Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, , 1:53:04 to 2:36:27
The NDIA details efforts to combat fraud and 'integrity leakage' through the Fraud Fusion Taskforce and improved digital identity systems.
Topics: Social services, Integrity
Speakers: John Dardo, Hon Jenny McAllister, Hon Anne Ruston, Pauline Hanson, Louise Glanville, Dorinda Cox, Graeme Head AO, Kerrynne Liddle
recommencing to uh now move into outcome four on disability and carers. Um I am going to ask the minister who uh did uh alert me earlier that she would like to make an opening statement. Uh
>> thank you chair and thank you committee members for allowing me to make a short statement. I wanted to provide the committee with an update on our key areas of focus. Uh, the Albania government remains committed to ensuring the National Disability Insurance Scheme's long-term sustainability so that it can continue to provide life-changing supports for people with disability. This includes building on the supports that are available to people outside the NDIS. My focus in the NDIS is on improving the planning experience for participants, addressing fraud and integrity and enhancing market sustainability so that participants receive value in the services they are able to obtain. I want to start with thriving kids and foundational supports. We are committed to ensuring that all people with disability can access the supports that they need and recently national cabinet reached a landmark agreement to deliver record investment across health and disability. This includes investing $4 billion to establish thriving kids. It's a significant step forward in strengthening the system of disability supports outside the NDIS for people with disability right across the country. And from the 1st of October 2026, Thriving Kids will start to help children with developmental delay and autism with low to moderate support needs, their parents, and their families to access those supports in a straightforward and timely manner in line with the findings of the independent review of the NDIS. The thriving kids advisory group uh led by Minister Butler with Professor Frank Oberclaid OAM and the parliamentary inquiry led by Dr. Mike Freelander and Dr. and Monique Ryan have informed the national model and as we move forward implementation will be done closely with the states and territories and the disability community. We're continuing to progress fundamental reform to NDIS planning. The NDIS review described how the current approach is inconsistent, confusing, and cost inensive and it leads to participants having to contest line by line items in their plan. One of my priorities for this portfolio is improving the participant experience in planning and I want that planning experience that conversation to be a positive one. The NDIS review recommended a fairer approach that is easier to navigate and we're in the process of developing such an approach. It should be fairer, more consistent and more transparent. It will be collaborative. It will be strengthbased and it will move away from a focus on diagnosis and deficit. It will provide opportunities for participants, their families and supporters to ensure that the information is accurate. Now, I appreciate that this is a big change and I am committed to working with the disability community through this reform to ensure that it works for participants, their families and their supporters. The NDIA continues to work with the University of Melbourne and the Center for Disability Studies, disability representatives and participants to develop this approach to planning. The NDIA have begun triing the new support needs assessment process with a small group of volunteer NTS participants. They have volunteered to assist with the design. NDIA assessor are undertaking simulated support needs assessments with this group to test usability, accessibility, comprehension, and participant experience. The NGIA will use the insights gained from this live testing to inform and design the assessment experience before it rolls Labor takes fraud seriously. Uh the NDIS must operate safely and with integrity, and those who defraud the NDIS are stealing from the hundreds of thousands of Australians who rely on the life-changing support that the NDIS delivers. We have been progressing further work to address fraud and improve safeguarding. At the end of last year, we announced that mandatory registration for disability service providers in supported independent living as well as for platform providers will begin from the 1st of July 2026. This builds on the supports that already require mandatory registration. This includes providers of specialist disability accommodation, specialist behavior support services and plan management services. We will continue to work through the expansion of registration to more parts of the NDIS provider market. I note that regardless of registration status, all NDIS providers must comply with the code of conduct. This includes obligations to provide supports in a safe and competent manner to act with integrity, honesty, and transparency, and take all reasonable steps to prevent and respond to all forms of violence against people with disability. Every dollar taken by fraud is a dollar taken by some from someone who needs it. And where we see fraud, too often, we also see other harms from lowquality services to abuse and neglect and exploitation. After a decade of neglect by the previous government, we have invested over $500 million in tackling fraud and non-compliance and more than $470 million to ensure that the NDIS Quality and Safeguard Commission has the resources it needs to ensure that Australians with disability get safe and quality supports. Finally, I want to speak to value and ensuring that people with disability obtain value from the services that they have purchased with their plans. The market must deliver value to our participants and to the wider Australian public. Even as we seek to drive out those who are willing to commit fraud and cut corners, we need to reward quality providers who do the right thing and deliver highquality services to disabled people. Since we last met, the NDIA has completed its public consultation on the 202526 annual pricing review. This year's APR is exploring how price limits could vary based on provider registration status, experience, qualifications, and participant outcomes. This exploration is an important step as the NDIS moves to greater differentiation of pricing. Finally, I do wish to thank parliamentarians, senators and members across the parliament for their continued collegiality and collaboration. I know that the disability community wants to see us working together to support them. I thank you for your commitment to that approach and I look forward to continuing that work across the parliament to ensure we are reaching the best possible outcomes for NDIS participants and the broader community.
