Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 0:00 to 1:13:36
The committee discusses IT assurance testing for employment systems and the training provided to service providers. It also covers legal reviews and the impact of payment suspensions on job seekers.
Topics: Employment, Government IT systems, Government legal services
Speakers: Senator Penny Allman-Payne, Senator Jess Walsh, Fiona Dewar, Lisa Schofield, Ken Bell, Interjection, Simon Duggan
that we have uh Senator Orman Payne uh appearing remotely. Um that decision has been approved by the committee. Um Senator Orman Payne, I'm going to come to you uh if you can hear me there. >> Great. Um I'll come to you for a 15 minute block. So you have the call. >> All right. Thanks very much. Um Mr. Mr. Dugen, I note that you were answering questions um asked by Senator OS Sullivan earlier about um the assurance actions that the department has taken prior to restarting some of the suspensions and cancellations. Um so I just am wondering if you could elaborate a little bit more on some specific areas of that. Um so first of all, what did the testing with Services Australia look like? Uh and how many cases were triled in that testing?
>> Yeah, thank you Senator. I'll um hand over to my colleagues who'll be able to
>> Thank you, Senator. I'm happy to um kick off while um my colleagues are getting to the right um places in their folders. Um so in terms of the IT testing piece, so we had a three-phase inter agency IT testing strategy that we developed with services Australia to undertake assurance activities just beyond the standard testing processes. So this was really designed to validate critical system interactions and payment calculations um delivered through that three-phased approach um aligned to the key decisions. So phase one and phase two testing um completed indicated that the systems are operating in line with legislative requirements to strengthen assurance and traceability um to strengthen assurance and traceability. Business rules were mapped to the test cases, demonstrating that system functionality operates as intended and enabled clear linkage between policy requirements and system behavior. Testing undertaken um to support the resumption of sections 42 AM and 42 AG validated 248 business rules with over 500 test cases completed. The phase 3 testing commenced following um reinstatement. So um that's operational now and includes production testing with services Australia and a hyperare period of IT system monitoring um following resumption on Monday. Um hyperare arrangements will be stood up again between November and December to ensure that the first work refusal failure payment suspensions and section 42 AM3 payment cancellations are operating as intended um once they start to flow through the system should any of those eventuate at that time. Um and in parallel with the IT changes supporting the resumption um DUR has also modernized components of our IT platform in response to both the deote and the comwalth ombbudsman review recommendations. This work included upgrading to contemporary design standards and migrating the codebase to a modern platform supporting enhanced version control and release management. So essentially collectively these have really strengthened the integrity um and the resilience of the TCF coding that exists in our system.
>> Um Mr. Mr. Dugen also referred to training that was provided to providers. Um can you elaborate on that a little bit more and is it possible to uh provide the committee with copies of documents related to that training?
>> Senator um uh so the training and guidance has been rolled out in in two areas. One is obviously to the employment services providers and the second is to the staff within the department um who work within the digital services contact center. Um the provider training has focused on the guidance that they need to know and the rules they need to now understand that relate to uh 42 A and 42 A.M. uh those training modules were released on the 2nd of September and they're mandatory for provider staff who undertake compliance actions. So one of the safeguards that exists within the system is that if a person an employment services consultant has not had not completed the new training prior to the recommencement of provisions on Monday the 26th, they were unable they are unable to access the compliance system. they are unable to apply compliance against any of their participants. Um the training for our digital services contact center staff and our national customer service line staff commenced in the on the 5th of October. Uh and that training has been scheduled into their um into their weeks. And again any staff who did not complete the training by Monday the 26th of October um will be required to complete it prior to undertaking any compliance action.
Uh, is it possible to have tabled or take on notice um what those modules cover?
>> Uh, Senator, I'll have to take that on
notice. >> Service providers.
>> Yes.
>> Great. Thank you. Um, just going to the uh, one more question on that. My apologies. Um, Mr. Dugen also referenced and I don't know if this is the right term if I heard it properly. Was it an inflight or audit? That's correct,
Senator. So, I refer to it as an in-flight internal audit that I commissioned to run in parallel with the work of the task force that was effectively providing me with independent advice from the task force around both the systems changes but also the the implementation of the advice that we'd received from the the comworth ombbudsman in terms of how we should approach uh restoring elements of the TCF.
