Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, , 5:34:58 to 6:43:52
Officials clarify the triggers for unscheduled plan reassessments and the qualifications of staff making clinical and budgetary decisions for participants.
Topics: Social services, Public service staffing
Speakers: John Dardo, Speaker 28, Hon Anne Ruston, Hon Jenny McAllister, Aaron Verlin, Dorinda Cox, Graeme Head AO, Louise Glanville, Matthew Swainson, Natalie Wade, Nory Mccay, Scott McNaughton
>> okay thank you um I'm just really interested to understand um if there is any world in which you would think that um a quadruple amput would no longer require prosthetics to go about their daily life.
>> Senator Russian Scott Norton again. Um I honestly don't of know the circumstances of the case that you're talking about. Um I'd really like if I could have some information through the CEO's office so we can have a look at it. It's um I don't know the case you're talking to so it's hard for us to comment.
>> I think the thing is Senator Ruston that I do know the case that you speak about. Um, Senator Cash has made direct representations appropriately to our office and we sought advice for her. It does make it difficult to speak when it so directly relates to an individual participant. We wouldn't ordinarily do that in an open forum.
>> Okay. Um, well, I'm I'm not speaking about anybody in particular. I'm just asking um you know like
>> Okay. Well, perhaps we can just agree this that officials may be constrained in providing general rather than specific information.
>> So I I suppose my question is, you know, is there a circumstance under which you would think it was reasonable for a quadruple ampute to have their NDAs funding um and supports for prosthetics
Senator without the spec specifics of the case as the minister referred more than happy to look into those matters of course uh as we do when we get those representations but we don't know the bonafidees or the circumstances so I'm not going to speculate sorry
>> no I it's not there's no bonafidees I'm just talking about a quadruple ampute um having had their plan reduced and their access to prosthetics removed do you can you can you imagine a scenario within the assessment of the NDIS where that possibly could occur.
>> I I think Senator Russen um Mr. uh McNorton's been um clear um and also the minister has um without speculating on hypotheticals um that they don't uh have the circumstances in front of them and and aren't going to provide an answer. I think the minister was quite clear around that senator Cash has already provided some representation. So
>> which is which is appropriate and I'm very happy to assist Senator Cash or indeed any other member of senator directly. Uh there are really significant prohibitions on providing information about an individual participant.
>> I haven't named anybody. >> Okay. Well, maybe we can ask a different Um in there how many people are in the NDIS currently receiving supports in the
>> Approximately 750,000.
>> Okay. >> So
>> what's the most up toate? >> 751,000. I think 446.
>> Okay. So in the experience of the in in the NDIS, have any of those 750,000 people had their funding taken away for the provision of for prosthetics?
>> Senator, we'd have to take that on
could you also perhaps then take on notice um if anybody who has had four prosthetics taken away from their plan um whether they um it would that that any people under those circumstances a quadruple amput has had their occupational therapy access removed or reduced um whether they've had their exercise physiologist support taken way or reduced. Is that possible?
>> As I said, Senator, we can take those questions on not to see if we can get some data from.
>> Okay. Um and just interested in correspondence to a participant, particularly a quadruple ampute. Um would you ever write in correspondence to them that um a reduction of um $30,000 of funding in their plan for an IND participant was nothing major. Would that ever have been written in any correspondence you've ever sent to
>> Senate. It does not sound like any of the standard text we would put in. Um but again we would have to take that on notice but that is wouldn't sound like any of the um standard type of wording we would expect that would go into a plan decision explanation letter.
>> Okay. Well I look forward to receiving um back your response to that. Thanks chair.
>> Thank you very much Senator Russen. Senator McKenzie you got the call.
>> Thank you very much chair. Uh I have some questions around uh registered and non-registered >> Great ladies. Thank you. That I can look to that end. Um I would just like uh to know how many providers registered and non-registered there are in post code 2195 in Western
>> Oh u thank you so much Senator for that law Glennville speaking. Um uh we would have to look to find that information. I can't give that to you immediately. Um,
>> someone is coming with a big folder.
>> Not not from my area certainly from a partner area in John D at the
>> But you do arrange data for registered and non-registered providers by postcode >> or do you do LGA? How how do you >> someone's coming to be helpful?
>> Senator John Gar NDIA. Um, thank you for the question. I might try and explain how that data comes about because that might help explain what these counts are. So, so let's just um let's just take the unregistered providers. A definition of an unregistered provider is a provider that has been paid. So, they've had a claim made against their ABN. >> That claim may come from a self-managed participant. So, self-managed participant says, "I've paid this ABN." It may come through a plan manager.