>> Thank you, Minister. Um, I now welcome the new chief executive officer of the National Disability Insurance Agency, um, Mr. Graeme Head AO, and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner, Miss Louise Glanville. Um, Mr. Head, uh, do you wish to make an opening statement?
>> Uh, no. Thank you, Senator.
>> Thank you very much, Miss Glanville, do you wish to make an opening statement? >> No. Thank you, Senator. >> Thank you. I now call uh officers both of the department of health disability and aging and the NDIS um sorry the NDIA and NDIS quality and safeguards commission and invite questions. I'll go to Senator Ruston
first. Um thank you. Um in dollar terms what's the estimated extent of fraud You're supposed to social Thank you, Mr. D.
>> Um, Senator, thank you for your question. Um, John Do, deputy CEO uh in the NDIA and co-chair of the fraud the uh if I if I can use a slightly different term to fraud and the reason I'll use a slightly different term is fraud's a very narrow term and to prove fraud you got to prove intent which is quite a difficult thing to prove in cases. I'll use a broader term which is a broader measure which is integrity leakage. So leakage that um uh is leaking out of the NDIS um uh and and and it may be due to um inappropriate claiming, incorrect claiming um mischief and includes fraud. Um we've been quite transparent for a number of years now about the fact that um the leakage uh um out of the NDIS um is something that is difficult to put an exact number on but as we build our systems we are growing increasingly confident um of a range that range is between 6 and 10% and that's um documented in a public document an ANO audit report um So I can certainly provide that out of session, but there's an ANAO order report that documents that figure between 6 and 10%. Um, and so depending on which year you're talking about, you know, if you took a midpoint of that 8% and applied that to the total cost of the scheme, that would give you a dollar figure as an estimate of that integrity leakage, which would include fraud within it.
>> Do you have in the fraud component that
is able to be isolated? It it's very senator no it's it's it's a it's an extraordinarily difficult number to isolate because
>> so can I just when you in your um when you started the your response to my question you said that it was fraud was too narrow because it was x y and zed in terms of you know you actually had to prove intent etc etc surely that must be a reasonably clearly delineated group within this broader integrity leakage.
>> No, I think that the the the technical definition of fraud that we have is that you've got to have proven intent. >> Generally to get to that onus of proof, we're generally reserving that for when we go to prosecutions or court cases. >> um and even in those cases, >> um you know, it would there is a limit to how much effort you put into those cases to prove intent for the dollar value. I'll give you a really simple example. Um, we we may have a, you know, a case where, pick a figure, a million dollars we're concerned about in claiming. In order to prove intent for that million dollars, we would have to go and get witness statements from the participants. We would have to try and get third party validation about where the money did or didn't go. We would have to try and prove who pressed the button on the claiming. We would have to prove that they were consciously aware that that claiming had intent. You know, it wasn't an accident. It wasn't a duplicate. Um it is you know physically the effort involved in trying to prove the whole million dollars is often not you know it you can you can achieve the prosecution by proving with three witness statements a certain amount of that um and getting it over the line and moving to the next case but trying to prove the whole million dollars of that leakage is problematic in most cases. So, so even in cases where we've taken them to court, um what I would say to you is that the figures that we might take to court as the fraudulent amount may not reflect the integrity leakage amount. So, we quite often talk about total claimed by a provider or total claim by a syndicate. But what we don't do is try and you know, we're not using the fraud number as the total count of what we're concerned about.
