Aged Care Amendment (Restoring Human Override for Aged Care Needs Assessments) Bill 2026

Stage by Stage

Summaries in reported speech - not a transcript. In date order, both chambers.

1. Tuesday 23 June 2026 · Senate

   First Reading
   See who spoke

2. Tuesday 23 June 2026 · Senate

   Second Reading

   The debate concerned legislation to restore human override capabilities in aged care needs assessments, specifically regarding the Integrated Assessment Tool. Senator Askew argued that the current system prioritises algorithmic outcomes over clinical judgment, leading to under-assessment of care needs. She cited increased review requests and warnings from medical bodies as evidence of systemic failure. The debate was adjourned after the second reading speech was delivered.

   Outcome: The debate was adjourned after leave was granted for the senator to continue remarks later.

   Read the full summary

3. Thursday 2 July 2026 · Senate

   Second Reading

   The debate centred on whether the Integrated Assessment Tool for aged care needs assessments should allow qualified assessors to override algorithmic recommendations. The government opposed the bill, arguing that broad discretion would undermine equity, increase costs, and extend wait times, while proposing a new escalation pathway instead. Opposition and crossbench members supported the legislation, citing concerns that the current system lacks clinical validation and denies older Australians dignity by removing human judgement from care decisions. The bill passed its second reading after divisions.

   Outcome: The bill passed its second reading following two divisions, with the first passing 31-20 and the second 32-20.

   Read the full summary

4. Thursday 2 July 2026 · Senate

   Third Reading
   See who spoke

5. Tuesday 11 August 2026 · House of Representatives

   First Reading

   The debate concerned the first reading of a bill aimed at restoring human oversight in aged care needs assessments, which had previously passed the Senate. Opposition members moved an amendment to consider the bill immediately, arguing that algorithmic decision-making was causing harmful outcomes for elderly Australians. The government declined to debate the bill immediately, leading to a division where the amendment was defeated. The bill itself was not passed at this stage.

   Outcome: The amendment to consider the bill immediately was defeated in a division of 42 to 87, and the bill was not passed.

   Read the full summary