Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, , 7:29:51 to 8:54:03
Examination of age pension payment accuracy, the Ombudsman's report on child support, and the transition to the Inclusive Employment Australia program.
Topics: Social services, Government IT systems
Speakers: Kerrynne Liddle, Matt Flavel, Kellie Spence, Michael Lye, David Pocock, Ben Peoples, Dorinda Cox, Hon Katy Gallagher, Speaker 42, Wendy Askew
department of social services in relation to outcome one social security and invite questions from senator little
thank you thank you very much Mr. travel. Um, these questions relate to the Commonwealth ombbudsman's investigation into the actions of services Australia to address an ongoing issue of compliance legislation. theman as you know found that briefs regarding the non-compliance were drafted for the secretary minister in 202021 but did not progress past the SCES ban one level. Can you tell me or explain who was responsible for stopping those briefs and why there was no records kept of the decisions to block them?
So now Matt Favville, deputy secretary, um we provided um a lot of information to the ombudsman to assist with his investigation and there I think he mentions in the report there's no evidence of why those briefs didn't progress beyond the levels um that he
Right. So you would have given that evidence to
>> Yeah. And and I should add that included extensive email searches. So um the fact that there had been briefing at that time was only effectively found out by by going back and doing email searches um from that period.
>> Are there any other examples of DSS policy positions that are overriding legislation that we know of at this time
I think um what I would say is in the wake of the Robboet Royal Commission, there's been a very sharp focus in the department on identifying any instances of deviations between policy, law, and implementation. Uh and there's been a strong program of legislation, including a bill that was introduced into the part into the house this week with technical amendments um to fix any of those things as they arise.
>> Okay. Was anything about that issue provided in the incoming government briefs in 2022 or 2025?
>> Uh not that I recall, but I'm happy to check on notice.
>> If you can do that, that would be and what system measures uh and matters that go to the organization's culture have been implemented um since this was brought to your attention um to ensure there is uh future compliance with the and then the minister is notified as soon as practicable on those matters.
>> Yes. So on the six recommendations the ombbudsman made all six of those have already been implemented. In fact the secretary issued a statement on this matter back on I think it was the 25th of November which was of course ahead of when the ombbudsman's report came out. Uh there were other recommendations he made in terms of briefing ministers and um communication with staff that have al also being taken um taken care of. I think one one thing to note is of course the issue came to light because it was proactively raised by service Australia and DSS with the ombbudsman. So in terms of cultural change I think the strongest indicator of that is proactive engagement with the ombbudsman where those issues have arisen and then working expeditiously to fix them. That stands in very stark contrast to what we know prior to robo debt where um where there was in effect a culture of hiding things from the ombbudsman and not
uh has any work been done to understand the impact of that particular issue on uh customers or clients of DSS.
>> Senator there isn't an impact because at all times the um uh the strong policy um um outcome was always maintained. in other words that there shouldn't be payments of child support to people with less than 35% care. Um the parliament has enshrined that in an act. Um so by definition by um deviating from the law um nonetheless there was still the right policy outcome which was that children of those parents were getting the right amount of child support at the right time notwithstanding the fact that it wasn't consistent with the law as it applied at that time.
>> Yeah. So you mentioned that you've already responded to the recommendations that were in that report. So there's now no more work for you to do in relation to that in terms of the recommendations that ombbudsman's report. uh we we've
implemented those but of course as I said um we have a program um with service Australia to ensure uh and regular meetings at senior levels um so that there's a forum that if any instances of of deviations between policy law and implementation that come to light we can work to resolve those and consistent with the ombbudsman's recommendations that would involve early briefing of ministers and having a clear path for remediation and communication
>> right I'm wanting to ask in relation to the ombuds usband's reports on weaponizing child support when the systems fail families. Can you tell me um the work that's been done to date um to address u recommendation one?
>> I'll ask Mr. Peoples um just to start on Uh thanks uh Senator. I can um talk in
um some broad terms to the work that um response. I don't have recommendation
>> Okay. Okay. All right. Um what about uh work that um you you would be doing or involved in that relates to those recommendations that actually involves the work of other agencies. Are you doing that work? Have you completed that work? Where's that currently at?
underway um to improve the child support scheme um in relation to work that um is
being undertaken across agencies.
Social Services and ATO have actually established a cross agency program
board. Um and so that um works with a number of departments including
Treasury, PMC and others um looking at um both kind of the responses to the ombudsman's um report as well as other improvements that can be made um to the child support um scheme. There's been work undertaken looking at um improving arrangements about data sharing with the tax lodgement enforcement program. Um looking at um training and operational matters within services Australia as
There's a secretar's level subcommittee uh of the secretar's board that is looking specifically at weaponization issues >> and obviously that brings in the office for women um AGD attorney generals and and other agencies um and that that forum is also a mechanism where the ombbudsman has presented the tax commissioner has presented and um we've also had um civil society representatives who have an interest in this space and a technical knowledge this space um consulted as part of that process.
>> Right. So in terms of the work that you're actually doing to understand how perpetrator would use the system to exploit or abuse victim survivors um when or how will you work on um actually communicating your understanding about where those system gaps and risks exist? When can we expect that information? Is that going to be released periodically or is there a release of the information? How's this going to happen?
>> I think I think Senator sort of happens at two levels. Some of those things are things that can be um addressed through existing um uh additional effort. So for instance, one of the uh strongest forms of weaponization is failure to to lodge a tax return which often results in a inaccurate child support assessment. Uh as the secretary said, there's strong work amongst agencies to look at things that can be done to improve tax lodgement. We'll also continue to look at a range of policy settings to make sure that where we understand they could be weaponized, we seek to give advice to government about ways in which that could be reduced.
so in terms of um the safety by design review of your processes and delivery arrangements um what involvement did DSS have in that review and with the implementations of the reviews findings?
