Division
Anne Ruston The Aged Care Amendment (Restoring Human Override for Aged Care Needs Assessments) Bill 2026 restores a simple principle: decisions about care should be made by a qualified person, a qualified professional, not a computer algorithm with no human capacity. The current system allows an algorithm to determine outcomes without any capacity for a trained assessor to override it. This bill ensures the tool supports, not replaces, professional judgement, and it enshrines it in primary legislation. 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. This bill responds to the significant concern raised by assessors, advocacy organisations and older Australians that the current system is failing to accurately assess people's care needs. It recognises that no algorithm can replace the experienced judgement and clinical expertise of a trained assessor when making complex decisions about an older person's care needs. The bill strengthens accountability by making the assessment process more transparent. Importantly, this is not about changing eligibility or increasing funding levels; it is about ensuring the existing assessment system produces fair, clinically-sound decisions about an older person's care needs. The dep
Senate, 2026-07-02. affirmative: ayes 31, noes 20.
Question
Anne Ruston The Aged Care Amendment (Restoring Human Override for Aged Care Needs Assessments) Bill 2026 restores a simple principle: decisions about care should be made by a qualified person, a qualified professional, not a computer algorithm with no human capacity. The current system allows an algorithm to determine outcomes without any capacity for a trained assessor to override it. This bill ensures the tool supports, not replaces, professional judgement, and it enshrines it in primary legislation. 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. This bill responds to the significant concern raised by assessors, advocacy organisations and older Australians that the current system is failing to accurately assess people's care needs. It recognises that no algorithm can replace the experienced judgement and clinical expertise of a trained assessor when making complex decisions about an older person's care needs. The bill strengthens accountability by making the assessment process more transparent. Importantly, this is not about changing eligibility or increasing funding levels; it is about ensuring the existing assessment system produces fair, clinically-sound decisions about an older person's care needs. The dep
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.