This bill is currently before Parliament.
Health, care & disability
Older Australians having their care needs assessed would have their assessor’s professional judgementA trained assessor’s decision based on expertise. protected.
The bill’s sponsors said the Integrated Assessment ToolA computer-based tool used to assess aged-care needs., a computer-based aged-care assessment tool, could override trained assessors and miss complex needs. They said review requests rose from 170 in the previous financial year to 834 in five months after the new system began. They also cited concerns about frailty, sensory impairment, malnutrition, continence and elder abuse.
From 1 November 2025, the new Aged Care Act 2024 used the Integrated Assessment ToolA computer-based tool used to assess aged-care needs. (IAT) to determine home-care classifications, while assessors could not override its outcomes. Concerns grew as clinicians identified gaps in recognising complex needs, 834 review requests were lodged in five months, the government reassessed 132 people after complaints, and an individual case involving Graham Crossan showed the stakes; the private senators’ bill introduced by Senator Anne Ruston, Senator Penny Allman-Payne and Senator David Pocock would restore professional discretion, explain decisions and allow reassessments, and passed the Senate on 2 July 2026.
Nita Green (Labor) argued that broad assessor discretion could make similar people receive different outcomes and lengthen waits by an estimated five months. She said level 4 approvals in 2024-25 ranged from about 20 to 25 per cent nationally to as high as 60 per cent in some areas. She also pointed to $4 billion in unspent care funding and said the bill’s cost had not been explained.
Senator Anne Ruston, Senator Penny Allman-Payne and Senator David Pocock introduced this bill. Support so far has come from Liberal, Greens, One Nation, some crossbench members; opposition has come from Labor.
Did it become law?
Not yet
Final passage
Recorded vote so far
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Days since introduction
45 days
Updated 07 Aug 2026.
Meaning
Older Australians having their care needs assessed would have their assessor’s professional judgementA trained assessor’s decision based on expertise. protected. The assessment tool could support, but not control, the result.
Older Australians being placed into a care category would have that decision made with protected human judgement. Rules and assessment tools could not limit the assessor’s discretion.
People receiving a care-category decision would get an explanation of how the assessment tool was used.
People assessed before the changes begin could request a fresh assessment if they believe the tool produced an incorrect result.
People placed into a care category before the changes begin could request a fresh decision if they believe the tool produced an incorrect result.
People assessed after the changes begin would receive these protections even if their assessment had already started.
1 After subsection 62(1) (1A) However, the approved needs assessor’s discretion in undertaking the aged care needs assessment must not be limited by the assessment tool or any other requirements prescribed by the rules. Note: The assessment tool is intended to support (not displace) an approved needs assessor’s discretion in undertaking aged care needs assessments.Aged Care Amendment (Restoring Human Override for Aged Care Needs Assessments) introduced text
2 After subsection 76(1) (1A) However, for the purposes of subparagraphs (1)(a)(i) and (b)(i), the approved needs assessor’s discretion in undertaking the classification assessment must not be limited by the assessment tool or any other requirements prescribed by the rules. Note: The assessment tool is intended to support (not displace) an approved needs assessor’s discretion in undertaking classification assessments.Aged Care Amendment (Restoring Human Override for Aged Care Needs Assessments) introduced text
3 Paragraph 79(2)(c) Omit “decision.”, substitute “decision; and”. 4 After paragraph 79(2)(c) (d) details of the System Governor’s process for making the decision, including the following details in relation to any classification assessment undertaken for the decision: (i) how any assessment tool prescribed for the purposes of subparagraph 76(1)(a)(i) or (b)(i) was used; (ii) how any other requirements prescribed for the purposes of subparagraph 76(1)(a)(i) or (b)(i) were satisfied.Aged Care Amendment (Restoring Human Override for Aged Care Needs Assessments) introduced text
6 Transitional—reassessment of aged care needs (1) An individual may request a reassessment of the individual’s need for funded aged care services if: (a) there is an eligibility determination for an aged care needs assessment in effect for the individual; and (b) an aged care needs assessment (the existing assessment) for the individual was undertaken before the commencement of this item; and (c) the individual believes the existing assessment is incorrect or inaccurate because of an assessment tool or requirement prescribed by the rules for the purposes of subsection 62(1) of the Aged CaAged Care Amendment (Restoring Human Override for Aged Care Needs Assessments) introduced text
7 Transitional—reassessment of classification (1) An individual may request a classification assessment for the individual if: (a) a classification level for a classification type for a service group for the individual is in effect because of a classification assessment (the existing assessment) that was undertaken before the commencement of this item; and (b) the individual believes the existing assessment is incorrect or inaccurate because of an assessment tool or requirement prescribed by the rules for the purposes of subparagraph 76(1)(a)(i) or (b)(i) of the Aged Care Act 2024. (2) IfAged Care Amendment (Restoring Human Override for Aged Care Needs Assessments) introduced text
5 Application of amendments The amendments of the Aged Care Act 2024 made by this Schedule apply in relation to aged care needs assessments and classification assessments undertaken on or after the commencement of this item (whether the assessments began to be undertaken before, on or after that commencement).Aged Care Amendment (Restoring Human Override for Aged Care Needs Assessments) introduced text
Context
From 1 November 2025, the new Aged Care Act 2024 used the Integrated Assessment ToolA computer-based tool used to assess aged-care needs. (IAT) to determine home-care classifications, while assessors could not override its outcomes. Concerns grew as clinicians identified gaps in recognising complex needs, 834 review requests were lodged in five months, the government reassessed 132 people after complaints, and an individual case involving Graham Crossan showed the stakes; the private senators’ bill introduced by Senator Anne Ruston, Senator Penny Allman-Payne and Senator David Pocock would restore professional discretion, explain decisions and allow reassessments, and passed the Senate on 2 July 2026.