>> So services Australia undertook the safety fire design review. Um we obviously work very closely with um services Australia um including um a lot of work as as part of the review and and
>> okay thank you. I'm going to hand over some questions to Senator Ascu
Are we right to go? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. The ANAO report, the administration of the age pension, found the DSS had not made full use of oversight arrangements to ensure that
that impact service delivery are promptly managed. Does the department agree with their finding with that finding?
>> Uh yes, Senator indeed. Um the department agreed with so the ANO made four recommendations. The department agreed with three and one in principle. So yes, there was agreement to the full recommendations made.
>> Okay. So between July 2021 and June 24, the estimated age pension payment inaccuracy was $5 billion, which included 1.33 billion in underpayments to seniors. Did that come as a surprise to you? It seems like an awful lot of money not being paid.
>> No, it didn't, Senator. each year and this has been the case for at least the last decade as part of the assurance arrangements between DSS as the policy owner and service del and um service Australia as the service delivery entity we run what's called a payment accuracy um program which basically means going and sampling a range of payments um you know so engaging with customers who are selected at random checking the information they've provided and then um assessing whether they're getting the right payment that program is done to give assurance to the secretary in terms of the very large um dollars that flow out um through the social security system. >> So that program is is reported in our annual report each year. Um and so figures for the uh age pension along with all payments um both um under uh underestimates and overestimates we provide. So it actually wasn't a surprise effectively the ANO was just you know um using the same methodology as us um for the purposes of their
audit. So just following on from that, how does it what happens then with the the underpayments? Do are they actually corrected when then when they've been identified? Is there some way that there's there's a reckoning for people to be actually paid what's been underpaid?
>> So I mean it isn't it's important to note this is an assurance exercise, not a compliance one. Um that said, if people come in and uh are getting the wrong payment, then Service Australia will work with that um person or couple in some instances to ensure they're getting the right payment.
so you've addressed the next one. If the top two risks, undeclared assets and unearned income, account for 74.21% 21% of total inaccuracies. So 3.71 billion. Why is the department or DSS not required services Australia to implement compliance activities that directly target these high value risks?
>> Uh well I think on the on the payment accuracy program um we get the results each year and that then we have ongoing dialogue with service Australia about ways in which we can seek to try and get payments more accurate. That's the goal. Um all that said of course overall payment accuracy uh for the last year was around 95% which is the target. So it is at least meeting the benchmark that's set as part of the bilateral arrangements. Um we engage with service Australia on uh things that could be done to increase accuracy. So in relation to the one you mentioned on employment income, the use of single touch payroll uh is a really strong way in which we can reduce inaccuracy because instead of people having to um you know make their own estimates that information essentially gets prefilled um and they just simply um confirm that. Service Australia um works with other agencies too to look at ways in which they can data match um according to legislation in order to use data already available around assets for instance in order to try and get more accurate estimates of people's of um underlying
>> Okay. single touch payrolls rolled out has started is that what how far out is it in that um roll out is it
>> uh quite quite far I think um last time I checked I think more than 95% of businesses we're using it >> yeah um that's obviously run by the tax
>> been on the committee for a while so I haven't had an update on it
>> uh I mean that's the tax office and then that that information is then um used with consent of recipients um for the purposes of prefilling um employment
earnings. >> Excellent. Um so this may not be relevant but we'll just ask in regard to the evaluation. So following on from the findings in the ANAO report, can DSS outline the monitoring and evaluation it undertakes in the areas of jobseker DSP child support family tax benefit youth allowance o study and AB study in regard to those findings. So I'm not sure I'll
take that on notice. Yeah.
So in late 2023 and early 24, seniors waited an average of 48 to 84 days for claims to be processed. Did DSS provide any policy guidance or res resource redirection to address these excessive wait times or guidance?
>> No, I mean those are ultimately matters for service Australia. Um that said whenever as the policy owner we see um so we have timeliness benchmarks wherever we see claims um timeliness that's falling behind we would actively engage with service Australia about that um look at what might be possible in terms of resource allocation secretary um regularly meets with his counterpart the CEO um where some of those matters are discussed so um it's you know the policy settings are hard to change but we work as part of the partnership we've got with Service Australia to try and um look at ways to reduce claims waiting
>> Senator, I think I I'm I'm I think there was a um uh resource investment into services Australia that has then um consequently reduced weight times and um and improved timeliness uh across a number of their measures. >> Um I think you'll find that that followed that those those outcomes.
>> Okay. So the next question does actually touch on weight times. So for 57.3 of the audit period, maximum phone wait times exceeded 1 hour and so does the department consider that is a failure to meet the legislative requirement for fair, courteous and prompt service delivery.
>> So Senator, as Mr. Flell said, we obviously have a role in a discussion with Service Australia when benchmarks or those indicators are not met and the conversation with them around resource allocation happens. But there's a point here where the question is really better directed to services Australia.
>> Probably will.
>> Yeah. They appeared on
>> Yeah. No, >> Um, is it possible to for you to provide us with an annual breakdown of underpayments to age pensioners?
>> Uh, I just refer you, Senator, to that table in the annual report. We're happy to find the last page reference, but as I said, that's been published for at
the auditor general's report reveals between 2021 and June 24 overpayments to age pension recipients totaled an estimated 3.67 billion representing 73.4% 4% of the total 5 billion in payment inaccuracies identified during the period period is what actions are being taken to address the main causes for overpayments.
So that that just goes back to the earlier answer that the two biggest sources are people underestimating the assets they hold and in some cases underestimating the income they earn. Uh single touch payroll and continued um roll out of measures to communicate with recipients. um uh and also I think just general communication on asset holdings as well um particularly for the age pension cohort uh to to ensure that they understand what's required in terms of the statement of assets they need to give in order to calculate their pension
>> so senator it is a bit different to someone earning income and reporting that income earned in the fortnight. it's a it's an asset or or an income stream often and so people age pensions >> going back and looking at that every day
that's true
>> in most cases and so that's where but your question is well raised I mean the question is how do we >> how are there are there better ways for us to get more timely information from pensions that don't necessarily require them to do a heap of paperwork too
>> um
>> and and that's obviously
>> it's an awful lot of paperwork >> it's a lot of paperwork for Yeah. So our
challenge is working with service Australia around ways to as minister Mr. Flavel said thinking about looking data matching and the like to try and improve
>> So it's a lot of money that's been overpaid. So how how do we recover that or is it recovered?