>> No. And I totally understand that for the and I also understand the the process that you've just outlined. But quite frankly, it's a pretty bad message to be sending to the sector that you know if you if you are being fraudulent, just make sure you're fraudulent within a sort of a a scope that nobody's going to bother to pursue you because the the cost of pursuit is less than the fraud. I don't think that's sending a particularly good message and I'm sure that's not what your intent was either, um, Mr. Da Rocha. So is there any number at all where the department or or the agency has pursued through prosecution in relation to matters that are deemed to be fraud? What is the total amount of money that the NDIS has or the NDIA considers to be sufficiently large enough to pursue fraud?
>> We we uh we will pursue cases that are in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands. We will pursue cases that are in the millions. We there is no
>> So what are you pursuing? Like I I just ask you for a number and and I absolutely accept what you've said about integrity leakage. I'd be really keen to understand what the fraud component of that is. >> Um because it's a much more serious I mean they're all serious but that's a very serious element. Surely we have a number of cases that are pursued to the point whether they would receive a classification of fraud. And what is that number?
>> Yeah. So, so we have um 53 um persons that are have been referred um to the CDP um and um are in front of the courts um and at various stages. >> Um we have 16 that are right in front of the courts right now. We have nine cases that are awaiting trial. >> So, they're not yet in front of the courts. We've got another nine briefs that that are sitting with the CDP awaiting finalization to to progress the charges and cases. cases in the pipeline. So pre-warrantth for example um or or or pre CDP engagement. >> Mhm. Um so um but but what I want to assure you of is that that is the tiny spectrum of the work that we do to eliminate or reduce the risk of leakage. So if I can
>> Yeah. And and look, I suppose and I I understand exactly what you're saying, but I'm I'm trying to understand there is a widely held belief in the community um that there is a very high level of fraud um in the NDIS. you've given me no sort of answer to what that level is. I mean you've given me I know 97 plus a few dozen that are sort of in the in the pipeline. I mean so what are those 97 that you've just outlined to me? What what is the value of that in terms of the the alleged fraud?
>> Uh I I haven't got a dollar figure of the cumulative amount that was alleged in the court cases but I can certainly provide that to you out of session. So
in terms of the 6 to 10% which is 8% on average, what sort of um amount of that would you be allocating into the fraud
bucket? >> Only a very tiny amount would be cases that have gone to prosecution. Um um but but again what I want to emphasize is you know the range of interventions here um there are interventions that are very significant that that may not result in
prosecution. No, no, I I I sort of understand that, but it sort of it's it strikes me that we don't really have a handle on Well, you've you've also just said to me that, you know, there are there are many instances when the the effort of going to the to actually prosecute is sort of far outweighs what you're going to gain. I'm assuming you've got other means by which you are dealing and taking action against those people. Um but I mean do you think Australians have got the right and participants have got the right to to understand uh and the taxpayers have got the right to understand um how much of the money that is being invested in a program to support Australians with disability um is not being expended appropriately and a breakdown of those people that are actually fraudulently doing it and that includes those people who you've chosen not to prosecute because it's not worth it. I mean, there's there's a really distinct difference between a situation where somebody who has behaved unlawfully. Now, your choice of how you want to act on that, I understand there are a range of issues there. And then there's a group of people who have probably not broken the law, but have certainly taken moral dis advantage of a situation that wouldn't meet the pub test in Australia, which means that obviously you need to put some things in place to deal with that. I'm trying to understand how much of the money that we're talking about here in your integrity leakage is actually unlawful as opposed to that which basically is occurring because the system is not robust enough to actually stop it from happening. Do you do you
