Aged Care

Opened the debate

Allman-Payne argued that the Integrated Assessment Tool was flawed, untested, and systematically underassessing care needs, particularly for those with complex conditions. Allman-Payne cited specific cases, including a person with motor neurone disease waiting eight months for assessment and a 96-year-old whose needs were deemed unchanged despite significant time passing. Allman-Payne asserted that the burden of challenging the algorithm should not fall on older people and their families. Allman-Payne called for the immediate scrapping of the tool and the restoration of human override to ensure clinical professionals determined care levels.

Government response

Gallagher stated that the government did not support the suspension motion as there were other critical pieces of legislation, including NDIS and gambling reforms, that required Senate attention. Gallagher argued that the government was already aware of issues with the Integrated Assessment Tool and was working methodically to address them through a rapid review. Gallagher emphasised that the aged care reforms were supported by the chamber and aimed at sustainability, with billions invested in the sector. Gallagher maintained that the urgency motion would eat into time needed for other legislative business and that the government was handling the matter through consultation with stakeholders.

Opposition response

Ruston supported the urgency motion, describing the Integrated Assessment Tool as having systematic structural flaws that were causing older Australians to die while waiting for care. Ruston cited evidence from former inspectors-general and Professor Kathy Eagar to argue that the algorithm was fundamentally broken. Ruston argued that the government had failed to address these issues since the introduction of reforms in November of the previous year. Ruston contended that preventing unnecessary deaths among vulnerable older Australians was the most urgent matter before the chamber.