So separately um Service Australia has a compliance program um and that involves some looking at where there may be um some recipients who are deliberately um or in you know in some cases inadvertently overstating or understating assets. Um so it generally gets picked up as part of that compliance program.
>> So would would there be many pensioners out there that have actually got a debt to the Commonwealth as a result? Would you have the numbers of that?
>> I don't. We could take the numbers on notice, but as you know, there's a compliance program um that service has and has had obviously um since the beginning where across all social security payments they they raise debts um where there might be valid reasons to raise those debts.
>> If you could take it on notice, but also and the average amount of those debts. So, how many but and also the average the audit found that six out of 11 reviewed debt letters failed to explain the rationale for the debt using only generic phrases. Is the department aware these letters likely do not meet the legal standards required by section 1229
>> Uh, so Senator just a reminder that this was a joint audit. So both of Service Australia and um uh and DSS um that is really a matter for that was an issue that was raised for Service Australia and and um uh that they're actually ultimately responsible for ensuring the letters um adhere to the relevant legislative requirements. Uh as the secretary said obviously as the policy owner we have a strong interest then in ensuring that occurs but formally that's their responsibility.
So the recommendations to you, recommendation one um requires DSS to demand that services Australia disclose limitations and risks in their annual assurance statements. Has the department received the first of these revised statements and what specific IT risks were disclosed regarding the aging ISIS system?
Uh we might take in terms of where we're up to. Um I might take that on notice. Senator.
>> Um given that it took over a decade to identify the superanuation IT error, what formal timely manner triggers has DSS established to ensure services Australia might need to take some of these on notice.
>> I think in some cases we'll need to allocate questions. So that
>> it's hard to do the two department.
Senator just I mean for reference we have a governance mechanism with service Australia and we will >> this is a very recent um audit report um
true
>> we will work with service Australia through that governance mechanism to address all the recommendations and equip those
>> that's fair enough I think the rest of them we might put on notice yeah because they will relate to that as well so if that's okay we'll put the rest on notice
Um if a little >> thank you I'd just like to ask some questions about uh income support payments >> please. Um so is department able to explain why uh the number of Australians relying on jobseker and other income support payments has actually increased significantly compared to prepandemic levels despite um claims of a strong labor market.
Uh it's true um Senator that numbers of recipients of job seeker have increased but of course as a proportion of the population or working age population um that we haven't it hasn't been an
>> Okay. So the do we know are you able to provide I've got jobseker payments I've got them going up per month. So jobseker youth allowance youth student and apprentice um they're all going up. Are you able to tell me uh do you have something that tells me quickly the percentage change in relation to the population increase?
>> We'll take that on notice. Um but we have looked at it at a broad level. Obviously populations been growing strongly and so I think it makes more sense to think about the number of people on these benefits as a proportion of the population or the working age population rather than the absolute number.
>> Yeah, if you can provide that on notice, I think that would be particularly helpful in understanding what's actually the uh I
>> think Senator we've got a figure that u my colleagues will correct me if I'm wrong but prior to co March 2020 unemployment payment recipients represented 6.72% of the labor force population seasonally adjusted and based on December 2025 data this proportion is lower at 6.59%.
>> Right. Okay. If I can have that broken down, that would be that would be really good because um I would like to compare even in more recent times what's actually happened that train.
>> Yeah, I think that gives you quite a recent figure, but it it's all
and we know we've got uh people that are spending longer on jobseker payments, longer on youth allowance. Are you able to tell me what is specifically being done to help people to transition into more secure ongoing employment rather than um staying on these payments for
I think um obviously we we're concerned about that. Um there's uh there's a range of things that we do in terms of our engagement with the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations on the way that the um Workforce Australia or Employment Services um program works uh and how that can be improved in a way that ensures that as people um uh go through the Employment Services program, they ultimately end up getting into work
Senator, we obviously DSS has a um program uh for people with disability >> and we are seeing probably within that um unemployed group of people more people with barriers to work and we look after the the disability employment uh part of that sits alongside Workforce Australia and that's recently been uh reformed and um there's a range of things that are you know in that new program uh which are designed to improve people's um uh workforce outcomes.
>> Okay. Just on the data that I have here um one of the examples is uh the average length uh of time Australians are spending on jobseker has now increased to 172 weeks. Can you explain uh why uh the long-term reliance and that is is occurring in that way?
Uh well there were certainly uh in the post like the numbers have obviously moved around a lot um given the number of people who were on um this payment during co um so while it has come down it's true that for some people they are staying on it longer um there isn't a single explanation for that but as Mr. Li said both through our own program um inclusive employment Australia through uh the remote jobs program and obviously through workforce Australia um those programs have a specific aim of ensuring that those long people on long-term unemployment um maximize their chances of getting into a job.
>> Yeah. What about the um the one that jumped out at me was uh the drop off in students and apprentices receiving youth allowance in October and November last year. Um I thought numbers of apprentices were actually increasing. That's what we've been told anyway. So I'm trying to understand why that would be decreasing.
>> So often with youth allowance student that's a very um cyclical figure. Um so it actually probably makes more sense to look at it on an annual basis because if you look monthto month um as people come to the end of the um their studies often we see a drop off that's associated with people finishing their course. Um uh there have been historical reasons why there's been shifts in some of that youth allowance student population.