official has indicated to you on a number of occasions that the way that you seek to establish um that distinction is not one that is not an approach that is adopted by the agency. But perhaps I can provide some context about the way that we think about stopping leakage. Uh because as I indicated in my opening statement, this is a focus for our government. Um, every dollar that is not spent on a person with disability is a dollar that we seek uh to to bring back into compliance. Um, we have a came to government uh and honestly senator confronted a situation where there was almost no compliance arrangements in place at all. You know, Stuart Robert set up a task force in 2018. uh you know then the member for Wanan said that the task force would give people people confidence that their money is well spent. Uh 18 months later that task force uh investigator resigned said to News Corp it's simply too much fraud for too few people under your government Senator there were less than 30 employees working within the NDIA uh directly on fraud and integrity activities. There are now hundreds. Uh there were very significant blind spots systemically. Claims that were submitted between 4:30 p.m. and 6 p.m. on a weekday couldn't be reviewed uh in NDI systems before they were paid. Claims made every second weekend couldn't be reviewed in systems before they were paid. We have made very substantial investments to remedy those problems in people, in systems uh and in laws. Uh we have laws before the parliament at the moment that will strengthen penalties against people doing the wrong thing. We have put more than $500 million in tackling fraud and non-compliance and as I said that has included people and infrastructure. We have referred more matters for investigation to the AFP or state law enforcement during the uh in in our period than during the entire tenure of the opposition overseeing the NDIS. uh and we have stopped very substantial amounts of money um uh in fraud and and Mr. Dardo has committed to coming back to you with a exact quantification of that. Uh so this is an area where there is no single response. We require a multi-layered response uh to deal with this. And the final thing I want to say is that this is important for lots of reasons. It's important for people with disability, but it's also important for those many, many providers, all of whom get up every day trying to do the right thing by their clients to support people with disability. And the people who are doing the wrong thing, really are very upsetting to those people. those people talk to me about how sad it is for them um to know that their work is brought into disrepute by this group of people who are behaving badly. Uh we are determined to deal with it and I did want to get that on the record Senator Ruston because it's a very high priority for the government and one where we are making progress but there is significantly more to do.
>> Thank you. Um so Mr. D. Um I'm just keen to to understand like in response to a question um in Senate um as budget estimates in October last year. Um Senator Thorpe asked a question on notice that said um does the NDIA have a policy of transparency in its investigations? What is the scale of NDIS fraud and how many ongoing investigations are there and what is the total Australian dollar figure of these investigations? Um and the answer to that was questions one to three yes. All administrative civil and criminal investigations are undertaken within line the government in investigation standards the policy standards for all Australian government agencies that what is the scale of fraud? The answer is yes. How many ongoing investigations are there and what is the total Australian dollar of these investigations? The answer is yes. Could somebody explain to me how those questions could have an answer of yes,
>> Senator? I I um uh I uh well the first the first answer is yes we do we do follow the AGIS standards >> um uh as I've explained on the on the value you know the the definition of fraud it's a very problematic number to define and to quantify um but I will take on notice to give you the figures that are associated with the cases that are before the courts or have have concluded in front of the courts Mhm. >> It'll be a combination of those two figures.
>> Yeah. Okay. So, I'm I'm just keen to understand if it is possible to un to get a figure in relation to this average 8% um um integrity leakage number that you're talking about. If you could define the difference between can you tell us how much of that 6 to 10% is matters that are unlawful and matters that require system changes to prevent them from happening in the future because I think that is the number or the breakdown that I think Australians will be comfortable with understanding. um because if it's you know it's it's a very small amount that are unlawful then the question has to be that the system needs to be redesigned so these things can happen into the future if the number of the the unlawful behavior is high then I think you know obviously there is further work which I'm sure you're currently undertaking um and you know to the minister's point in relation to there are you know there are a lot of amazing providers that get up every morning and all they care about is making sure that the people that they care people are getting the care that they need. Um, and the fact that we have this sort of lack of clarity around the bad actors in this space, you know, causes great great pain and anguish them because quite frankly, everybody just puts all NDI um s providers in the one bucket. They think they're all bad. And we know that's not true. And the way that is best to fix that is to actually clearly define what is going wrong, where it's going wrong, who it is, and being more transparent about it because then that way it shines a light on them and allows the good providers to be able to be congratulated for the amazing care that they give Australians. That is my concern about the lack of answers or the lack of clarity or transparency we've got around fraud and non-compliance in the NDIS. um as opposed to your nice word of integrity leakage which I understand why you're using it. So um >> Senator share the I'm fine with leaving that
>> to your question. Yes. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh Senator Hanson.
