Australia’s long-awaited Support at Home (SAH) reforms were meant to simplify access to aged-care services. Instead, frontline assessors across every state and territory are warning that the rushed rollout of the new Integrated Assessment Tool (IAT) is creating what some describe as “the next Robodebt – only in aged care.”
Interviews conducted with assessors in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Western Australia, and the ACT reveal the same story:
insufficient training, flawed automation, unfixable assessment errors, inconsistent outcomes, and a system that risks harming older Australians who urgently need support.
These workers have asked to remain anonymous, fearing repercussions for speaking out – but their concerns are consistent, detailed, and alarming.
“We were given two hours of training for a system that needed months.”
Aged-care assessors nationwide reported that they received:
- only 2-3 hours of scheduled training for a system so complex it needed months of preparation
- training sessions that blew out to 6 hours because the content was too dense
- six-hour educational videos they had no realistic time to watch
- extremely poor-quality screenshots and thin instructional materials
- a short, temporary “sandbox environment” that offered barely any chance to practise
- contradictory guidance about how the algorithm actually works
One assessor from NSW said:
“We watched the six-hour videos at double or quadruple speed because it was impossible to do them during assessments. No one understood the system before we were forced to use it.”
An ACT assessor summarised it bluntly:
“The training was nowhere near sufficient. We were thrown in the deep end.”
The IAT locks itself – and errors become permanent
The most serious warning from assessors is the system’s design flaw:
✔ Once the IAT is finalised, it cannot be changed.
✔ Once the Support Plan is delegated, the priority and level are locked – even if wrong.
✔ Any correction requires a brand-new assessment, delaying care.
This means:
- errors in functional coding
- missed cognitive or safety risks
- carer sustainability concerns
- incorrect tick-boxes
- misinterpreted domains
- incorrect SAH level
- incorrect urgency priority
… are permanently embedded into the client’s record.
Aged-care workers say this is not just inconvenient – it is dangerous.
One Queensland assessor explained:
“If the IAT is wrong, we can’t fix it. We have to start again from scratch. Clients who need urgent support end up waiting weeks or months because the system won’t let us correct a mistake.”
Another from Victoria added:
“The delegate cannot change anything after the fact. We are legally required to make accurate decisions, but the software prevents us from doing it.”
Automation is making decisions humans are legally required to make
The IAT uses a hidden algorithm to generate:
- the SAH level (1–8)
- the client’s priority (Urgent, High, Medium, Standard)
But assessors report:
- the algorithm is opaque
- the logic is unexplained
- similar clients can produce different results
- domestic assistance can mask personal-care needs
- carer strain is often ignored
- cognitive decline and safety risk are under-weighted
A South Australian assessor said:
“If two assessors enter the same case, the algorithm can still spit out different levels. We can’t see the scoring, so we can’t explain why.”
A WA assessor called it:
“Robodebt’s cousin. Automated decisions with no transparency.”
Staff are told: “Don’t override the algorithm.”
Even when the algorithm is wrong, assessors in every jurisdiction report being told:
- “Do not override it.”
- “Accept the automation.”
- “Overrides should be extremely rare.”
- “Let it go through unless it’s wildly off.”
But legally, the delegate is required to:
- consider all relevant clinical information
- ensure the decision is accurate and reasonable
- exercise meaningful human discretion
Assessors say they are being placed in an impossible position:
“We are told not to override the algorithm, but the law requires that we do if the output is wrong. It’s the same kind of contradiction that caused Robodebt.”
Older Australians could be harmed – and assessors know it
Frontline staff fear the system could lead to:
- dangerous delays in urgent support
- missed risks for people with dementia
- carer collapse
- increased emergency presentations
- premature entry into residential care
- unfair waiting times
- inconsistent decisions based on which assessor or state you live in
One assessor warned:
“A client with falls risk might be given Standard priority because the algorithm didn’t pick up the complexity. If they fall while waiting, what then?”
Another added:
“We are clinically responsible, but the software ties our hands.”