Right. Um got some questions around new inclusive employment Australia. if you can help me with that one. Whoever needs I'm hoping to understand what Thank you. What specific deficiencies in previous disability employment services um model is inclusive employment Australia intended to address and how is that been um translated into measurable design changes.
So Kelly Spence and I'm the group manager for disability employment. Um in terms of the policy for the new inclusive employment Australia program, there's a number of key changes which we've um introduced. So I'll I'll run through and talk about a couple of them. One of them is around expanding eligibility. Um we have an estimated 15,000 participants who are expected to um come into the program each year. These are people who um were either not on income support, so previously not eligible, or with less than eight hours work capacity. So, it's ex it's supporting an expanded cohort and aiming to get more employment outcomes from that. Um, another one of the changes that's looking to make those improvements is we've created a shift in how we're applying our mutual obligations framework. um we refer to it as meaningful engagement and it's really putting um back the relationship between a provider and a participant and creating that joint plan and tailored approach towards um achieving a meaningful job outcome for participants. Um and since we've started in November um the vast majority like it's around 90% of the plans are using that meaningful engagement job plan to support it. Um, we've also introduced differentiated levels of servicing which we refer to as an intensive service and an flexible service. The intensive service, it's really for people who are already prepared um and able to engage um into the work journey at that point in time, but we're also recognizing that for some people they're quite some distance and need a range of other supports at a point. So by that's bringing in some more of that tailoring to the individual's needs and trying to stop some of the steps of just having appointments for the sake of it. So that's another one of the changes that's been introduced. We've also got um the our approach to market really aimed to get a much more diverse market within the inclusive employment Australia. Um and we were really successful in achieving that. we've got um I think it's about a four-fold increase in the number of providers who have come with specific expertise in particular cohorts compared to what we had in the previous DEZ program. So that's there's more, but it gives you some of a sense of the kinds of policy changes we've made within the program or the way we've approached the market um to bring that greater tailoring deep expertise in cohorts um and a much more tailored approach to the actual service and participants
the change in approach and the change of your definitions and your understandings of that actually impact things like provider incentives and outcome payments and participant servicing requirements those kinds of things.
>> Um so there's there's a whole range of them in terms of the actual participant the incentives and um funding structures. We did make changes there as well as we moved to the new program. For example, we did introduce a new progress fee which is looking um at how a provider would be working and recognizing the work that they will do with getting ready participants towards employment. So that could include things such as undertaking education, work experience, um and and also we're recognizing more range of short-term employment as part of that pathway towards employment.
How many providers have been contracted under inclusive employment Australia and how's it how does that compare with DS
>> So the actual number of um providers contracted is 81 for inclusive employment Australia. >> Um just I'm trying to find my right
>> while doing that. So it just the the program's gone from 245,000 people with disability participating uh to 261,000. So 16,000 new entrance.
So there was also 81 providers under dez. So it it's a similar number but there has been quite a shift in terms of um which providers are within the market. So as I said we have seen a much bigger increase in specific cohort specialists which was a new concept. We now have 29 um who meet that categorization as a specialist versus we only had seven within within DEZ whereas we had we have 50 who were classified as sort of all cohort um participants versus 48 um in the previous DE market. Previously in de there was a lot of providers who were a generalist but also had flags of I'm I'm these three or four different types of specialists whereas we've stopped that in the new market we've said really we want people with deep expertise otherwise you're a generalist um and that's attracted some of those into the market right
>> so can you tell me what proportion the providers are made up of in terms of not for-p profofit for-profit and disabilityled organizations
Certainly, Senator. Um, within IEA, inclusive employment in Australia, we have 62 not for-p profofit and 19 for-profit organizations.
>> Y and disability led or is that captured in those 19 and 62?
>> Sorry, what was that?
>> Disabilityled.
we probably don't have a definition for a disabilityled but within the actual procurement um some of the criteria that we were looking at included having staff and leadership with um experience of disability um directly. Also, one of our criteria in that procurement and is something that we'll take into the program is that providers had to demonstrate how they would be engaging with both participants, employers and employers in how they would be co-designing their delivery um and getting feedback and responding to that. And so that's a new element within the program as well um to really bring in and it was actually in response to the disability role commission um where they wanted to see much more co-design within not just policy but also within the programs themselves and that service delivery aspect is therefore really important.
Right. I just want to ask um since becoming shadow minister, I've had people contact my office um telling me that uh they understood that they were able to remain with their current provider and if they elected to do so only be told now they can't. Can you tell me what circumstances would um need to be in play for people to not be able to remain with their current provider if they so chose to?
So as a result of the procurement there was quite a shift in the market. So um we had I think 24 new providers enter the market. So there was others that left the market. So one of the examples of where a participant wouldn't be able to stay with their provider is that their provider had left the market or particularly in that region um and was no longer available to offer services. Um we did do a very extensive um transition process where participants were given notice of who they'd been sort of assigned to as their potential provider. And they were then given a period where they were able to make a choice of is that the person who I want to be with or would I like to change providers. We did have very strong demand for that and I think 14
>> 14,000 people exercise choice. Yeah. And I think so as Miss Spence said at the core of the um arrangements is that participants can ultimately choose um
>> because one of the people that rang my office was quite cranky and said that he was he believed that he could pro stay with his current provider but in the end he was told he couldn't and he he actually said he felt like he'd been lied to. What would you say to somebody like that who feels like they didn't get the right information about
>> if you had a specific case like that? We would be more than happy to try and help run that to ground and see what the circumstances were.
>> That would be terrific. so where somebody was wanting to ensure continuity of access to a service what did you actually do to um try and ensure that that actually happened where they expressed that interest in that.
