Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, , 5:20:03 to 5:30:53
Officials discuss the volume of assessment reviews, the 90-day statutory timeframe, and the "deemed finalised" status for cases exceeding the clock.
Topics: Social services, Integrity
Speakers: Senator The Hon Anne Ruston, Mr Robert Day
Then most of the reviews we've done, but a subset. And the figures I've got are applications received between the 1st of November and 30 June. And we have received 2,208 in that.
2,208 from one of to 30 June. That the data for June July-September quarter is not available yet?
Not yet.
How many of the those 2,208 reviews have been finalised given that they're past the 90 days?
So and to be clear, the status of these applications is as at the 21st of September. So applications received in that period, the status they had on the 21st of September. 1,571 had been finalised.
Finalised. How many of those 1,577 that are finalised resulted in a change in determination?
436.
436 change of decision. How many of them were in res as a result of inaccurate prioritization levels as opposed to inaccurate funding levels or classification levels?
So I don't have that in terms of outcomes by doing in terms of the proportion of the applications for the A.
So the proportion of the 2,208? Yep.
So what proportion was 1,027 relate to classification only?
Yep.
519 relate to priority only. And 226 relate to both classification and priority.
You do realize that doesn't add up to two.
I do. There's another 299 that are for non-approval of services altogether?
Oh, okay, so it's an it's an application seeking review that somebody put in an application and they got nothing.
That's correct.
How often does somebody put in seeker and are they people who get an assessment are not approved for anything?
I don't have that figure. I don't know if any of my colleagues have that figure for the assessments as a whole.
Of the so you you had 2,0208, of which 1,571 were resolved by the 31st of September. 21st of September, so nine days before the maximum period of the 90 days would have expired. So that means that there were of the the 220 2,208, there were 637 that weren't finalised, is that correct?
That sounds correct, yes.
Okay. So of that 637. All of them, by the sounds of things, would have expired their 90 days.
Possibly, possibly not. And the reason I give you that answer is there is a process the Act provides where the Department will request further information from an individual. And in that case, the 90-day statutory clock stops.
So the Department has the capacity to stop its own clock.
The Department has the capacity to request further information from the individual, and that might be because there's something that we need further to the original application. Very often we use that power as well if we are thinking of affirming the decision and we want to give the person one last chance to comment. And the clock is paused for the period from the time that we send the request for further information until we receive a response from that individual.
Okay. So we've got 637. How many of those would be as a result of your stopped clock?
I don't think I have that figure in front of me. I'm sorry, Senator.
Yeah. So we talking sort of 35%. No, sorry, 25%. 30% of the applications are not resolved within the 90 days by the looks of this. Was it say 25 per cent for granting in your favour? 25% of review applications sought have not been resolved in 90 days?
No, that's that's not my evidence, Senator. I can tell you for that same period. So four applications between the 1st of November last year and the 30th of June for the applications we received in that period. As of yesterday, we had 86 applications that had not been processed in the 90 days.
As of yesterday.
As of yesterday.
So 86 applications for which period?
From for the applications received between the 1st of November and the 30th of June.
So that of the 2,208 applications for review that you received between the 1 November and the 30th of June this year. As at yesterday, 86 of them weren't resolved.
We had gone over the 90 days.
But you said to me that on the 21st of September, which is nine days before the 30, the 90-day period for an application that was received on the 30th of June would have been past its 90 days. You told me only 1,571 of them had been finalised. So could you explain to me how the 86 that are currently on hand at the moment reconcile with the advice that you gave me in relation to the 2,208 that 637 of them hadn't been finalised on the 21st of September? Did all but 86 of them get resolved between the 21st of September and the 30th of September?
So my understanding is that those applications will have been either finalised in the subsequent period or be in that period where we're waiting for a response from the individual to a request of the United States.
So can you very clear in getting this information back to me because this does not make any sense? Your advice is not easily reconciled. How many of the 2,208 applications for review were finalised within the statutory 90 Not how many are resolved now, but how many were resolved within the statutory 90 days?
So my answer for you today is that going to be different to your answer tomorrow. My answer in terms of information I have in front of me in terms of the application, the 1,571 applications that we had. 1,571 applications we had finalised in that period. 86 were finalised because we had gone past the 90 days.
Sorry, 86 were finalised post the 90 days because of the additional information.
So 86 have a status of what we call deemed finalised. So the Act says that when you get to 90 days the Act is deemed to have been affirmed. And so in that period, my evidence is that 86 of those applications achieved the were were finalised on the basis that we got to the 90 days and couldn't go further. I am happy to take on notice and provide you an update that 600 odd between received and finalised on the 21st of September what has happened to them in the intervening period.
Yes, so there's about 500 about 450. No, 550 applications that were had not been finalised on the 21st of September that you have not deemed. But I mean the the deemed 86 is that they've lapsed through the 90 days and so therefore they revert to their original determination. All sorts of other things could have happened to the other 550, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't exceed their 90 days, does it? Or does it?
So as I said to you, my understanding is that for those 450 odd cases. 550 odds, sorry. Um we will have resolved them between the 21st of September and today, or they will be in that process where we have requested further information and we are waiting for the person to respond to us.
I'd like to know in some detail what those 550 has happened to them, because that's a lot of people that have just fallen into a bucket of we don't actually know.
I don't think that's fair.
Well, can you tell me what's happened to them?
So what I've explained to you is I I have bought data, which was the data that we have validated in terms of outcomes up to the 21st of September, and I have told you where those applications are up to at the 21st of September. I'm not saying to you I don't know. I'm saying to you that I can come back to your notice with what's happened.
Okay. So let's disregard the 86 because they're obviously moved into a deemed category. Let's just talk about the 637. What is the status of that 637 on the 21st of September?
So they would either be actively being processed in my team or we would be waiting for a response to a request for information. One of those two things would be.
Okay. So I'd like to know the difference that those two figures. Um and I'd like to know of Of the 2,208, how many of them exceeded their 90-day statutory time requirement? Not how many are now in that category, but how many exceeded that 90 days in any way, shape or form? So of the five the 1571 that were finalised, you said 436 of them had a change of decision?
Correct.
How many of them had the original decision upheld?
286?
286 original decision? Okay, and what happened to the rest of them?
467 were withdrawn. 29 were found to not have legal standing for the application. And as I said, 8086 were deemed.
Okay. Thank you.