidy that keeps people in their homes longer is just a reallocation. Every month someone stays home with proper assistive technology is a month they're not in residential care at substantially higher annual costs. The subsidy pays for itself through delayed transitions to residential care, reduced hospital presentations from preventable falls, and lower crisis intervention costs.
On "we can't just copy China"—this objection reveals more about our cultural anxieties than our policy capacity. We routinely adopt healthcare models from Britain, Scandinavia, and Japan without triggering concerns about national sovereignty or cultural appropriateness. And yet we've simultaneously built an aged care system that ignores the collectivist decision-making patterns of a large portion of our population. If we're willing to import individualised consumer-choice models from Anglo, or Anglo-adjacent systems, why are we suddenly precious about learning from a collectivist one? Good policy is good policy. If we choose to ignore China's approach based on ideology or discomfort, we prevent ourselves from learning from a country that's dealing with demographic ageing at a scale we can barely comprehend.
On privacy and surveillance—yes, smart home devices collect data. Yes, this raises legitimate concerns, particularly given some of these products originate from companies with opaque data practices. But these concerns exist regardless of whether government subsidises the technology. The answer isn't to refuse subsidies and leave people to navigate these risks alone—it's to establish clear data protection standards, require transparency about what data is collected and how it's used, and mandate that subsidised devices meet minimum privacy thresholds. More on this in an upcoming update.
On means-testing—this objection resonates with me too. On one hand, universal subsidies sound fiscally irresponsible. But means-testing requires assessment bureaucracies and may create anti-incentives where people avoid beneficial technology because it might affect their pension eligibility. Uptake suffers because of complexity. I think the answer sits somewhere in the middle. Let's not spend years on consultation and new eligibility criteria. Let's base our assessment on an existing model we already have and just implement it. Yes, there'll be a margin of error—some people who shouldn't benefit will, whilst others who should might miss out. But a 10% error rate with 90% coverage is better than stalling whilst 100% miss out waiting for the perfect system. The goal isn't perfect targeting—it's maximum adoption of technology that keeps people safer and more independent.
The case for action
The benefits are substantial: earlier technology adoption means better safety monitoring, reduced social isolation, support for family carers, and extended capacity for independent living. The subsidy signals that government sees technology as essential infrastructure for ageing. It activates a market for aged-friendly products, driving innovation and competition. And it supports families in equipping their parents' homes proactively rather than reactively.
Australia has the aged care funding, the technology sector, and the ageing population that would benefit from this approach. What we lack is the policy imagination to implement it.