So during that transition as I tried to describe we had a series where we did our communications through letters to um participants and there was actually multiple stages of that. So there was actually around over 584,000 letters were issued to participants and they were given kind of the first letter gave them an indication that things were changing what to expect. Then the second letter is where we indicated who their provider would be and then we gave them information on how to make um a choice and to call. We had a contact center line um set up particularly for the transition. So there was details there. We also had details on websites to support them in understanding and then they could also go and look at who's the other providers in my area. But that um transition line was available to make that. we did have very strong demand. So the other thing we did is extend that ability even into the start of the program that they could still make that choice and we got that communicated out particularly by their current providers who they still you know were having a relationship with.
>> Right. Can I um ask about people who were uh who were DA providers? Were there any that were actually excluded from then taking up IEA contracts? You said that some dropped out, but there were there any that DSS specifically just said, "No, thank you. You're not able to go into a new contract?"
>> No, we did a procurement process. >> So, it was a competitive procurement process um of which we went through and people put in their assessment. there core requirements in terms of meeting the standards and things like
>> but nobody nobody was proactively excluded
>> right okay
>> the comwalth procurement guidelines were followed so it's a standard procurement approach here
>> so this is the last question in this blog so what safeguards are actually in place to prevent um market concentration or people cherrypicking those participants who are most job ready rather those that need additional support and will take longer.
>> Um I think the main probably way to explain that is actually through how the flows come from service Australia. So probably about I think it's about 70 odd percent of referrals are actually being generated as people apply for their income support um and have an assessment. that's where they're referred through to an IEA provider. Um, and so there's not really the ability like that's then coming from a that process. The provider is not influencing it. Um, and they have an they have a requirement any participant who has come through that process. They do also have the ability to go and direct register participants and that's usually people who aren't coming through that income support system so and don't aren't required. So that could be for to give you an example there might be specialists working with people with intellectual disability. They have relationships with other organizations who are helping those people and they can then direct register them into the
>> Thank you Senator. Uh Senator PCO
>> Senator can I just just correct something I said. I did there is 16,000 more people in the new program, but the total is now 245,000 >> and I think I added 16,000 to 245. So, apologies.
>> Yes. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Sorry, Senator.
>> Senator PCO.
>> Thanks, J. Um, thanks for your time this uh afternoon evening. Um, I'm not going to get any points for originality here, but I'm keen to ask questions about the National Housing and Homelessness Plan and what's happening in terms of your part and consultations. When was the last consultation with Treasury now leading this?
>> So, Treasury now has responsibility. So, previously DSS, but as a result of the machinery of government changes, we don't have a direct role in that plan.
>> When was your last input into the plan?
>> Prior to the MOG changes. So, um,
>> I think I think the mob was roughly July last year.
>> Middle of last year. >> Yeah.
>> Wow. And uh at your last uh input or meetings, was that sort of the end of it or were you expecting more before it'll be finalized?
I I honestly I might have to take that on notice. It was just actually long enough ago that I've actually um but to be honest, it's it's always going to be a question better addressed to Treasury who has that ongoing responsibility for those matters on housing. >> My apologies. I know.
>> No, it's fine. You take it on notice. I mean, consult consultation started in August 2023. So, this has been quite the saga to develop a national housing I'll have to I'll put some some stuff on
>> do you have any others for DSS?
>> I got plenty. No, >> I got plenty.
>> Well, that was a false start.
>> in terms of the plan, uh, we obviously touched on things like CRA and other areas that are under your purview. Um and so maybe just on on notice if you can but where the last consultation was actually up to um your last input was that to finalize a plan or was it is it just this neverending process where Treasury will come back to you at some was keen to revisit the issue of the youth um housing penalty and wondering whether the department has done any policy development work looking at the disparity between uh youth allowance uh and job seeker and what that means for young people seeking housing and and community housing providers just not being able to house young people. Yeah,
I mean we're we're obviously aware of that issue which as you know I think comes down to the fact that youth allowance is paid at a lower rate um whereas C and then CRA on top of that. Um so we're continuing to look at that and obviously um work closely with Treasury because um um to the extent that you can increase supply then then there can be more available housing for the youth cohort in particular. Uh we're also involved in something called um for youth unreasonable to live at home. So sometimes there can be um uh people who are on youth allowance uh but where they cannot live at home and in they can actually qualify for a higher rate effectively equivalent to jobseker um that actually um improves their chances of um securing safe accommodation um rather than um just being on youth
allowance. Mhm. Has the government asked you to do some thinking, modeling, working working on a a solution to the the youth housing penalty?
>> Uh I I don't know that we've done any modeling. Um but we certainly provide regular advice to to our minister in relation to um a range of issues across income support including youth allowance
you um wanted to ask questions on notice to Treasury um and come at it that way. I mean, there's obviously different ways you might be able to deal with that issue. We we obviously um are one of the possible ways you can you can do that. But if it came I think it should come through Treasury given that they've got the lead on that.
>> Sure, I can do that. Have you costed um unreasonable delivered home?
>> I'll check on notice. Yeah. What we've done in terms of costings.
>> Okay. Do you know when that work was done from memory?
>> Uh no. Um I just um I can't recall in terms of timing and scope. So it's best I take that on notice.
>> Um my understanding was that DSS had the had the lead on youth allowance? >> And you you can't tell me more about the work that's being done to make sure that young people can actually get into
houses. I I think the issue so we understand the issue. We've been monitoring it closely, Senator. We care about it. I think the the issue of the um the issue that you raise, which kind of relates to community housing providers um there's many there there's more than one way to kind of deal with that issue and so Treasury lead that policy work. Obviously to the extent that the solution might be something done in the social security system, we would we would provide our input to that process. >> Um but but that's our role and so you you are better off kind of directing the question to that lead agency on it. >> Yeah.
>> Have you seen the proposal from the home time campaign? They've got a non-legis legislative um fix to this. I'm wondering if the department's had a look at that.
>> Uh I recall it. I can um check with staff. I'm pretty sure that we have had um we've seen that proposal.
on to um CRA. Um and and I acknowledge and thank the government for the the small increase we we've seen. Um but note that these still fall short of of what everyone in the sector is saying and what the economic inclusion advisory committee um has recommended. Um have you undertaken any work about the adequacy of CRA given the record low rates of rental affordability?
