Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, , 2:49:00 to 2:57:21
The Inspector-General discusses the impact of uncertain timelines on sector anxiety and details the briefings provided to the Minister.
Topics: Social services, Integrity
Speakers: Natalie Siegel-Brown, Dorinda Cox, Penny Allman-Payne, Unknown Speaker, Hon Anne Ruston
Uh thank you, Chair. Um thank you, Ms. Siegel Brown, for uh appearing today. Uh I just want to go back to some of the language that you used in um your opening statement. And one of the things that you said was that they'll This is coming to a drop-dead date. Um now, the information I have in front of me is that government, and particularly the minister, have never used that. We have used the language of no sooner than that date. So, I think that that's a serious mischaracterization in your evidence, and borders you misleading the Senate in this inquiry around language that does matter for a sector that has a lot of anxiety. When people in high-profile positions use that type of language, drop-dead date is not what the government have said. Is
Absolutely accept what you've said, Senator Cox.
So, it is actually no sooner than.
The The date of no sooner than is causing huge anxiety as well.
>> wasn't my question. My question was you've used the language of drop-dead date, which is not correct. Not only has it mischaracterized, but it may be misleading this inquiry around you know, that that's actually not what's happening. And as someone of your position
I've misspoke. Let me say drop-dead decision.
Senator Cox, I'm just going to remind everyone on the committee that we do need to treat all witnesses with respect, and I would like to give Ms. Siegel Brown an opportunity um just to finish her answer around um the the concerns around the lack of clarity around the date. Ms. Siegel Brown.
>> thank you, Senator Cox. That was not the
question. That was not the question. That my question was that the the statement that she made is is a mischaracterization of what's being used. Senator
Cox, you are correct. And I absolutely accept uh how you've corrected me. Thank you very much. I should have said drop-dead decision. It appears to be a done and dusted decision that it will move. Thank
you for the clarity. Um my question then is uh in your capacity as the Inspector-General, have you raised any of these issues um you know, uh meetings uh um briefings um notes up to the minister's office or with the department directly? Uh yes, Senator. Extensive list, sorry. Just to clarify, you've given us a lot of information in your opening
Yes, Senator. So, if you go back to the 2025 Royal Commission report that I wrote on the the government's implementation of the Royal Commission, a lot of these issues uh um raised there, and in fact my submission to this inquiry re-quotes a number of elements of that report. And as you might be aware, that report was with government for 3 months before it was tabled in Parliament. I've also raised a couple of these issues in my recent review of the My Aged Care system. And I have uh briefed on both I've briefed both the department and the minister on both reports.
Okay. Can you tell us when when that occurred? Um your briefing. So, you're able to provide that to us?
>> Yes. Yeah, absolutely. Um so, from recollection, the first one relating to the Royal Commission report would have been just before it sat with government in June or July. The one relating to My Aged Care would have been in approximately September last year. Okay. So, I'm just
going back to the the the your opening statement and and your commentary around your inbox is blowing up with some of these conversations from older people. Um and I'm just you know, I'm concerned that um you know, we've had two or three now um periods of Senate estimates, which I've seen you uh sitting in uh with us, but I don't remember the level of detail. Um and my concern is that when older people and and people uh receiving um uh CHSP and um you know, transitioning to support at home uh raising those issues, we're seeing that in a vacuum, and they're not being passed on uh to um the uh relevant department. So, if you
can give us I can assure you, Senator, that So, first of all, I the the cases that I raised are about the implications of co-contributions for people, and we have been passing these on to the department. So, also to
clarify, there are co-contributions already existing within CHSP. Hey,
Yes, correct. That's right. But what There's a couple of things going on at the moment. So, there's these uh specifically co-contributions in the supported home area. What's happening is also that as people have been grandfathered, as well, prices are rising. And so, where people have been paying co-contributions and prices are rising, even where you've been grandfathered, the allocated amount is not going far enough to extend to particular services. The co-contribution rates um that are applying main in and I'm speaking mainly here, of course there might be some exceptions of which I'm not aware but mainly in the supported home category, when you're starting to talk about the full pensioner levels of co-contributions, they are much higher than CHSP. For these community style services, as opposed to non I'm talking about non-clinical.
Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. I was just about to say is that is that across the board? But thank you for clarifying that bit. Uh that's all for me. Thank you, Chair. Uh
thanks very much, Senator Cox. Um Ms. Siegel Brown, I am interested in just returning um to the comment that you did start to make. Could you just um clarify for us or elaborate on what the lack of certainty around the end date uh for CHSP, what that's doing in terms of provider concerns?
So, in terms of the lack of certainty of end date, it's it's that combined with the lack of well, will we be subject to the same co-contribution structure that supported home is subject to, given that my CHSP providers or a lot of them will sit in that uh what I'll call the level three, the everyday as opposed to the personal or clinical care, which as you know, for whether you're a full pensioner or retiree, all of that attracts a co-contribution. It's the lack of understanding whether the integrity and um So, CHSP is such a flexible program, there's so many different things it offers, will that all be cut back, and they'll not um what they offer will not be included within the scope? There's a whole range of things around that decision-making, where people are saying, "Well, if this decision's been made, if it occurs in 2027, which is is how it's feeling and sounding to people." I absolutely take Senator Cox's point that won't happen sooner than, but there's there is a sense that it's going to happen in that year. Then people are saying, "Well, is it really viable for us to remain here?" And so, some people are choosing to shut up shop now.
Okay. Thank you. Um does Senator Ruston do you have any more questions? No, I
just wanted to thank the IG for some very good testimony. Thank you. Mhm.
Yeah, thanks very much, Ms. Siegel Brown. And as I did allude to earlier, um no doubt we'll hear from you in our other inquiry into supported home uh and what's going on there. Um thank you very much for your evidence today. Um the committee will report to the Senate on Wednesday, the 15th of April, 2026, and we've agreed that responses to questions on notice should be provided by close of business on 20 February, 2026. I don't think you took any questions on notice in in this panel. Um so, thanks very much, and I'm sure we'll see you at estimates next week. Thank you. You
will. See you next week. Thanks. Bye.