>> Thank you. >> Well actually I'm going to continue on In the um NDIO annual reports that in 2223 43.2 2 million in fraud was reported in 2324. 34.5 million in fraud was reported in 2425 blank nothing. So can you explain why there's no reporting for 2425
I think um Senator the numbers that you're quoting um
>> sorry I can't
>> sorry Senator um the historically the agency um had a process of counting what I refer to as payment error rates um and so they would count the error rates in relation to payments um and um and as and and the systems were not particularly sophisticated. Um so what I mean by that is um uh you know if uh and I'll just compare claiming like I'll just give you a comparison of how claiming worked. you know, back in 2022, um, if an individual came in online to make a claim, they could make a claim without providing an ABN, without providing a text description, and without uploading an evidence, any evidence. And and those claims would happen through the day, uh, the evening and the weekend. And for a number of those claims, the agency did not even see or could not see those claims before they were processed. Um, so, so it was, you know, whatever the whatever the statistics were in those reports, there was a blind spot for the agency about the money that was going out the door. And so, um, we received an investment from government that would allow us to uplift the systems to make those claims more transparent. And so, for example, today um if somebody's making a claim as an individual, a participant, we can see the ABN of the provider they're paying, we can see a text description for the claim. We can see um the evidence that's being uploaded to support that claim if the claim is over a certain threshold. Um we've built analytics that analyze all those claims. We've built a 24-hour payment delay to allow us to analyze those claims. Um, we've built a whole bunch of really sophisticated mechanisms that allow us to identify and extract the risky claims and to then reach back and check those claims before they're paid. That level of sophistication now allows us to see things that we could never see in 2022. And that level of sophistication is surfacing um um higher error rates or leakage than was identified in 2022. Now the the we we treat that we actually treat that those claims. So you know we are on average rejecting from self-managed participants $13 million claim of claiming a month. So so that wasn't happening in 2022. In fact we now review more claims per day than was reviewed in all of 2022.
>> isn't that a shocking statistic? Senator Hanson.
>> What I'm asking you're telling me the process. Wonderful. I've asked you why haven't the fraud figures been published for 23 for 24 25.
>> I I I think the again the the the word fraud um is a there's a technical definition for it. What we measure is not aligned to that definition. And what we're working on is improving the processes to increase the accuracy of claims before we process them so we don't have to prosecute people or we don't have to try and recover debt.
>> Isn't it true that you've actually changed the definition of fraud reporting methodology that you've changed it? That's why you can't that's what you're saying is that fraud's different now. Fraud is fraud, but you've changed the definition of it, haven't you? Over the period of time
>> the the the technical definition of fraud has never changed. You know, the technical definition,
>> you've moved the goalpost, haven't you?
I >> I think what we're saying is that the the measures that were there were incomplete and not sufficiently sophisticated. um um what we are identifying now would exceed those numbers and and certainly we treat more than that every every day and every month than we did in 2022.
>> And Senator Hanson, I I think the the point I've sought to make in my contribution really is that this is a very significant area of interest for the government. It's why we've made the the big investments we have and the evidence Mr. the data has given you is that as a consequence of that, we can see much more of the behavior. Some of which are fraud, some of which is improper um claiming behavior and we are determined to put in place the systems to eliminate both of those things. Um it involves systems, it involves uh investment in people. So, we've got the people to do the work. Uh, and it also involves new laws and you'll know that there are laws in front of the parliament at the moment in relation to these issues. They're subject to a Senate committee inquiry.