>> Uh well I mean you referred to those increases I guess um the combined effect of two base rate increases in indexation has seen CRA increase by more than 50% in the last couple of years. So that is a pretty sub substantial um increase. Um notwithstanding that we know it's just a matter of fact that some people remain in rental stress. Um but there is a very large proportion of people who are assisted by it. Um so that uh the figures would be without CRA around 70 um% of people getting C who would be eligible are in rental stress and that reduces to about 40%. So it does have a really big impact in reducing it but not to zero. >> Um I think that I go back to to the secretary's comment. I mean there's a lot of work obviously happening through Treasury that's fundamentally about increasing housing supply and ultimately increasing housing supply is a really important driver of of reducing rental
>> Looking at the the numbers of renters in supply is obviously important. We have a government wanting to to build um more houses. We also have a a rising population which requires more more but if you look at the the stats um we've seen for over 75s um since 2013 uh rental stress has increased by 116%. It's gone from 25,485 to 55,030. So what are we doing about that? Surely if you're over 75, the last thing you want to be hearing is don't worry, we've got a plan to build houses over the next
>> I mean, I don't think I can add to what I've said before. Ultimately, the supply um notwithstanding that there might take uh that might take some time is the key driver of keeping down rental stress and housing and improving housing affordability.
>> Mhm. Okay. So, maybe it's a political question, Minister. supply on its own is not going to solve this. Surely increasing CRA um in the short term will help. And um I guess on the supply question and I know this is probably more a Treasury uh question, but given you're here, it seems like we're a little bit blinkered on when it comes to supply. I'm not sure if you've seen that Chris Coler skit where he's got the supply blinkers on, but it feels a little bit like that where there's demand all around and we're not willing to deal with that. So I'm interested if the government is looking at both other measures with CRA but also some of the demand demand
>> Um so Treasury appeared on with housing this morning in the other committee. Um and I think a number of these questions were asked on rent assistance. I mean we uh have as the evidence just had we have increased it twice. Um I think it was the first time uh I can't quite recall whether it was the most substantial increase in the last 20 years or something to that effect. Yeah. >> 30 years. >> 30 years. Okay. So I think we've shown a a preparedness to look at other ways that the Commonwealth has the responsibility here. Um we the PM said we look at payments and income support measures at every budget. You know we're going through that now. Housing is a real priority. We're trying to do everything we can not only on the work that HF's doing and some of those other programs, but also working with states and territories to I mean it takes too long to build housing in Australia and so looking at how we can fix that as well. So things like the national construction code and the work that Minister O'Neil is doing. Um and you know the treasurer has been clear in the last month as has PM that um looking at some of those intergenerational issues in housing which cover many of the issues you raised as well around uh equity and access to housing um you know we are considering
>> guess just on the the supply side of things one of the things gets raised with me by young people um and people in the um community housing sector is that the half is great, but it actually doesn't work for young people. And so, we really have to try and fix this this penalty that people on youth allowance are paying. So, I'd really encourage you to look at things like the home time campaigns
>> proposal. I'm sure I've met with them, too. >> Yeah, I do think it could solve it. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Um I just had some final um pretty low on senators today. Um
>> there must be something on Senator PCO.
>> Maybe we could organize it for every estimates. Um uh I just got a few quick questions on the government's response to the Murphy report. Um are you still the lead leading the response to that?
>> Uh Senator that's primarily responsibility of the um department who has a very long name which I
>> infrastructure communication. >> It's under Anaka's wills portfolio.
>> Okay. So, what what part is what party are you are you playing?
>> Uh, we we've we've had a commitment over time um into a couple of specific areas. I'm happy I'm not sure I've got my officials. This is in from outcome two. >> Um, but we're happy to.
>> What are we on?
>> They might be here. So, we're happy to try and help.
>> Which one?
>> This is outcome one.
>> Okay. I can't come back if they're not
>> I think they're coming.
>> Okay. Cool. Oh,
>> Are we into outcome two or we just kind
>> We still got a couple of questions in outcome one.
>> Uhhuh.
>> To two and then Yeah, we'll be ready to
Hi, Mr. Spine. If just on the Murphy um when when was the last input you had onto the um I guess government's response? Um and how far away are we from actually seeing seeing this thing?
>> Uh that probably is a question for that like we have ongoing engagement in relation to this issue, but but we're not the lead. So
>> you must have some visibility though.
Yeah, but I I mean I it's not really a question for us to answer about when that will land.
>> But if you know, you should be able to
>> I think Mr. Les
>> I don't think we're able to go. I don't think we're
>> It should be directed to the to the relevant >> lead is what I'm hearing from him.
>> Sure. I'll take it up with him as well, but I'm interested in Mr. Stein's.
>> Oh, nothing further, the secretary.
>> Well, when was the last time you had
maybe on input into what? Sorry.
>> Well, the government's response to an almost three year three three-year-old
>> So, the Department of Communications has put forward responsibility.
>> Every time I ask them, they'll say, well, actually part of it is with DSS and so I'm interested in DSS's.
>> So, this week you were referred back here.
>> Last estimates. I mean, I've been asking about this for the last 3 years.
>> so I mean Senator we're happy to take on notice what we you know when our last engagement was and I think there's I mean from my memory there's a um interdep departmental process so we can give you the answer to that um but in all honesty the question is better directed to the other department. So we we look at things like harm minimization we have a range of responsibilities in the department and so well that that is our input to the
>> and you don't remember when you last added anything on harm minimization?
>> It would. Oh, harm minimization. Uh, so as as the secretary points out, we have a range of other programs that sort of deal with harm minimization. Um, as you'd be aware, there's there was some funding recently announced um for financial counseling for for gambling. Um, it was I think that was in uh July 2025 if my memory serves. Um so through through that lens in harm minimization that would be our that would be our engagement on this issue. Senator
>> and which of the Murphy um report recommendations are assigned to DSS?
