Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'd like to associate myself with Senator Green's remarks. I couldn't agree more with the observations that she made.

I'm rising to speak this evening in relation to this thing called the integrated assessment tool, which is being used by the Commonwealth government to determine home support eligibility. I am becoming increasingly concerned about reports regarding the application of this tool and, in particular, concerns that assessors are unable to override the algorithms that are part of the integrated assessment tool. I spoke about this briefly yesterday evening in relation to the case of an individual suffering motor neurone disease who was seeking additional support, and, when the data was input into the integrated assessment tool, the result that was spat out was less care, not more care.

It is of particular concern that it appears that assessors cannot override the operation of the integrated assessment tool and its algorithm. The more I look into this, the more I feel concerned about the inappropriate nature of how this tool is being applied. I ask those who see this contribution to contact my office. I want to hear your stories, because the stories I've heard so far are terribly concerning. There is a place for automated decision-making, but there is no place for automated decision-making when you are dealing with something as fundamental as home support eligibility and, in particular, when you're dealing with individuals who are suffering from complicated conditions, in environments where they're being supported by loved ones—elderly loved ones. They're finding that this tool is leading to extraordinary outcomes.

I want to quote from a story by Melissa Davey, medical editor for the Guardian. She's referred to a number of cases. Let me quote an article dated 24 February:

A 77-year-old woman who cares for her husband, 83, described the IAT as "terrible and inhumane".

The woman, who wished to remain anonymous to protect her husband's health information, told Guardian Australia he was "practically immobile with constant back pain", leaving her responsible for all everyday tasks and decision-making.

Despite this, he was rejected for any home support after being assessed through the IAT.

"The assessor was surprised and disappointed, as was our doctor and my husband's specialists," she said.

"I am clearly not coping with all this … it is a terrible system that overrides human and professional judgments."

I want to quote another article by Melissa Davey, from 6 March 2026, where she reports that one of the people involved in the development of this assistance tool is absolutely horrified that it's being used in the way it is. I want to quote this lady, whose name is Lynda Henderson. This is what she says:

"It is not the assessment or the questions that is the problem. It's the absolutely ridiculously simplistic scoring algorithm that's been applied to it.'

…   …   …

She said she feels "fury and frustration" about what the assessment has become. "The worst thing the government did was to disallow assessors to override it."

In that article, the journalist refers to the fact that the guidelines provide that assessors can't override the classification. I did some research and found the guidelines that were referred to in My Aged Care. This is Assessor Portal User Guide 6, and that's what it says on page 37: it can't be overridden. It then refers to rule 81-10 of the Aged Care Rules, which make no reference whatsoever to overriding assessments. These Aged Care Rules went before the delegated legislation scrutiny committee, on which I sit. There was no suggestion that there would be these guidelines preventing overruling of assessments.