This is not a column about the election campaign. As such.

But it is about the making of mediocre policy, and the mediocre politics that accompanies such policy, which should be at the heart of the campaign.

In September last year, the ABC's Four Corners ran a two-part series examining Australia's aged care sector.

The program described it as its biggest-ever crowd-sourced project, with more than 1,000 current and former aged-care workers contacting the broadcaster, among a total of more than 4,000 responses, about the state of aged care across Australia.

Anticipating the program, and the likely response to its stories of neglect, poor food and failures of care, newly installed Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced a royal commission into the $22-billion-a-year sector.

But there was more bad publicity to come. In January, 7.30 broadcast a story about the use of chemical and physical restraints in some nursing homes, which sent further shockwaves through the community.

Sorry, this video has expired Ms McCulla provided 7.30 with video showing another resident also strapped to his chair.

An announcement in a tight spot

A couple of weeks later, and the day before the royal commission hearings were to begin, the Government announced a funding package for the sector.

"The Morrison Government is making a further significant investment in aged care, with $320 million for residential aged care and an additional 10,000 homecare packages across all levels as part of a new $662 million package to support older Australians," a February 10 statement from the PM and Aged Care Minister Ken Wyatt said.

"The $320 million residential aged-care component equates to approximately $1,800 per permanent resident and will provide additional support to the sector, over the next 18 months, to deliver quality aged-care services while the Government considers longer-term reform funding options".

Mr Morrison said looking after older Australians was, "the Government's top priority".

"Older Australians have worked hard all their life, paid taxes and done their fair share, and they deserve our support," he said.

Sorry, this video has expired Minister Ken Wyatt explains his shift in position on a royal commission into aged care in September 2018.

"While we are delivering record aged-care funding, Bill Shorten is raiding the savings of almost 1 million retirees.

"This new $662 million investment aims to help speed up access to home care and ensure older Australians receive safe, high-quality services when and where they need them."

Governments often make funding announcements when they are in a political tight spot, and need to look like they are doing something.

But the particular nature of the $320 million payment announced in February — then re-announced in March — then re-announced in the federal budget — has caused disquiet even among those who benefit from it, the owners and shareholders of residential aged-care facilities.

No strings attached payment

The payment has been variously described by the Government as one to "help increase support", as one which "equates to an average additional $1,800 per permanent resident" and as "an up-front payment to support all providers in the care of their residents over the next 18 months, while the royal commission goes about its work".

But what it is at its most basic level is a once-off cash injection, given to nursing home operators without any strings attached.

Originally, operators were under the impression they would get half of the payment in the current financial year, and the rest next financial year.

But a couple of weeks before the budget, the Department of Health advised the payment would all be paid as an additional subsidy, "for the period March 20, 2019 to June 30, 2019".

That is, they are receiving $320 million of taxpayers' money over a three-month period, which will not continue beyond that time.

Operators say they haven't been given a reason for this. It could be argued it will improve immediate finances. But speculation is rife it could just as easily have been designed to help boost the Government's budget bottom line in 2019-20, the year we are supposed to finally be "back in the black".

Sources in the sector say there is no real long-term change you can achieve with a one-off payment, especially one that only lasts over 12 or 14 weeks.

So most providers are doing the most obvious thing: booking it to their bottom line.

Earnings advice given to the stock exchange by listed operators confirms this.

So the Government has just handed $320 million to nursing home operators — the subject of a royal commission — and their shareholders without any guarantee that it will improve services.

Government could have acted on past reviews

One argument in favour of the payment is that many nursing homes are now operating on the smell of an oily rag.

While the financial position of different residential aged-care operations differs wildly, the industry is estimated to generally operate at a profit margin of less than 5 per cent, with over 40 per cent of facilities in deficit before tax (leaving them unable to undertake major refurbishment) and about 20 per cent actually recording a cash loss.

Our stories on aged care Australians are sharing their experiences of aged care. See our full coverage

Australians are sharing their experiences of aged care. Do you have a story you would like to share? Please email aged.care@abc.net.au .

Do you have a story you would like to share? Please email . For more information on how the ABC is covering aged care, subscribe to our newsletter here.

How could this be so given the Government, according to the Prime Minister, is giving "record funding" to aged care?

Well, the sector says that, since 2014, between pausing and reducing indexation of ongoing residential care subsidies, rejigging the funding formula and other changes, the current Government has reduced funding to the sector by about $3 billion.

Arguments about funding indexation don't really set the public debate alight. But they have been used (by both sides of politics) over the years as one of the most potent ways of cutting real increases in spending in the big portfolios: Medicare rebates to doctors have been frozen; pension indexation rates kept low; and in this case, the subsidies given to nursing homes to look after our elderly.

Yet the Government already has several reviews of aged-care funding completed. If it was any good at actually doing things about policy, it might have acted on them. If it wasn't so determined to paint itself as a small-government party, that is mostly interested in giving taxpayers a tax cut, it might have addressed the funding crisis in aged care that has now gone on under several governments of different colours.

Instead, when embarrassed about the state of aged care months before an election, and nervous about what the royal commission's early hearings may find, it announces a money-for-nothing policy which puts its $185 million spend on opening, then closing, Christmas Island in the shade.

The campaign kicks into top gear on Monday with the leaders debate, now public holiday disruptions out of the way. Maybe we could finally get Mr Morrison to stop batting off issues with "nothing to see here" nonchalance, and Bill Shorten to agree to some debates that voters are actually likely to see, and tell us what Labor might do about aged care while he is at it.