Aged Care Act 2024 commences without assessor override
The Integrated Assessment ToolA computer-based tool used to assess aged-care needs. was introduced to promote consistency, but assessors were barred from overriding its outcomes.
Second reading speech ↗Aged care workers warn the algorithm is failing older Australians
Aged care workers warned that the algorithm-based tool was failing elderly Australians, intensifying demands for human oversight.
The Guardian ↗800 people apply to review algorithmic assessments
ABC reported that assessors could not override the algorithm even when they believed its decision was wrong.
ABC News ↗Government reassesses 132 people after complaints
Following hundreds of complaints, Aged Care Minister Sam Rae said the government had reassessed funding for 132 people while defending the tool as faster and fairer.
ABC News ↗Man with late-stage MND loses appeal for higher funding
Graham Crossan, 80, and his wife Gaynor lost their appeal for higher support funding after an algorithm-based assessment, despite his late-stage motor neurone disease.
ABC News ↗Ruston, Allman-Payne and Pocock introduce the bill
Senator Anne Ruston, Senator Penny Allman-Payne and Senator David Pocock introduced the private bill to restore assessor discretion, clarify decision notices and allow reassessment for people assessed since 1 November 2025.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Senate passes the bill
The Senate agreed to third reading, completing the bill’s passage through the chamber even though the government said it could not support the bill as drafted.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 32 to 20.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 32 to 20.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Key criticism
Nita Green (Labor) argued that broad assessor discretion could make similar people receive different outcomes and lengthen waits by an estimated five months. She said level 4 approvals in 2024-25 ranged from about 20 to 25 per cent nationally to as high as 60 per cent in some areas. She also pointed to $4 billion in unspent care funding and said the bill’s cost had not been explained.
Supporters disputed that consistency should outweigh human judgement. Penny Allman-Payne (Greens) said the tool had no clinical review or human trials, while Anne Ruston (Liberal) said it had only been tested internally. The government proposed a narrower option for exceptional cases instead.
Inconsistent decisions, higher costs and delays
Unfettered assessor discretion could make classifications less consistent and fair, increase costs and lengthen waiting times for aged care. A formal escalation process for exceptional cases was proposed as a more controlled alternative.
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Passed 32 to 20. Support came from Liberal, Greens, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor.
Earlier bill-stage votes
Passed 32 to 20. Support came from Liberal, Greens, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor.
Other recorded votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Senate
Passed 31 to 20. Support came from Liberal, Greens, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor.
The motion was carried, ending further debate at that stage and bringing on the bill's second-reading vote; it did not itself pass the bill.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Askew supports the bill because it restores qualified assessors' authority to override automated aged care assessments when an algorithm does not reflect an older person's actual needs.
Read in Hansard ↗Green says the government will oppose the bill because giving assessors unfettered discretion could undermine consistent and fair assessments, increase costs and lengthen care wait times.
Read in Hansard ↗Allman-Payne says the Greens support the bill because every older person should have access to human review of aged-care needs assessments, arguing that the government's algorithm can underestimate care needs and its limited override changes are inadequate.
Read in Hansard ↗David Pocock supports the bill because aged care assessors must be able to override algorithmic decisions, with independent oversight to prevent automated systems from operating without meaningful human review.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“So I want to say that the government will not be able to support this bill, but we are working incredibly hard to review the system to ensure that there is an escalation system in place. We will consult on what that looks like and bring that back after the break to ensure that it is legislated, hopefully with bipartisan support.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 support
“It amends the Aged Care Act 2024 so that the professional judgment of an approved needs assessor cannot be displaced by the IAT or any other automated tool. It makes the tool what it should always have been—a support for the decision, not the decision itself. It restores the authority of qualified assessors to determine outcomes based on their clinical expertise. And it writes that protection into the primary legislation, so that no government can quietly take the human out of the loop again without the scrutiny of this place.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Integrated Assessment Tool should be a tool that assists assessors, not replaces professional judgement. The bill achieves this in three very practical ways. First, it restores the discretion of qualified assessors to override or adjust an algorithm's recommendation where their clinical judgement tells them that that outcome is wrong. Second, it improves transparency by requiring decision notices to explain how the algorithm was used and how the assessor's professional judgement influenced the final outcome, giving older Australians greater confidence in the process. And, third, it creates the right for people assessed since 1 November 2025 to seek a fresh assessment if they believe the algorithm produced an incorrect classification, ensuring people are not locked into decisions that have been wrong.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“The government clearly do not understand the consequences of their own policy, so their hand needs to be forced, which this bill does. Every older person in this country deserves to have their essential care needs assessed by a human. Basic dignity should not be reserved for exceptional cases. That is why the Greens will be supporting this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“I commend this bill. Again, I thank Senators Ruston and Allman-Payne, the coalition and the Greens for their work on this bill, and I commend it to the Senate.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 32 to 20.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 32 to 20.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
