Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, , 9:01:02 to 9:50:02
Updates on the activation of disaster recovery payments and investigations into Medicare fraud originating from immigration detention centers.
Topics: Drought and disaster support, Public safety, Integrity
Speakers: James Paterson, Hon Katy Gallagher, David Hazlehurst, Chris Birrer, Penny Allman-Payne, Cathy Toze PSM, Karen Grogan, Speaker 47, Stuart Turnbull
>> Thanks, Chair. Um, I have some questions about uh the bushfires in Victoria and Services Australia assistance with that. And at the outset, can I say um my office has had very productive engagement with the minister's office when issues have come up from constituents. We've raised it with his minister's office and they've often been resolved. So, I'm want to place my gratitude on the record for that. Nonetheless, there still have been some teething issues for constituents trying to access support. Um so, I just want to understand Services Australia approach to it. Um how is eligibility for disaster recovery payments determined?
Uh, Senator Kathy Toes, general manager, communities division. Um, so there are two types predominantly of disaster payments. Um, and that is a one-off payment. uh the Australian government disaster recovery payment, which is a one-off payment of $1,000 for an adult >> uh for um you know, significant uh damage to a property um or loss of a property. And then there's the disaster recovery allowance, which is uh more of an income support payment for people who have lost income as a result of the disaster. So the eligibility criteria are different. Therefore the assessment processes are quite different for both payments.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I suspect that largely the issues are with the former rather than the latter. But let's work through it. >> Yeah. Um so I I we often got feedback on the ground from local state MPs who were dealing much more directly with the community for obvious reasons particularly in Maridish Mendidi Shire and Strathogi Shire and they said there were often delays of several days between a town being burnt to the ground and then eligibility payments being confirmed uh and then another couple of days before claims were opened. H how do you make sure that in a timely way you're opening eligibility and processing claims to people so that they're not waiting for several days?
>> Yeah, Senator, um the way it works, so NEMA has primary uh responsibility for determining when payments are actually activated. Um and then from there our agency we work very closely uh with that agency and we have uh 24 hours um plus to 2 p.m. uh once we get notified of the activation approval then we will um arrange for that activation to occur within that time frame that I described.
>> What's the reason for that time frame?
How is that selected? Uh so that's uh based on um our agreement with Nemo and it's really because um to stand up a payment um you know we need to make sure that our systems are ready for that particular uh payment activation. Um so there's some ICT work there's also communications staff readiness um making sure we've got everything in process so when people do claim um you know that they can receive their payment as quickly as possible. And at the moment people are actually getting their payment within 1 to two days for that AGDRP >> payment. So
>> 1 to two days after applying.
>> Yes.
>> But that's not necessarily when they first suffered the loss.
>> No, Senator. So that's where um NEMA actually um you know work with the the state agencies and they'd be able to advise on this certainly more than than I can but they analyze a raft of data around um the emergency itself and obviously um we also provide information that we're hearing from recovery centers that our staff are in as well about what's happening on the ground and they'll make a determination around when to activate. So I think um
in in addition to that the concerns I've had raised to me because similar to you there seems to be like there's work that has to happen at the council level to feed into the state level that feeds into advice to Nema once you know so there's all that that happens and >> you know concerns have been raised with me about how quickly that that bit happens as well. So I know that um Nema once they get once the decisions taken really led by the state but helped by the council Nema signs off a declaration you know is it a declaration essentially um so Minister McBain's been doing that and then it's 24 hours plus two from the point that that was signed. So, if it was assigned on a Friday, the payments wouldn't be activated till a Monday, but for every other day, working day, it's a it's a day at up to 2 p.m.
>> So, it's it's mostly a technology problem, that 24-hour thing that's not instantaneous to reprogram your systems. >> Correct. >> Right. And is that something that is um insurmountable or is that something that modifications to systems could shorten
uh Senator I think in terms um of you know providing the best possible service when those payments do get activated that is the optimum time but having said that you know we we're always looking at how we can improve our processes and
>> it may not be optimum for the people involved right so I accept that you this process is not totally within services Australia's remit and if you're waiting for a local council to report to NEMA and NEMA to make a declaration but every accumulation of time between those different decision points or action points adds up to waiting time for a constituent who might be like seriously financially destitute and need urgent assistance. So, um, when you say it's optimum, um, I'm sure that from their point of view, it's not, but I'm sure they would want it to happen sooner.
>> Yes, Senator.
>> Um, so, so my back to my question is, could anything be done to upgrade your technology to shorten that period?
>> Uh, like I said, we we are always looking at opportunities to improve things. Um and you know also talking with um NEMA the policy agency too around um how we simplify the entire system so uh policy etc as well so that we can um speed things up a little bit more in terms of assessing eligibility. So that's something [clears throat] where we're always looking at continuously improving that.