>> Yep.
>> Um, but it's a it's a claim against an ABN.
>> Y
>> I'll just give you an example of what one of those claims could look like. It's really important to understand that before we do the count. >> If if an if a participant um decides to use a lawnmowing service >> Mhm. >> once. >> Calls that lawnmowing service once. >> Mhm. uses that lawnmowing service, >> comes in and claims against that lawnmowing service, >> and that lawnmowing service does not even know that they've mowed the lawn of a participant, that will appear in a unregistered provider account. >> And so, it's really important to understand that while we've had some really big numbers floating around about 270,000 providers. >> Mhm. That includes providers that may not know that they've ever serviced a participant and may have only been paid once and are just a normal business out there doing.
>> Thank you, Mr. D. I appreciate what you're saying. That's not my line of questioning. So, I do appreciate it. So, how many registered and non-registered providers are there at Post Code 2195 in Western Sydney?
I I would have to look up to I have to
>> that would be great,
>> but I could I could give you an equivalent breakdown for one that's appeared in the AFR recently, such as Liverpool 2170.
>> I'm interested in 2195. So, if you've got Liverpool, fantastic. I'm interested in Lemba.
>> Uh I actually can get Lemmber for you.
>> Excellent. Thank you. Will that take a little while? And I'm happy to seed the call until that data comes because I I've got a whole series of questions. >> Thank you. >> Come on, Rusty. You're up. >> Thank you, Mr. Danta.
>> We'll put you on on ice. Senator
>> Perfect.
>> Okay. >> Um I'm just wondering um if anyone can just give me a little bit of an update about where we're at with I can.
>> Thank you for helping.
>> So Mr. Valin can give you some uh details but obviously we're well into the process of testing working with individual participants on their feedback about the experience of going through a support needs assessment using I can Mr. Valin can give you uh some extra detail about uh how that process is going and the type of feedback we're
uh Aaron Villian, acting deputy CEO uh service design and improvement group. Um at the previous estimates we described uh the first phase uh of our implementation of the IAN which was our desktop reviews >> uh that uh will continue until the end of this month. What we have also uh progressed um from uh the start of January is to move to our trial and testing with actual participants. Y >> um and so that will run through right through until mid this year. >> Mhm. >> Uh the purpose of that is three parts. Uh the first part is participant experience. Um how are the uh I can assessment being conducted um between the assessor and the participant. So uh the first part is the experience. The second part of the ICAN is then to start to see the results that are coming out um and an understanding about how that looks compared to the information that we have under their current oldframe uh work plan. Uh and then the third part is then really uh working through the budget outcomes that it's providing um in accordance uh with their plan. what we are doing side by side with the University of Melbourne and center of disability studies the contract uh that we have uh we are also working uh with them uh around uh quality assurance program for the IAN so the results that we're starting to see through uh the assessment um how are they uh looking are they uh providing an accurate representation of the support needs of the individual and also as part of the um uh contract. We are starting to work through the accredititation of the assessor workforce. So, it's really in that testing validation uh process that that is underway at the moment.
now I hope I'm not saying verbling anybody here, but is it my understanding that that the government has said that this new assessment isn't automated?
>> Uh so, the assessment is not automated. The assessment is an individual discussion, a guided discussion between an assessor and a participant to understand their support needs.
>> Okay. So is there any role for algorithms or AI in this system?
>> Uh not in the support needs assessment.
>> Yeah. Well, that's a very good question. So if it's not in the support needs assessment, is there any are we using AI or or any algorithms in any other part of the assessment process? uh the
delegate will be uh looking at the budget um that it uh is um provided and uh be making a human decision around the uh final plan.
>> Okay. So they'll be using are you saying AI or algorithm? What is the basis of the information that's been provided to that that assessor that they're making the decision on?
>> If I can jump in Senator Graham Head, the CEO of the agency. Um I think we traversed this in quite a bit of detail at the last estimates hearing. The uh support needs assessment uh interfaces with uh the budget model which will be expressed in the rules. Those rules are under development at the moment. the >> the the budget uh uh as we said last time the budget application to a support needs assessment will be expressed in the rules. Those rules are under development by the department at the moment. Uh and it's the rules that will uh underpin the budget decision. the final decision is made by a delegate uh in the process that's outlined.