>> Can we take that on notice?
>> Yeah, we can take that on notice. Um as you'll be aware there's a range and yeah quite quite broad in terms of state responsibilities and and ones that would be um directed to the Commonwealth. So I'd have to take that on notice.
>> Thank you. Thanks, Chair.
>> Thank you, Senator PCO. Uh, Senator Little. Thank you. I'm just wanting to ask a couple more questions uh around the EA. Um, can you tell me what minimum qualifications, training or experiences or experience is actually required for frontline employment consultants who work under IEA?
Thank you, Senator. Um, there's not one any like very specific requirement from a staff qualification perspective for inclusive employment Australia. However, um lifting the level of qualifications and expertise and bringing lived experience were all part of our policy um priorities for the new program. And so we've got a number of initiatives that we're aiming to do that. And just to give a bit of context as to why whilst there is things like search for employment services doesn't necessarily cover expertise in disability um and that need for lived experience. So this it's sort of recognized that you need quite a mix in your workforce of different experiences and qualifications. Um but one of the big initiatives that also came out around the same time is the center for inclusive employment and it was um brought put in place to basically help lift the quality um of services of the employment services provider staff um and it launched its program. It launched in on November um the the online portal that's available and that included a a special training fundamentals for inclusive employment Australia and they've had really good take up. They've offered around 5,000 um places available to staff to do that training and let me just find the numbers. they've had 639 complete that training and 19 917 are enrolled of staff within the sector. So it sort of goes to that work that we're doing to try and lift the quality and um of staff and qualifications in the sector but it's being done through that there'll be there'll need to be a mix of the ways in
Uh I'm interested to understand um when you say that there's a range of qualifications, how how you assess the quality of um those working in frontline services, is it um beyond the the quantitative? How do you actually ensure that people have the skills to help people to transition? Not not just being
>> So, one of the ways in which we considered the kind of staff and qualifications is actually through our procurement process. Um, where the different providers had to demonstrate, you know, their expertise and experience and their staff through that process. um also how they there was also information within that process about the kinds of training and lived experience that they would bring through their staffing as
>> And what's the uh formal evaluation schedule for that program?
Um so we do have an evaluation and we're just in the process of bringing on board the Australian center for evaluation ACE um who'll be working with us to evaluate it over the next couple of years. It'll be done in a couple of phases. So the first one will look at the um implementation and transition um look at some of and then we'll do a second phase which looks at some of the new measures like the new cohorts. Um so but yeah it's a kind of multi-stage evaluation process.
>> So that multi-stage process given it's over a few years that will also identify any um risks the department may have in terms of the program including like
>> Yes. So the evaluation will go to really understanding the effectiveness um and efficiency of the the program and what it's trying to do. But I guess it's breaking it up and looking at what some of those key changes were in the different um phases of the program.
And given you've said um that will occur over a period, is there opportunity throughout that period then for you to adjust the program when you if you start seeing um some uh issues being raised by the evaluation?
>> Definitely plan. >> Um that is the plan. So the whole program um actually having a program of continuous improvement is another one of the the themes in which we're trying to drive through the program and really we've tried to strengthen our relationship with our providers and peeps to ensure that we're getting really good feedback, listening, responding um and participants of course um to be having that really continuous improving culture and that's where the center for inclusive employment will also come in as that kind of expert body bringing best practice and expertise and that will be giving us insights and things where we might need to um you know demonstrate continuous learning and change through the program.
>> Right. Okay. I've got some questions now about mutual obligation. Uh if you can provide
>> we'll try senator but formerly mutual obligations policy is the responsibility of the department of employment and workplace relations.
all right. Um, we might just having a a view of that one. Uh, the child support progress on recommendations of the family law inquiry. Can you help me with that one? Um, in response to the family law inquiry, DSS is obviously leading reviews of the child support scheme, focusing on compliance, income accuracy, and collection. Can you allow outline to the committee the status of those
So thanks Senator Ben Peoples, grant manager participation and family payments. Um so a number of those um reviews are um in progress. We have um undertaken a range of research that is feeding into those um reviews as well. Much of which is completed. That includes um a survey of separated parents um work looking at um cost of children and the accuracy of the cost of children um formula um and other um research looking at things like attitudes towards child support um in Australian society. So a lot of the the research and um data collection work that has been undertaken to support those reviews is complete. Um we're now working across agencies looking at those um reviews and how we take those forward.
>> Right. Are you able to provide the members of the child uh support stakeholder consultation group and tell me how many times that group has met and if they're paid for their time?
>> Yeah, they're not paid. Um so I chair co-chair that group with my counterpart of service Australia. Um the group meets every six months. They last met in September. We'll have another meeting come up coming up in March.
And you can provide a list of the people who actually make
>> the members. Yeah, I'm happy to
that's pretty much all I had on that one. Um just in relation to family tax benefit as of the 1st of February, how many families are receiving family tax benefit for the current financial year?
So, Senator, the data I have um is as at 26th December 2025. Um and so the current the recipients as at that date is um 1,247,355.
>> Right. And how many of those of those are receiving family uh tax benefit part A and and also family tax benefit part
Oh, so the numbers that are just receiving FTBA, is that what you're after as well? >> Uh, so FTBA is 1,239,865 and FTB um 9766.
Um, and how many of those uh FTB families received multiple birth allowance for that current financial >> 5.95. And what is what's been the cost for that financial year?
>> What's the total cost of that? Uh, we might just take that on notice, I think.
how many for that same financial year, how many approved care organizations received family tax benefit payments?
>> 30. >> Did you say approved care organizations?
>> Yes.
>> 30.
>> 30. And uh how many payments would they have received for children in their care? like how many children have they got in their care?
>> So that's in relation to 4,330 children.
