Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, , 5:30:56 to 5:35:09
Examination of the 15-day KPI for support plan reviews and the legal criteria for appealing decisions, including statutory timeframes.
Topics: Social services, Law reform
Speakers: Senator The Hon Anne Ruston, Mr Robert Day, Ms Rachel Blackwood, Senator Ellie Whiteaker, Senator Penny Allman-Payne
So how many people sought a plan review in the last quarter to the 30th of June, or do you not have that information? Okay. What's the time frame which the individual can seek a review of an assessment outcome?
Yeah, sorry, I think we're conflating here the reconsiderations pathway with the support plan review, which is when you might be seeking additional services and how to do that.
Yeah, no, no, no. I I understand there are two different things, and and we're coming back, I'll come back to Mr. Day in a minute. So, how many people sought a support plan review in the last quarter? You don't have that information with you as yet. Is that your answer?
That's right. Okay.
Okay. What is the time frame? Um like so if you want to if you seek a um a support plan review, um, what is the time frame that you are required? Do you have any time frame that you're required to actually deliver that review?
So our our KPI time frame for finalising support plan reviews is 15 days.
15 days, yep. And do you meet that?
Uh assessment organisations are not meeting that are you know in all cases.
Okay. Do you have the data that would support like the actual um time frames in terms of them not meeting that KPI?
In terms of the percentage that are meeting the KPI, I can take that on notice.
Well, the number of people who the KPI impacts in terms of the time frame of them receiving that review.
In terms of the number of support plan reviews in the system at the moment?
Yeah, okay.
Um more question, Senator Oscillon, and then I'm going to share the call.
Um okay, well, maybe I've if I've only got one more question, I just go back um to you, uh, Mr. Day. Um, in terms of the no legal standing, is there a definition or a series of um sort of assumptions that sit around what determines no legal standing?
Um so my understanding is there are three particular things that tend to feature in in that part of the caseload. Uh one is people who seek to uh appeal a decision that's not appellable. Um, so that the act doesn't provide for that to be a reviewable decision. Um is people who uh apply outside the statutory time frame, so the act provides 28 days to make a review of decision um application.
We do what happened to somebody who sort of review of decision outside of 28 days, they just they have to go back into the system and so can you go can you in seeking a review? Can you go back to the start of the assessment process again?
Um in some circumstances if you meet the criteria for a reassessment, yes. Um we have a little bit of flexibility in terms of that 28 days. There are some times that we can grant an extension to that. I think we've done in that in about 130 cases. Um but that they're sort of the two the two options. Um and then the third category is um where the person who has made the application is not the older person themselves or their legal guardian.
Okay, and how often does that happen?
Um I don't have the specific number for that in front of me, but that is uh an a notable part of the caseload.
It'd be good to understand which ones were not appellable, which ones were outside of the statutory time frame for appeal and which ones were invalid because of the person who made the application. If you could get those data, that'll be great. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Senator Austin. Senator Ullman Kane.
Um Thanks, Chair.