>> So what is included in the I can assessment tool? What what what are the components of the IAN assessment tool?
>> So I think we actually provided uh a copy of uh the tool and the uh uh adjacent assessment that looks at personal and environmental factors in response to questions on notice. uh Mr. Valin can take you through in some detail if you would like the different domains that are looked at in the tool.
>> It's more around I'm just sort of trying to understand that like the system you say is not automated. Um there appears to be some role for algorithms or AI. I'm just sort of trying to understand where that that all sits. So I mean I suppose who ultimately determines the eligibility and a participant's budget.
Senator Ruston, uh, I'll start because I do think that one of the things that the conversation around AI, which is a very important one for government to have, uh, has unhappily produced is a sense that every use of a computer represents AI. Of course, delegates will record information digitally uh, as they do now as a consequence of their interactions with participants. Uh and I know that that seems like an obvious point to make but um >> well there is some measure of confusion around this in the public discussion about it and so I really just wanted to make the point that uh as Mr. He has described to you there is a support needs assessment. It's a structured conversation between the uh an assessor and a participant. It's then uh a a a set of rules associated with setting a budget will uh provide a budget for a participant. These things are and and these rules will be will be quite transparent uh and the final decision will be made by a delegate as occurs now.
>> Okay. Well, um I do know the difference when
>> I know you do, Senator Ruston, but this is a communication which extends more widely than a private conversation between you and I. So, I thought it was worth putting it on the record.
>> So, so back to this. So, ultimately um who determines the eligibility and the participants budget is that that is a manual process by an individual. When
you mean um sorry Senator when you mean um eligibility you mean undertaking the assessment to understand the support needs for the participant that is an individual
>> that is an individual and then the participant's budget is is also determined on the basis of the individual making the supports need assessment then another individual makes the decision in relation to the budget as is going to be contained in the rules.
>> That's right. The de the delegate will make the decision on the budget.
>> Yeah. Um so if a participant or or a a family member representative of participant believes that um this process this ICAM process has delivered an unfair outcome who will undertake the review of that process and how quickly does that happen?
>> Yeah. Uh so um um uh you're right uh the there is an opportunity to review um the outcome of the support needs uh assessment. >> Um and so that that is a reviewable uh decision and I'll um if there's specific questions about that I'll ask Mr. Swainson to elaborate on those. Uh and then what we are doing is then um as u Mr. McNorton outlined. We have participant service guarantees under the existing old planning framework. We are working to understand what is an appropriate time frame from the request for a review to do a new support needs assessment and an outcome. >> What we would um do is consistent with planning today is we would approve that plan. So there is a continuation of funding while a review is being undertaken. And I think that's really important um that there are there is a continuity of supports through that process.
>> Yeah. Great. So it will be um like a a person will undertake that review. Okay. That's great. Thank you very much. um when I think it was two estimates ago um we identified the fact that um the NDIA didn't have a dis an FOI disclosure log in to the same uh degree as the uh as the department and certainly understanding that we're not going to identify individual um people by the process of this. So just wondering if you could provide and you came back and said that you were going to look at it. Um so I'm just wondering if you'll provide me an update on how the NDIA disclosure log is coming along so that it aligns with the disclosure log of the department.
>> Yes, Senator. I'm Matthew Swainson, deputy CEO of the NDIA. Um I think in the last estimates I confirmed we were going to start producing a disclosure log. I'm happy to report that that disclosure log has commenced. So we've we're going to undertake a back capture process. So we're going to obviously any prospective uh FOIs that that need to be disclosed on that will be disclosed on our public disclosure log and then um we will undertake a back capture. I don't have a time frame on the back capture at
>> Great. I look forward to you coming to the next estimates and telling me that it's all up and running. Fantastic. Have you got Senator
>> Here we go.
>> You're finished, Senator.
>> I think so.
>> Senator McKenzie, you have the call.
>> All right. Right. I know what that's like. >> Hello. So, can I have the number of registered and non-registered providers at 2195?
Yep. Uh you absolutely can. Um I might I might start with the total.
>> Yep.
>> And the definition is active. And the definition of active is active in the last 12 months.
>> In the last 12 months.
>> So these are providers that we have paid in the last 12 months >> that are
>> the last this financial year or the 12
>> 12 months backwards from now from today. and and so um and the definition of that means that somebody has claimed for that
AB. >> Yes, >> you gave that evidence before, Mr. D. >> The figure is memory if you've said it in the last 15 minutes.