>> 4,330 children. >> Are have you got a list of those that you can table?
>> Uh I don't have a list of the 30 organizations.
>> Yes.
>> I don't have a list with me, but we can look to take that.
>> so since May 2022, has there been any change in the approved care organizations who are eligible to receive SPV payments for children in their care?
>> Uh, so there would be changes in the organizations that are receiving FTV payments based on um organizations applying and also the children that they have in that care at that time. Uh there's been a change to to policy arrangements.
>> Right. Do any of those approved care organizations, you said there were 30, have any of them been uh did you have more than that? Have any been deemed ineligible and dropped off because of eligibility or they pretty much remain the same?
>> Well, there would be organizations that would stop being eligible if they did not have children >> eligible for FTB in their care.
>> Right. Okay. and new ones in that financial year.
>> Uh like similarly if there were organizations that had children coming to their care who became eligible they may commence on payment at that point only.
I I'm just interested to understand this because of the number of children that are going into care and the um the servicing and the growth of organizations that are caring for them. So I'm pretty interested to understand about the growth of those organizations in the last few years. If you can provide something that gives me an indication of that.
>> Yeah, I I would say there's hasn't been a growth of of organizations um at all, but we can provide some information on
this. >> It's just more about the number of kids that they're actually
>> Yeah, some new ones will come on as a ch child goes into care. What some will drop off as children. So but as Mr. Peele says, we haven't seen a major change to the overall numbers.
do you keep any data on uh the number of children who are in those approved care organizations um that are reunited with their parents or carers and therefore no longer receive the payment.
Uh so so when a child um is reunited with their family and the family applies or reapplies for FTB, they will no longer care organization will no longer um receive the payment. We can see what data we have on that on notice.
>> Okay. And who just explain to me who's actually involved in that process in um ensuring there is um eyes on the um rigor in which people are trying to reunite children with their families. I know that you deal with the the money side and the program side of that, but I'm trying to understand if there's any interaction between those. So we see people moving off. we see a whole culture of uh re reunification occurring along all of the supply chain.
>> So Senator, you're interested in how well state governments are doing reunifications.
>> Yeah, I'm sort of interested in understanding how everybody connects up with that supply chain with the intent in the end to reunify their children. So there's a whole system culture of change and reunification.
>> I mean I think
>> that's an unusual question but
>> well well I mean I think we will see what the payment data tells us and and and you know I would think that if a um FTB payment ceases to be a echo uh approved care organization and then you see a the change to a parent that that that would probably be an indicator of reunification but I think it'll be a limited window but we can by
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
Yeah. Because I I would like to understand about some of the trends and whether children are remaining on approved care with approved care organizations for longer or shorter periods like what's actually going on in the ecosystem. I'm really interested to see where the touch points in which I can start to get a bit of an understanding about those things
>> that the ROG's data the productivity commission's rags data might might provide a
>> right okay
>> a better insight because that'll show state and territory uh I I think it I think we have some window through that data on kids in residential settings versus other settings but I'm not sure that
>> ROS's data is that uh
>> report on government services it's
and how many children under the care of approved care organizations do you know are actually in juvenile justice centers and how many are in non-government organizations? Did your system tell you that? Can you tell me that?
>> Notice Senator.
Um got some questions about the uh work bonus scheme. Very general questions of nature. >> A bit of a cough. Can I pass this to I can I can give you the next one. Hang on. I've got two left. See if I can make Thank you. Um I'm wanting to ask how many age pension recipients have accessed the work bonus scheme since July 2022 and how that compares to a
we might need to take that on notice I think Senator to do that over that
and how that uptake has increased following changes to the work bonus settings that were announced in 2022 and if so how much has that changed if you can do that on that on notice as well. What percentage of eligible age pension recipients have not utilized the work bonus and what explanations does the department have for those people who
Uh yeah, we're happy to do that on notice. I think in terms of the explanation um it'll be it'll be difficult given there's 2.7 million um age pensioners to draw definitive conclusions about why why some of them are not choosing to work.
so I'm interested to understand how actual imp uptake compares with petition braation rates forecast at the time of the 2022 23 budget measures and um what is the demographic profile of age pension recipients? If you're going to take these on unnoticed if you think you're going to take a lot of these unnoticed I can probably just
>> I think we're going to take them all on notice. Yeah.
>> Yep. I'll do that mind if you bear with Um, military invalidity payments means testing bill 2024. Got a couple of
>> is it is this the >> department of Douglas or is it the Douglas um
>> uh this says >> social service was another legislation amendment military and means testing in response to the Douglas decision >> sorry I'm a bit under the weather with today um um the is that legislation operating as intended
>> uh as far as far as I know. Yes.
>> Okay. And since the passing of that legislation, are veterans invalidity benefits paid from the defense force retirements and death benefit scheme and military superanuation and benefit scheme? Now, are they taxed in accordance with the new law?
>> Well, that the that bill dealt with the way that they're treated for social security purposes. I think you'd have to go and ask Treasury in relation to the tax treatment of that.
Okay. So in terms of any questions um in terms of veterans who are contacting me saying that uh ser this messages with services Australia I should take those questions obviously there.
>> Yes.
>> Um as okay. So the social security administration act though says that section 8 states the DSS secretary should have a process to monitor and evaluate program delivery with an emphasis on the impact of programs on social security recipients. What monitoring and evaluation activities has the department undertaken to ensure that services Australia is implementing the legislation in accordance with its legislation and
policy intent? I think I just referred to earlier answers about the ongoing dialogue we have with them at senior levels to both look at performance but also to identify areas where there might be misalignment between policy and legislation that and that operates right across the social security system including specific measures that might have been implemented in the last few
Um I think that is actually all I have. personal notice.
>> Outcome one >> and we will be moving to outcome two which is families and communities. Uh >> we may suspend for just five minutes. Thank you. Say did you want to keep Thank you. Uh I now call officers from