>> Um, Minister, could I just add to that? Um, Louise Glanville um from the commission. Um I think the other point that is really significant and that's why we um so much enjoy working with the NDIA on this work is that a lot of the compliance actions that can be taken respond and respond essentially to trying to mitigate risk and to um of fraud and to prevent um that fraud occurring. And so things like um compliance outcomes, banning orders, revocations of registration, uh other regulatory outcomes, enforcement actions are all things which are early on so that we can prevent the fraud actually occurring. So um the fraud itself is important as you say, but what is as important is as is trying to get in early, trying to look at what is occurring across systems. Um and um the commission itself has also been assisted by government uh with significant resourcing to improve our systems that are um currently in place. And that this provides a very holistic response to I think um events which happen always when governments spend significant amounts of money and have over history and still do now. And I think this way of working where yes strong focus on fraud within the courts but also a a strong focus on trying to mitigate these risks earlier on by other compliance and enforcement actions that the commission has at it as it disposal is a a really important part of this puzzle.
Is it true that um fraud is only reported once it's been proven or confirmed? So you can have a lot of fraud that's going in going on which you've said is happening but you don't you don't pursue it because the cost of pursuing and finding the evidence but it's actually happening but you don't put it in your figures because it hasn't been proven in the court system. Is that
right? No, I I think if we can just separate out a couple of metrics um and I think um we that that measure of integrity leakage is a measure of any any money that is going out that we think should not be going out for whatever reason, including fraud. and and and Senator, I just I I think I just want to reassure you the the effort that is going into every layer of this, whether it be detection up front to prevent it or whether it be treatment of it after a claim has come in or whether it be um a a mitigation after the money has gone out is is mindblowingly. um awesome compared to three years ago. And I'll give you some numbers to prove we've we've stopped over 2 and a half thousand providers from being able to um for a combination of reasons. Um some of them because we referred to the commission and they banned them. Some of them because we looked at their claiming behaviors and went that looks like fraud. We're going to prosecute them. some of them because we looked at their claiming behaviors and went actually we're not even confident that their business systems are accurate. But two and a half thousand providers where we've stopped their ability to claim from the scheme. Before we stopped those providers, they had historically claimed $5 billion from this scheme and we've stopped them from claiming from this scheme. And we and we currently right now have several hundred more that we're working through our pipeline that we will stop from claiming from this scheme. Now, it is mathematically impossible to take two and a half thousand providers and prosecute every single one of them. And in fact, you're not even sure that you should or need to because you're not sure that all their behavior was criminally malicious. But stopping those providers from claiming against the scheme means that genuine providers are actually getting the work and the business they should be getting. And it means genuine participants are not being ripped off. and it protects participants from providers that are dodgy. That that's a phenomenal like that is a really significant shift in the provider >> Um
>> two and a half thousand over what period
>> since June 2024,
>> right? >> And how many how many providers do you have on your books?
>> Um there's over 200,000 providers that are claiming against
>> 300,000 pro providers, aren't there?
And I can assure you that the risk treatments that we are putting in place to identify providers and to progressively remove them from the scheme where we've got concerns far exceed anything that existed 3 years ago. The stuff we have built in the last two years is extraordinary.
>> So the ANO did a review of these matters, Senator Hanson, and they said this and it's a direct quote. Prior to 2024, the NDIS lacked basic prevention controls for fraud and non-compliance. So when I say to you that this is a focus for our government, that was totally unacceptable. We came to government and saw a scheme that was not set up to deal with these problems and we have found the money and the resources to start to fix that. And as Mr. data is pointing out to you those systems. We're now starting to see results. We are exiting people from the scheme, providers from the scheme who are behaving improperly. And we hope that that makes room for the good providers. Um later in the hearing, it may be that people direct questions to the quality and safeguard commission about the work they've done recently, reviewing, you know, site visits, reviewing the work of providers. They see good practice and quality care in all sorts of places, but we have to get rid of the people who are not behaving well. Uh, and Mr. Da Rocha's work uh that he's describing to you is very significant, but very recent because prior to us coming to government, none of this infrastructure to deal with these challenges was put in place by the Liberals.