>> 222
>> 222 providers.
>> Now, just to give you some comparison
>> and what about the previous financial year? >> So, they're total registered and non-registered.
>> Total registered and unregistered. >> Okay. and registered is 17
>> and registered is 17. So I can do the grade three maths on that. um >> I want to understand within the 5 kilometer radius of that postcode given um there was an investigation by news limited Harrison Christian I'm sure you're aware of this article the 1st of January 2026 who revealed that within a 5 km radius of post code 2195 there were more than 1300 providers.
>> Yeah. So,
>> do your records show whether these providers uh were providing services within this suburb or elsewhere um across Sydney more broadly?
>> Yeah, I I might explain the difference between the numbers I've provided to you and the numbers that are being reported.
>> I'm happy for your answer. My I'm I'm going to take that article as read. So, my question,
>> Senator, I think the problem is that Mr. D does have information that I think would be useful to you about
>> well when you're sitting over here minister uh you can ask whatever questions you like not what questions you think I should be asking or that I might like to ask or that you as the minister would like me to ask. My question to Mr. Dardo was
>> Senator McKenzie. the minister's comment
>> Yeah.
>> was was meant in the spirit of ensuring that we as parliamentarians adhere to the code of conduct where we allow our witnesses to complete their evidence.
>> He's not answering my question.
>> Then you when when he's finished providing an answer, you can clarify that. interrupting him and shouting over the top of him isn't helpful. And I think that just what the minister had said, he is providing information that might be helpful. If it's not and it requires clarification, then I'm sure you will be able to
>> when he's finished,
>> points him in the right direction. So I would ask that um you wait for him to complete his answer. If it hasn't been helpful, it isn't the question you asked, then I would invite you to clarify that.
>> Thank you, Senator. The article is misleading, and I'll explain why. Um uh I think that article used a function called provider and uh was literally looking at provider, typing in a postcode, and getting a search result. um that search result um will pro the point of a provider finder is to show the the businesses that have offered a service in that area or within that area. Um and there's different filters you can use. Um but but you've got to keep in mind that any business in Australia that offers a service to an NDIS participant can say that they offer a service in that postcode or in that area. And there aren't businesses that have a valid reason to say they offer a service in that area. >> A plan management business can offer a service in Lambar because they might be online and there is no reason for them to be physically located in Lemba. So that means every plan manager that wants to offer a service to an N US participant is probably appearing in the Lembmber search results in the 1330 regardless of the fact that they're not in Lemba. when we take that lemba number that 1330 number um and the other issue is that in that finder results um you might get duplicate hits the same business may appear two or three times because they've got different types of services that they offer and so they've listed themselves two or three different times and they might be having multiple hits because they've got a head office and a branch. Once we take the 1330 and we do a a reduction to unique ABNs, so single ABNs as opposed to duplicates, we get down to 939. Once we then look at the numbers of the 939 that have a physical office, a physical presence in the area, which includes, you know, within a radius,
>> the 5 km radius, sorry, chair.
>> No, it's it's a broader it's a broader area than that. I couldn't tell you the exact kilometer radius because it probably depends on the geographic location. In metro areas, it's smaller. In regional areas, it's slightly bigger, but it's it's an area. But but let me be very specific. The physical addresses that are located in Lemba is 17 registered providers for the post code
>> and nonregistered question there. and
and unregistered is 205 active providers that they are slightly different counts. The 17 is active in the last 3 months. The 200 the the the other number the balance of that is active in the last 12
Um, so what I wanted to understand was whether these providers are primarily providing services within this suburb or elsewhere across Sydney or indeed the country. >> that was my question.
>> Yeah. And and that's the difficulty with the provider finder search. It's it's geared towards allowing a participant to look for a provider that is willing to service that postcode. And that means in that 13:30 there will be providers from all over the country appearing in that finder.
>> Mr. Dardo, I wasn't asking about provider searcher. If you are a registered or an unregistered provider in this postcode, are they primarily providing services to that community or elsewhere?
