Senate hearing shows rise in IAT review requests

The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing has received 834 requests for internal review of Integrated Assessment Tool allocations in the five months since 1 November 2025 when the Support at Home program commenced and the IAT algorithm was introduced. Half of those reviews have been requested in the last two months.

The first Senate inquiry hearing into Support at Home on Wednesday evening heard that at 30 March 2026, there have been 834 review requests. This is up from the 414 received between 1 November 2025 and 23 January 2026 noted during the Senate estimates hearing in February.

Of the 834 requests:

• 344 asked for a review of the SaH classification
• 219 asked for a review of the priority classification
• 55 sought a review of both SaH classification and priority classification
• 116 sought review of non-approval for SaH
• 11 related to non-approval of the Commonwealth Home Support Program.

The remaining 89 were related to a mixture of other review requests, department first assistant secretary Robert Day said.

Of the 834 requests for review, 181 have been finalised. Of those, the department made a different decision from the IAT in 24 cases and it affirmed the original decision in another 15.

The remaining 142 were from people who either failed to have the legal standing to make the application, or withdrew the request before a final decision was reached, Mr Day said.

The department did not say how many related to outcomes that are lower than those that were determined under a previous assessment system.

It took on notice Senator Anne Ruston’s question of how many related to cases where the assessors considered the tool had generated an outcome below the care that was determined as being required.

Mr Day did clarify that in terms of no legal standing, the older person must make the request for review, not an advocate.

“The requirement is that the [older] person makes an application, but that can be with the assistance of an advocate who has completed the form for them, talked them through the form, and then submitted saying: ‘I’m submitting this with Greg’s consent as the person who’s authorised to make the application,’” Mr Day said.

“We are particularly working at the moment with OPAN on how we can make that as simple as possible for their advocates to document that process. And obviously, if someone has a legal power of attorney, then they can make an application on someone’s behalf.”

The department – which was the only witness for the 5.30pm hearing on 1 April – defended the IAT, saying a classification algorithm was always part of the IAT development framework but was unable to specify who specifically in government approved it.

Senators question override capabilities

The department said the decision to remove the ability of human assessors to override results was made by the government but added that given the time that had passed between the trial process and its implementation, it was unsure if the individuals involved in the trial were consulted about that decision.

Later in the hearing, Senator David Pocock questioned the department on what the point of assessor delegates was if they can’t override the tool, saying the process sounded “more like quality assurance” than decision-making.

Department assistant secretary Julia Atkinson said the point of the assessor delegate is to provide a point of check and balance within an assessment organisation, and that the role requires them to be more experienced than assessors.

“What their role is, is to really assure that this tool has been completed correctly and that they can provide advice to the assessor on whether they think that there is something missing or there is information that has not been taken into account and then they would finalise that decision,” Ms Atkinson said.

It’s “assuring that the tool has been populated in the way that assessors are trained to do. The outcome of the algorithm is not the decision taken by the assessor. The decision taken by the assessor is to run the algorithm and to say, ‘this is ready, this is an accurate representation of the individual that I have just assessed’,” she said.

“That sounds like quality assurance to me,” Senator Pocock responded.

Unclear if workers included in fuel restrictions

During the hearing, Senator Ruston attempted to question the department on whether home care workers would be excluded under the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984 but was quickly shut down for it being outside the scope of the inquiry.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese did not address the potential for fuel restrictions during an address to the nation on 1 April.

Responses to questions on notice need to be provided by Wednesday 22 April and the committee is due to report to the Senate on 24 November 2026.

Submissions to the inquiry close 31 July.