The workload has doubled
Every assessor interviewed said the same thing:
- The IAT takes longer
- Reviewing the algorithm takes even longer
- Escalations to managers are frequent
- Reassessments are increasing
- Delegation bottlenecks have formed
- Moral injury is rising
One NSW assessor said:
“For every assessment, we do the job twice – once for the client, once to check the algorithm didn’t get it wrong.”
This is a national failure – not a local one
Every state and territory described the same issues:
✔ Victoria: rushed, inconsistent, legally concerning
✔ NSW: unworkable, visibly unfinished
✔ Queensland: algorithm anomalies, priority errors
✔ SA: incorrect levels, broken escalation pathways
✔ WA: locked assessments creating delays
✔ Tasmania: insufficient training and confused staff
✔ ACT: compressed training and no transparency
This is systemic, not isolated.
Experts warn that this has all the hallmarks of another Robodebt
Several experienced assessors independently made the same comparison:
- flawed automated decision-making
- poor training
- lack of transparency
- instructions not to override
- legally questionable outcomes
- harm to vulnerable people
- systemic design flaws
- rushed rollout under political pressure
One assessor said:
“Robodebt was illegal because it replaced human judgement with a bad algorithm. This is aged care’s version. The people who will suffer are frail older Australians.”
What needs to happen now
Frontline assessors suggested several urgent reforms:
- Transparent algorithm documentation
Ability to correct IAT errors post-finalisation
Ability to adjust priority after delegation
Real training – not a condensed crash course
Clear guidance on when overrides are appropriate
A national audit of SAH outcomes for accuracy and safety
A safety-net process for urgent cases caught by incorrect priority
Conclusion
Frontline assessors are dedicated, highly trained professionals.
They want SAH to work – because older Australians deserve better.
But the system they have been given is:
- rushed
- opaque
- legally fragile
- clinically unsafe
- operationally unworkable
And the people raising the alarm today are the same people who prevented Robodebt-style harm in the past.
Aged-care workers speak now because they see the danger coming.
Australia should listen.
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Donate via PayPal or credit card via the button below, or bank transfer [BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969] and help us keep shining a light.
With gratitude, The AIMN Team
If there isone area where computerisation should never go it is that of caring for human worries. Old folk in need of assistance ,stressed ones needing income support , or small children all require the flexibility of compassionate human thinking , not algorithms spat out for efficiency.
We are racing down a slope that leads to great human suffering, for no good reason .
As an Assessor in Victoria with 10 years experience in this field, I can confirm that everything in this article is completely spot on. I have a clinical duty of care as a social worker that the federal government is essentially asking me to ignore. I used to have great work satisfaction and genuinely felt as though I was helping seniors and making a difference in their lives. Now I feel as though I am putting vulnerable people at risk and letting people down everyday. There is a reason that experienced Assessors are leaving the field in droves. The government should NEVER have privatised aged care Assessment nor service delivery. They are costing the country millions and putting vulnerable Australians at great risk.
Efficiency and quality comes from humans doing well, not machines doing twists, cuts, shortings, omissions. Civil service was always the great idea. It must be done well, planned, recorded, even inspected and supervised. And it must be “correctly” funded by best assessment.
Privatise it means in effect ‘paralyse it’. It is the government admitting that it is just too hard to deal with, so push it out the door and let others sort it out. Countrywide, we have shambolic governments, a mix of rudderless ships sailing without direction, in-fighting and political point scoring the main act/s of the day. Aged care in Tasmania has not a hope in the world, if we look at how badly the new Tasmanian Ferries and their docking facilities are being bungled. Add on top a government determined to build an AFL Stadium, a white elephant we cannot afford, in a place we least need or want it.
This is becoming one of the most significant areas of government, budget, NGO, PS and provider/client support for our burgeoning senior population.
In our dominant native permanent popualtion cohort, icreasing longevity is a long term population growth driver vs relative decline in or static working age (kept up by international student numbers counted in).
However, our RW MSM and influencer ecosystem is targeting same seniors with dog whistling the solution, working immigrants esp. temporary as ‘net financial (budget) contributors’, then they depart.
Simply a dumbed down deflection and wedge vs ALP etc. to protect fossil fueled social Darwinism of the 1%……though many in the ALP support the latter…..