>> I would have to look at each one individually and let me explain why. the no there is no reason why a provider that has a physical address in Lemba might not be providing services to other parts of the country if they are for example a plan manager and they're offering an online service with a phone with a phone service um if if they're a therapist a physical therapist that actually needs to provide hands-on service then it is likely that they're only offering services that are geographically close to them
>> so then how How many um plan providers are at this uh within a 5 km radius of 2195? I
>> I would I would have to take that on notice. Senator
>> Okay. If you could take that on notice. If you could also take on notice uh um the numbers you've given me where they are providing services to. You said you could you had that data but not on you. Is that correct? We
>> we can certainly analyze the geographic distribution of the participants that are claiming to use those providers. Absolutely.
>> How many NDIS plans are active in the post code 2195?
will have to come back to you on that. Uh but what I can tell you is that when we've done the analysis of postcode by postcode, registered and unregistered providers against population and against participants, LeB doesn't appear anywhere near the top of the list. The top of the list is Port McQuary. >> The second one is Harvey Bay. The third one is Sunshine Coast. The fourth one is Frankston. The fifth one is Southport. So if the metric of saturation of providers is supposed to be an indicator of something, they are the top five that appear in the list. Let me give you some equivalents to Lembmber >> and to Liverpool. You know, they they are more like um some of our outer other suburbs. So, for example, um uh you know, they've actually got a a a lower saturation than Kabula. They've got a lower saturation than IPS switch. They are not anywhere near our top 40 suburbs for saturation.
>> Thank you, Mr. Danta, for the comparative analysis. Can you answer my actual question, which were how many active NDIS plans are in the post code I asked for, not all the ones you just gave me. Please just answer my question >> which was quite specific
>> order. There's no need to be so disrespectful to the officials.
>> I believe so. All right. I mean you can
dial down the contempt. Okay. He's trying to be helpful.
>> Uh thank you Senator Najaraja. Um I believe the official did say that he would take the original question on notice and so I think that given Mr. D's um trying to be helpful in that. I think taking that question on notice um to provide that back to you uh Senator McKenzie uh will
>> 473.
>> 473. Thank you. And is that within post code 2195 itself or within a 5 km rad?
>> No, that's the post code. And >> that's the postcode. >> And you know I I think I will also flag read the articles and the articles are very misleading for for a whole bunch of the the data that we have that we use to identify our integrity treatments include looking at things such as claiming behaviors and risk profiles and and I I will you know the the risk profiles that are associated with those participants are pretty spot on average for the
>> Thank you Mr. Dardo. How many actions have been taken against workers and providers in the post code of 2195? Has there been any investigations into registered or non-registered providers?
I I think the difficulty with a with an accurate response to that uh we will take actions against providers where uh they may have multiple entities uh across the country um or across Sydney um uh and and so we don't track um by postcode the interventions that we do that it's not an accurate dis representation of what we do.
>> What metric do you use to track?
>> Sorry, Senator, can I make a broader point here which is Mr. Dardo is talking of course about work that he leads related to payment integrity, fraud etc. Of course, the commission is the primary regulator of uh of uh entities for quality and safeguarding purposes. So, it would be No, I'm saying it would be a mix. You're asking about quantum. There are different types of activities performed by the agency and performed by the commission depending on the particular kind of behavior that's subject to the intervention.
>> Okay. So mine is a general question to both the commission and the agency then um given your uh separate but similar areas of responsibility. Um can I understand if there's how many investigations or prosecutions there have been of NDIS providers uh in post code 2195.
>> Thanks for the question, Senator. we will need to take on notice um that information >> but it is important to highlight uh what um Mr. head has said uh in so far as we are the responsible uh authority for uh conducting those investigations both against registered and unregistered. But also important to underscore that um unregistered uh providers are not visible to us unless their uh breaches of our code of conduct are made known to us
>> and reported to you.
>> Right. Right. That's right. Okay,
appreciate that clarification. Thank you. >> I know Senator Ruston has already asked some questions on fraud, but there are actually claims in that same article um about bogus providers. One provider having an email address of email.com and the phone number 0. I just want to understand the process you have internally like that's like 101 year 8 dodgy ass. What um process you have internally that says hello uh that looks like a dodgy um bogus provider.