>> Uh is is there like a report of that
audit? Yes, Senator, I received two reports from that audit. So, it was conducted in two phases. The first report um was provided to me and then informed the second phase of work by the task force and then I received a final audit report um prior to making my decision to restore those elements of the TCF.
>> Uh can you provide a copy of that audit report to the committee?
>> Uh Senator, I'm yes on notice. Happy to provide a copy of that report.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um you also said that there were extension legal reviews of the task force. Um is any of that uh those legal reviews able to be provided or is that in confidence?
>> Yeah, so Senator here we um so through our internal legal team we received extensive AGS advice in the course of events. Um I am a little bit limited in what I can share about that because I don't want to cut across the legal privilege um of that advice. Well, could
I maybe ask if you could provide on notice any aspects of that that are able to be provided?
>> Yes, Senator, I'll provide whatever we're able to do on notice.
>> All right. Thank you. Um just going then to some of the um things that have been restarted. So, uh starting with uh payment suspensions under 42 AG um for supposed work refusal. Um now these are typically reported by people's employment services providers. So really interested to understand what safeguards the department has put in place to ensure that people won't lose their payment on unfair or unreasonable
>> Senator um thank you. So yes 42 a payment suspensions for work refusal failures. Um the changes and updates that have been made in the system um require that an employment services consultant must confirm that a work refusal failure has occurred and they must record that decision and the evidence in the system um prior to prior to progressing that suspension.
>> Can you just clarify for me and I'm sorry I think it's Miss Der but it's hard for me to see your name tags on the video. Um when you say that a work refusal has occurred um is the job service provider under the the law required to exercise a discretion in terms of whether there is a valid reason
>> Uh Ken Bell, acting assistant secretary TCF task force. Um so Senator, a payment suspension under 42 AG1A um will occur if a provider hasn't been able to make contact um with a participant to speak about a um potential work refusal failure. When they make contact, that's where the conversation and the determination about reasonable valid reason will come in. Um so for the um the payment suspension uh itself that's preceding that discussion and that determination of um of a valid reason.
>> And senator if I can just add just a couple of things in that space. So um one of the things that we identified one of the changes to the decision-m process and the IT system that were required um so the payments are only suspended once a decision maker and we've changed that they have to be satisfied that there was a work refusal failure had occurred based on evidence rather than when they thought it may have occurred. So we have um sort of tightened up that process in our um in our IT systems and that formed part of the um the training that has also rolled out for um employment or staff of employment service providers. I think just the other thing I'd say S just in relation to um sort of safeguards or um changes for participants. We've also done a lot of work on looking at the um and changing the notifications um that participants receive in this process to try and um make all of those decisions and the points where they are in a particular process much clearer.
>> I guess one of the things that occurs to me as I'm thinking through the requirements when you talk about make contact right now we're in a cost of living crisis. people on uh jobseker are getting around $400 a week. There's not a rental in the country, I think, that anyone on that income could afford. Is it not conceivable that we may have job seekers in situations where they don't have credit for their internet or their phone, they can't afford public transport or fuel. How does someone make contact if their their financial circumstances and for most people on income support their dire financial circumstances mean that they may not be able to and that this is in fact placing an obligation on them to do things that they otherwise can't afford even to make contact. And I know that sounds I I don't think that's a stretch to suggest that there are people in that situation. So, so what happens in that situation? Because it would seem to me then that a suspension or a cancellation is actually going to exacerbate and potentially harm that person uh in circumstances where the very fact that they're being kept on a poverty payment makes meeting these requirements sometimes impossible.
So Senator, what I can talk to is the um as Miss Schofield referred to the the training that has been provided and the requirements that are pro that exist with a provider. So when a provider fails to attend a compulsory appointment and I note that that may be either in person or over the phone, um the provider must attempt to contact the participant on the same day as the non-attendants. The contact attempt must be recorded before any non-attendance or non-compliance result can be um recorded in the system and they must record that on the on the same day of the requirement. Um, providers should also maintain evidence that demonstrates that the appointment was scheduled and that the participant did not attend, the same day attempt was made to contact the participant and that the outcome of the contact attempt was recorded. So
>> sorry, Senator, >> it would seem to me that if I'm on if I have a mutual obligation, I have an appointment say tomorrow and I find myself unexpectedly in hospital, which is not unforeseeable. It would seem to me that if a job service provider tried to contact me, couldn't contact me on the same day, put all those things in the system, I could be potentially subject to having my payment suspended or cancelled even though I have a valid reason, but it by virtue of the fact that I can't be contacted, I'm I'm going to suffer a penalty. Is that a fair?