>> Look, I I totally agree. I think that Bill Shorton did a far better job than what the coalition did in reigning in the the problems where the money was going. Um so I'll give you credit where credit's due and I totally agree with it. But you know things like this like Begman um Canara K N T A R A she she was a 60-year-old former migration agent who was banned from the professional for serious misconduct yet still managed to register and run an NDIS disability service um support service in Melbourne and allegedly stole nearly $300,000 from the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Now, this same woman, despite her migration agent ban for fraudulent applications and failing clients, she was able to operate the Elite Smart Community Care NDIS company, raising serious questions about oversight and how someone with history of misconduct could be allowed to reregister as soon before sentencing. Now, what are you doing with that sort of thing? because I'm hearing constantly all the time that people are creating f fraud. Um, do you investigate these people who get get onto these schemes as providers?
>> Uh, Senator Hanson, it's a really important point and we are conscious of people who target government payment programs of one kind or another, sometimes operating across more than one government payment program. Uh, Mr. can talk to you a little about some of the steps um that he has taken working within the fraud fusion task force to let us see have better visibility of these people who are working in more than one scheme. It's also the case that the ledge that is before the parliament at the moment um provides some additional powers for the commission to ban certain people from operating within the scheme and gives them expanded powers essentially to prevent a person from operating in any capacity within the NDIS. But I'll let Mr. Danta talk about those cross- sector questions that you you specifically ask
>> Yeah, Senator, um there's there's a a couple of um layers of defense that have we've been building up. um the fraud fusion task force which is the most powerful task force ever assembled to deal with fraud against government payments and programs not just against the NDIS but it's also dealing with fraud in other programs has 24 comworth agencies on it and in addition to that the state and territories um enforcement agencies are also supporting us in a range of different ways um that task force um has had two streams of work one is around intelligence and operations and one is about building preventative capab capability, the intelligence and operations capability now is becoming more and more mature by by the month. Um, and so we now are able to um, uh, data match across those agencies. So data match across agencies that administer different government rules or regulations um, and start to identify persons of interest that might have been banned um, or might have been flagged for fraud in other schemes or systems. And then we take those intelligence reports which are produced out of the um Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, a member of the task force. We distribute them to agencies such as us and we then use it to identify risk and exit providers from the steam scheme or stop them from claiming. That did not exist 3 years ago. We've been building that. That is becoming more and more mature. But keep in mind it's limited by law as to what we can and can't share. But within the bounds of law, that is becoming an extremely mature system. The other thing that's really interesting is that this agency did not have um a way to properly identify registered providers um um prior to um uh an investment called crackdown on fraud. And that that investment, that $300 million investment, one of the things we did was we implemented digital identity on the front of our online claiming interface for for registered providers. And in parallel with us, the commission also updated their online interface for people attempting registration to put digital identity in front of it. Before that, we could not be sure who the providers were. Now we are sure that we've got a digital identity that we can match to an individual and we can we we know that that person you know is a real person with a real identity that matches an identity in Australia. Before we did that we could not be sure who the registered providers were and who were representing them. So so there's layers of defense that we're building whether it be in data matching across agencies whether it be in case work. So some of these cases that you may read about in the press, what you may not know from the press is that the effort to take those people down was multi-jurisdictional. It was us with the federal police with the tax office with services Australia and we took them down across multiple schemes at once. So, so, so we are working right across the board to to detect, to data match, to prevent, to take them down, and in the agency and in the commission to build systems that identify them. Can I flag that we've still got a long way to go? You know, we can't make up, you know, the the the historic weaknesses in just a couple of years. Um, but but we are streets ahead of where we were only two or three years
ago. Senator Hanson, um just checking on uh whether we could leave this block, I just need to share the call back to the coalition. Um and um before we head to the break, uh if you're happy to leave it there um and we can come back to you >> Thank you. Uh Senator Austin.