>> Senator,
>> so would that be a question to the the commission or the agents? Well, I'll
start Senator and then I'll ask Mr. Da Rocha to supplement my answer. I think the issue is that this is incredibly well traversed over the transcript over really the last >> four hours like it was the subject of extensive convers questioning from senators Rustin and um Hansen. So Mr. The data can provide, I think, a topline description of the extensive investments that have been necessary to uplift integrity after the failures of the last liberal government. Um, and the ANO found that prior to 2024, there are essentially no controls uh on payment and no capacity to manage compliance uh of any in any meaningful way. We have had to resolve that through investments in systems and people and in new legislation. So we've had a very long conversation about it in the committee. Mr. Danta can assist you, but probably reviewing the transcript may be
>> Thank you so much, Minister, for your helpful response. Mr. Danta, could you please answer my question?
the they're um the the provider finder information
>> sorry Mr. Dardo can I I don't what I'm wanting to understand given email.com and triple0 were examples of a provider. My question isn't it's about the mechanism internally that when someone registers to become a provider or sends you a bill as a non-registered provider um what mechanisms are in place internally to identify and reduce um unnecessary >> funding because I don't know if I would
>> all being canvased in really
>> well I'm here Senator McAllister I've been busy in other committees So I would appreciate Mr. Da Rocha's response.
>> Uh so I I I will let the commission answer the question on the registered side of it, but let me let me from the NDIA talk about the transparency we have for a a provider that is claiming registered or unregistered. Um I'll start they are slightly different. So I'll start with with two different descriptions. If the provider is coming through and they are making the claim themselves in our online interfaces, up until last year, we had very little visibility of the person at the end of that claim. I could not tell you with any confidence the name or the identity of the person behind that claim up until last year. And that was what had been built that we inherited. Um, in the last two years, we've built a new digital identity requirement on the online interface for providers making claims directly with us. And so, I can guarantee you now that a provider making a direct claim with us in our online interface has to provide digital identity for themselves and all their staff logging in. And I can I can prove to you the name and the person and the attributes of that individual as they claim. and and that digital identity um is whole of government digital identity. So it's the same identity that is being used in tax office and for shrinking CRNs and so on. So so that's on providers that are claiming directly from our online interface for providers that are claiming through plan managers and for providers that are being paid by participants where the participants are making the claim. We do not have today transparency behind the the actual claim from the plan manager or the participant. And what I mean by that is the plan manager gives us a file saying they paid an ABN and he you know and and we do not today have the system that can see behind that to see the evidence >> for that claim >> that that that was never built and never existed. We are building it. In the next three months, we'll turn on another feature will allow us to mandate evidence collection from certain ABNs, but it does not exist today. >> We have to manually audit that by exception. >> For for evidence that is being submitted by a participant, we're requiring a participant now to upload their claims. That did not exist. We've built that in the last two years. We've been turning more features on. As recently as this Monday, we turned on a new mobile app that is now progressing through adoption of the participant database. That mobile app, as you scan your evidence upload, is checking the evidence you upload. So, we can start to look at that ABN and the invoice and get confidence that it's a real invoice and a real ABN when a participant is making a claim. Now, we've been building these systems out for the last two years. We've turned on more things this week. We'll turn on more things in a month and in 3 months. >> But right now, today we do 660,000 payments per day. The level of scrutiny that we would expect a mature system to has is not where we are. We are still building that out.
>> So given Thank you, Mr. Dto. Um given that these type of bogus providers currently as of today are and up until quite recently are able to res be in receipt of payment because you can't see behind um as you were saying. Do we have any quantification of how how much of how much money is being paid to bogus providers versus legitimate
um I I can tell you um that we identify a percentage of claims through risk indicators >> and we treat those claims. >> Um and for example, we now review more self-managed claims per day than used to be done in a year in you know four years ago.
>> So how many would the proportional
difference? So, so in you know the for the last few months and we've been in increasing our capacity to do that like we didn't have any capacity to do that. >> So we've been building systems and capacity. We are now routinely rejecting about $13 million a month >> in self-managed claims >> from self-managed participants. >> Um and so
>> and how many from managed?
Um uh it it it's it's um can I come back then and describe that differently because it is a different thing.
>> I do I do know it's a different thing but uh if you set up the right systems in a managed plan you can also potentially I'm not saying it's happening but potentially being in receipt of funds um inappropriately. So, I just want to you've got a system in place that audits and uh risk stress tests the self-managed claims. Do you have do you apply the same rigor to the managed or do you see them as less risk and therefore
>> No, no, we we we are applying it's a different it is a different set of rigor but it is in fact we are moving to a higher standard over time and I'll
of questions on notice about that because I think I've just got a series of questions.
