Draft rules would give assessors 14 days to ask for a second look at a Support at Home assessment; only the assessor, with your consent, can ask

What the pathway is

Under the Aged Care Act 2024, the department decides a person’s Support at Home classification (levels 1 to 8, which set the budget) and priority category (urgent, high, medium or standard, which sets the wait) from the assessment, using standard questions and rules. The escalation pathway lets that decision be looked at again by a person in the department who is not bound by those rules. The department’s explanatory memorandum says it exists for a small number of older people whose needs are exceptional and calls it an additional safeguard to strengthen appropriate oversight of automated decision-making.

It covers the classification decision for ongoing home support, and priority decisions for ongoing home support, assistive technology and home modifications (proposed section 90A of the Act, in Schedule 4 of the bill).

Who can ask, and how

Not you, and not your provider. The bill lets the request come only from an approved needs assessor, authorised to make it, who works for the same organisation as the assessor whose report the decision was based on. It may be made only if the individual consents to the request. The explanatory memorandum gives the reason: A referral to the additional review process can only be made by an approved needs assessor, drawing on their clinical expertise.

The draft rules add conditions. The assessment tool and the reports must have been completed in full and accurately, the decision must be the most recent of its kind, and it must not have come with a hospital transition classification. The request has to carry the reports and any other documents needed to show the review criteria are met. A note in the draft lists what will not generally suffice on its own:

1. Local shortagelimited availability of community services or registered providers in the local areaNot generally enough
2. Costhigh service costs or the individual’s financial circumstancesNot generally enough
3. The waitgeneral dissatisfaction with the individual’s expected wait timeNot generally enough

What would change a decision

The tests are strict. For a classification, the reviewer may change it only if the person’s circumstances are not adequately reflected in the criteria for their level, are therefore significantly different from others at that level, and the individual is at risk of significant harm without a higher level of care. For a priority, all four of these must be shown: the criteria miss the person’s circumstances; the category misses a time-critical need, including extreme old age or a significant and life-limiting medical condition; there is a risk of significant harm without a different category; and the person cannot get stable formal support elsewhere, including from the health system.

the priority category established by the entry decision reviewer must be standard, medium or high.

The reviewer may look at the reports, the material behind them, and any other clinical material or information (including material or information that has become available since the decision was made). Under the bill the review is done by the System Governor or a departmental delegate who was not involved in the decision.

From 7 days to 14

The bill the House passed on 17 September wrote the request period into the Act itself: 7 days, unless the department allowed longer. At the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee’s inquiry, the Older Persons Advocacy Network’s chief executive called seven days impractical for engagement with the older person and COTA Australia asked for 14; Ageing Australia and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Ageing and Aged Care Council asked for 28 (report, paragraphs 2.19 to 2.23). The committee recommended the bill be passed as amended.

The Government’s Senate amendments, on a sheet dated 13 October, take the number out of the Act and leave it to the rules, and add a rules-set period for the review. Its supplementary explanatory memorandum says It is intended that the period to be prescribed will be 14 days. For the review, it says the intended period is 28 days. The draft rules published on 12 October set exactly those two numbers. The department can still allow a longer request period, and extend it if the assessor asks.

Where the pathway stands

1. 17 Sep 2026House of Representatives passes the bill, with the escalation pathway as Schedule 4 and a 7-day request period.
2. 9 Oct 2026Senate committee reports: pass the bill as amended.
3. 12 Oct 2026Department publishes the exposure draft rules: 14 days to ask, 28 days to decide.
4. 13 Oct 2026Government Senate amendments move both periods into the rules.
5. 15 Oct 2026Senate agrees to the bill with 3 Government and 2 Opposition amendments. Back to the House
6. 11 Jan 2027Schedule 4 start date in the bill; the rules start the day after they are registered, or then, whichever is later.

The Parliament’s bill page records that the Senate agreed to two Opposition amendments but, as at 15 October, not which. The only Opposition amendments it lists for the Senate, sheet 4179 moved by Senator Ruston, are two, and both would stop the pathway applying to decisions made after 31 December 2027. If those are the two agreed and the House accepts them, the pathway would come with an end date. We have not confirmed which amendments were agreed; the Senate’s formal record of the day was not published when we checked.

Your own review right does not go away

The pathway sits beside, not instead of, the right to ask for reconsideration of a decision, which you can request yourself. The explanatory memorandum says the clock for applying for reconsideration is paused while an additional review runs, and that if the additional review produces the better result, a later, less favourable reconsideration decision does not displace it.

Our view

Fourteen days is a better number than seven, and it is what the consumer advocates asked for. The design choice that matters more is the gatekeeper. Only the assessor’s own organisation can ask, and the bill gives older people and families no way to start it themselves, which is what the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander aged care council asked for. Advocates told the committee that 7 days was too short partly because the assessor has to get back to the person first. That still has to happen inside 14 days.

So the practical advice is simple. If a classification or priority looks wrong, say so to the assessment organisation straight away, in writing, explain why the person’s situation is unusual and what harm is at risk, and ask whether they will request an additional review. Do not wait on it: ask for reconsideration as well if you want one. And know the limits before you start. The draft rules aim this at exceptional cases. A long wait, a thin local market or a high price, on their own, are not what the pathway is for.

We will report the final rules when they are registered, and what the House does with the Senate’s amendments.