>> Well, Senator, what I was >> What could occur? Um well, you know, um there are a range of of circumstances that may occur. What I'm saying is the safeguards that are put in the system that we're requiring employment services consultants to record and provide evidence um of the attempts that have been made to contact a person.
>> Um if if I may also Senator Oh, sorry.
>> I just what I'm struggling is I don't see how that's a safeguard. That's that's a safeguard to say that the the employment service providers when it's remote. >> Uh Mr. Bell was seeking to provide a response. Mr. Bell, you have the call. >> Oh, okay. My apologies.
>> Sorry. Um so, just a couple of additional points I'd make is there is 5 days of resolution time um uh from uh when a work refusal failure occurs before the payment suspension. So, if you're unable to make that contact immediately, there is 5 days before the payment is suspended. The other point I'd just make uh importantly from following the resumption of um payment suspensions for work refusal failures, the department is going to be monitoring and reviewing every single one that comes through the system to make sure one that decision-m from providers um is accurate and reflecting the changes that we've made and two that the quality of the information and the evidence that they're submitting to the system uh is correct and we'll be uh if it's not reaching out to the provider and and where relevant lifting those suspensions or lifting those failures.
>> Um Um, may I ask a question of the >> I'm sorry, I've had >> Thanks, Senator Walsh. I wasn't sure who was at the table. Um I'm I'm interested in the government's view on it seems to me that we are still having a situation where it's quite possible that people can't meet these connection obligations if they don't have sufficient funds either for transport or phone or internet communication. Is that a reasonable Has the government considered that in terms of this framework? Because if you're on $400 a week, we're literally asking people to either make transport pay for transport that they otherwise wouldn't need or potentially be in situations where they don't have telecommunications. And I'm just interested to know if the government has
>> Uh thank you, Senator. Um I guess at a at a threshold level, as you know, we um think that some form of mutual obligations um are important. Um and more more broadly um we are looking at how mutual obligations can um be um reformed um so that um they are of greater assistance to people uh in actually um finding meaningful work and and realistically finding work uh and ensuring that those mutual obligations apply to where people are today um and what their distance from the labor market is right now. So there is a reform project there in relation to mutual obligations. Uh and then the government also um made some changes to the current um system you know to try to provide um some extra support. For example, increasing the length of time that people have um to address um any missed requirements from um two days to to 5 days um before that suspension process um may put um put their payments on hold. Um and we also um introduced a grace period for new participants before there are any impacts on their payment. um those who are for example new to Workforce Australia don't experience any compliance action the first time that they miss a requirement. Um and so and there are a couple of other sort of reforms to um assist people um as well. Um so we you know we recognize that people um can be in difficult circumstances. We do think um mutual obligations are important. We've made some changes to assist people now, but we're also doing the work to reform mutual obligations for the future as well.
>> Minister, does the government accept >> to rotate? So, this will need to be the last question. >> Um, just to follow on from that, Minister, you've talked about mutual obligations helping people into work. There's very little evidence that shows that it does. Does the government accept that the biggest change that they could make that would actually help people be in a position to access work would be to increase the rate of job seeker and other income support payments to at least the poverty line, which would be an increase of around $300 a week for someone who's currently trying to survive on $400 a week.
Um, Senator, as you know, the minister gave a major speech at the National Press Club um earlier this year. Uh, and she talked about um putting in place um reforms of the employment services system. Um that would be the the biggest change uh in many decades. Uh and those chains changes are designed to um assist people um into work. um minister and the government recognize that the system um needs to be better um and that the support for people needs to be better and that the obligations that are placed on them um as part of the mutual obligations framework need to um be more realistic um and more targeted to where people are um in terms of their distance from the labor market. So that's the shape of the form um that the minister um is pursuing uh and um she is very much on the record um as viewing work um as an absolutely um critical form of um providing foundational support for people you know in their lives. She's talked a lot about the dignity of work um and wanting to have an employment services system um that delivers that dignity as well.
>> Okay. Um we now you >> Thank you, Senator. Um Senator O'Sullivan,