>> And on that note, I know you have been busy, Senator McKenzie, and other uh committees as you've stated that there was an offer to Senator Hanson and other senators on this committee around a private briefing with uh both the NDIA and the uh quality and uh safeguards commission to um to pose further questions. So, um really happy if you wanted to join us for that um and or put your questions on notice. So,
>> yes. So, I I will on on that that matter. I now have a series of questions from Dr. Anne Webster who's the uh National Party member for Mali. Um
>> just checking how much time.
>> Uh I've got 11 questions. So, it'll depend on our answers, but I know that um officials are being super helpful with my questions. They might want to answer not just mine, but their own as well. >> Thank you. So I'm happy to start when you are happy to give me the call.
>> You've stretching your 10 minutes. Yes. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Um so this is on behalf of Dr. Anne Webster in Mali in my home state of Victoria. Uh she wanted to understand how many transferred exstate government SIL services in Victoria have closed or exited the market in the past 24 months.
McKay will come up to answer that.
>> S stands for supported independent and just so we're all talking about the same thing of
>> supported indep supported independent living group homes with people with
>> Exactly. And is will often be referred to by um officials as a SEL service.
>> As a SEL Okay.
Penelopey McKay is speaking. Uh so as I understand your question, it's about how many SIL providers have ceased providing sill services in
>> in the last two years that were ex um state governmentrun sills in Victoria.
>> So
>> it's a very local question.
so in Victoria there were about 2 and a half thousand participants who transitioned into this scheme as part of a bilateral arrangement in 2021. >> Mhm. >> Uh there are now about 2,000 of those participants who are still in >> uh providing receiving services from >> the uh legacy providers. what we call them those original five providers that provided services to those participants. Those five providers are still providing services in the sill market. So haven't withdrawn from sill services
what the um obviously Dr. Webster, you know, it it's a very big rural electorate and her concern is about um participants that have had to relocate. So, not that the Sill provider has withdrawn from the market completely, but may have withdrawn particular homes in particular areas rec uh causing participants to have to relocate often hundreds of kilometers away from family.
>> Uh thank you. It's a it's a really important question because obviously um we're uh part of the goal of the scheme is to ensure that participants can have a housing arrangement that suits their needs and and the sort of housing desires that people have in this space. >> What does happen? So the houses that the transitioned participants um lived in are owned by the state government. >> Yes. >> Uh and the Sill providers provide services. >> Sill providers across the country will from time to time have to make business decisions about this the houses and the the places that they can operate in and what their offering is to participants. and they will have to work with participants and from time to time it does happen that S providers need to work with participants to say we can't offer you a service in this house anymore. Here's a different location where we could offer you a service. >> We don't have Yes. Sorry.
>> Yeah. So there's no in in in your understanding of the Victorian um market there hasn't been a withdrawal of a large provider. The five providers that started the scheme back in 2021 are um in operation in Victoria.
>> That's correct. That um possibility is the one of the current providers that was recently acquired by in the independence of Australia group. So it's had a change of name, but those five legacy original SIL providers in Victoria remain in the SIL provider market providing services to 2,000 SIL um participants in Victoria who transitioned across as part of the original transition.
>> So as that there are mechanisms in place to ensure continuity of care when a Victorian transferred exstate government provider exit the market. There is an assumption that there will be a continuation of care irrespective of who owns
>> I'm using the um captions and I I missed that. So it was a bit um a bit of a jump there and I missed what the question was. Do you mind repeating it?
>> No, it's okay. Um, what mechanisms are in place to ensure continuity of care when a Victorian transferred exstate government provider exits the market?
>> To be clear, none of those five um, S providers have told us or the commission that I'm aware of that they're planning to exit the market.
>> Right. What I might do then >> is I will put these on notice. um because I think there is a very local issue for um the Mali region um that may not you may not be aware of yet. Uh and then we might be able to cut it off at the pass.
>> You know, Senator McKenzie, the other pathway would actually just be for an to um give me a ring which would also be very welcome. >> Both pathways are fine.
>> I will leave this that's action in action minister. Thank you.
That's it from you, Senator McKenzie. >> That is it. >> Thank you very much. And we are now in a position uh that concludes the committee's examination of the health disability and aging portfolio. I want to thank all the witnesses who have appeared today including all of our departmental officials, the national uh disability insurance agency and NDIS quality and safeguards commission. I remind senators that the committee has agreed that any written questions on notice should be lodged with the secretariat by Thursday the 19th of February 2026 and the answers to questions on notice are due by Thursday the 9th of April 2026. We'll now take a short suspension uh while we welcome the Department of Social Services. Thank you. Um we are reconvening and