The department has completed 181 out of 834 requests for reviewing aged care assessments, as stated in a Support at Home inquiry, where Senator David Pocock raised questions regarding the function of assessor delegates.
The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing has received a total of 834 requests for internal reviews of Integrated Assessment Tool allocations since the Support at Home program began on 1 November 2025, coinciding with the introduction of the IAT algorithm. Notably, half of these reviews have been requested in the past two months.
During the first Senate inquiry hearing into Support at Home on Wednesday evening, it was reported that as of 30 March 2026, there have been 834 review requests. This marks an increase from the 414 requests recorded between 1 November 2025 and 23 January 2026, as noted during the Senate estimates hearing in February.
From the total of 834 requests:
- 344 requested a review of the SaH classification
- 219 requested a review of the priority classification
- 55 sought a review of both the SaH classification and the priority classification
- 116 sought a review concerning non-approval for SaH
- 11 were related to non-approval of the Commonwealth Home Support Program.
The remaining 89 requests were linked to a range of other review inquiries, as noted by department first assistant secretary Robert Day.
Out of the 834 review requests, 181 have been resolved. Among these, the department made a different determination from the IAT in 24 cases and confirmed the original decision in another 15.
The remaining 142 requests were from individuals who either did not possess the legal standing to file the application or withdrew their request before a final decision was made, Mr. Day indicated.
The department did not specify how many requests were related to outcomes that were less favorable than those established under a prior assessment system.
Senator Anne Ruston’s question regarding how many cases involved assessors determining that the tool had produced an outcome below the necessary care was taken under advisement by the department.
Mr. Day clarified that in terms of legal standing, the older individual must initiate the review request, not an advocate.
“The requirement is that the [older] individual submits an application, but they can do so with the help of an advocate who has completed the form for them, guided them through the form, and then submitted it stating: ‘I am submitting this with Greg’s consent as the authorized person to make the application,’” Mr. Day stated.
“We are currently working with OLDER PERSONS ADVOCACY NETWORK to streamline the process for their advocates to document this procedure. Furthermore, if someone has a legal power of attorney, they are allowed to submit an application on behalf of another person.
The department, which served as the sole witness for the 5:30 PM hearing on April 1, defended the IAT by stating that a classification algorithm was an integral component of the IAT development framework; however, it could not identify the specific individual in the government who authorized it.
Senators raise concerns about override capabilities
The department indicated that the decision to eliminate the capacity for human assessors to override results was made by the government. However, it noted that due to the elapsed time between the trial process and its implementation, it was uncertain whether the individuals involved in the trial were consulted regarding that decision.
Later in the hearing, Senator David Pocock inquired of the department about the purpose of assessor delegates if they are unable to override the tool, suggesting that the process seemed more akin to quality assurance than actual decision-making.
Department assistant secretary Julia Atkinson explained that the purpose of the assessor delegate is to serve as a check and balance within an assessment organization, emphasizing that this role necessitates greater experience than that of assessors.
“Their role is to ensure that this tool has been utilized correctly and to provide guidance to the assessor on whether they believe there is missing information or details that have not been considered, after which they would finalize that decision,” Ms. Atkinson stated.
“It is about ensuring that the tool has been filled out in accordance with the training provided to assessors. The algorithm’s outcome does not constitute the decision made by the assessor. The assessor decides to execute the algorithm and to affirm, ‘this is ready, this accurately reflects the individual I have just assessed,'” she added.
“That sounds like quality assurance to me,” Senator Pocock replied.
Uncertainty regarding the inclusion of workers in fuel restrictions
During the hearing, Senator Ruston sought to question the department about whether home care workers would be exempt under the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984, but was promptly interrupted as it was deemed outside the inquiry’s scope.