>> Yeah because what we've had reported through my office is some kind of anomalies and maybe this is a name problem. I'll say that up front where some communities were listed on the 15th of January which is when you know the day after the worst fires including Acheron Corella forlet and Mton goon um but then others were not despite being equally affected um and for someone who's lost their house I don't really care whether how badly the suburb was affected
>> that's not a that's not a us problem um I've had that raised in me too that there was you you know there and that issue seems to be and I think there's definitely you know I mean um Minister McBain and I are going to talk further about the administration of these payments. We had actually had a chat about it yesterday. Um, but getting the information in order to make the declaration I think has been one of those issues where, you know, I don't know if it's everyone working together better or if there's, you know, the just councils run off their feet going, you know, having resourced enough to deal with an emergency like this. I noticed there's 3,373 claims processed for the Victorian bushfires as of the midnight the 8th of February. Um so there's it's a >> I imagine for a council that's a big workload too to get and it did seem odd
of the street did and then the neighboring community took um a couple
of days. Yeah, that that's what we encountered. >> And obviously for someone who's become homeless and may have also lost access to all their payments and their cards and cash and all that kind of stuff, it's kind of, you know, it's pretty urgent task. >> Um I I wonder if there isn't um some way of shortening that whole period where you know as soon as that you you start preparing your systems in advance. I don't want to tell you how to do your job. You know how to do your job better than I do. And as soon as the declaration comes through from Nema, it's immediately activated. I mean, if it's just the case of adding an extra suburb um or a postcode, um surely that's not technically insurmountable.
>> There is some work with staff to bring staff up to speed who be taking the calls and things, but yeah, I mean I think you know the evidence is we want to look at how we can make sure that's as responsive as it can be.
>> Okay. All right. I'm grateful for that. Um chair, I'm moving on to a different topic. If you want to rotate,
>> we might just pop back to Senator Allman Payne who has an additional question.
Yes, thank you chair. Um, just a couple of things in relation to the hardship figures that you gave me earlier. Mr. Turble, you gave me some rough stats for the ones prior um to November and December for support at home. Is it possible in that um question on notice if you could give me the actual figures for September and October as well? So, number of applications and number approved and the and the average times. >> Yes. Yes, sir. >> All right. Thank you. Um and then just in relation to um the legal compliance and remediation program um this is probably a question for the minister. Um if I go through that remediation program taking out um the things that are listed in there as already resolved um by my count there's around 94 items that note that historical remediation is required. Um actually question for services Australia first in relation to that historical remediation. Is it the case that some of that remediation will mean that people are owed money and conversely some people will have debts?
>> Uh thanks Senator Chris Bara deputy CEO of payments and integrity group. uh that that can be the case. And so uh what what many of those matters are uh Senator and and you would have noted that there are sort of those those issues that are in category two of the um of the question on notice response which have a legislative basis but lots of the other issues relate to sort of business process and ICT which the agency >> is now addressing. In some of those cases where there's remediation that will be required, there's work that needs to be done either in order to settle the legal and policy position working with uh the relevant uh responsible policy agencies or or to to implement ICT changes. Some of those do result in uh either a an uh an ar payment that that that needs to be made or or refund as in y >> at last and estimates. You you asked about the um overreovered debt refunds and so that's a good example of that. uh in some there may be a debt and then we look at sort of what sort of circumstances uh arose and and the and the customer circumstances and whether or not a waiver provision is an appropriate response under uh the social security law >> with with the um identification of that it does require quite often that the remediation is quite manual >> uh and it does require a manual interrogation of the customer's record and Again, Senator, that the the the issue you raised last time of the overreovered debts is a good example of that where the the data sweeps we did in our systems >> uh suggested a certain uh cohort of people might be owed a refund. We've worked a fair way through that list now, particularly by dollar value and uh about 12% of those matters have.
>> Are you talking specifically about income aortionment? No, this is the over
recovered debt senator. So, so there's a portion where essentially it's a false positive where the person's doesn't have uh money owing to them.
>> Yeah. I guess I just want to make sure my understanding is clear that in in that table that you gave us where it says customer impact and then it says historical remediation required. That means that you're potentially manually going through and determining whether some people have been overpaid and have a debt owing and other people have been underpaid and have money owed to them. Is that correct? That
>> that's correct, Senator. And the agency has um experienced officers working on this program uh who are able to undertake both the complex work involved in interrogating individual records and correcting them. But we also ensure that the staff have uh both training and also experience in dealing with vulnerable people because we do know that like this is a complex situation. many of these >> uh some of them are historic matters and so we're very alive to that when we're engaging with people. Uh we do work with uh advocacy groups to to to help share communications products and oversight bodies as well as testing with customers because we do understand that there's sensitivities and going back and remediating issues in terms of how we communicate with people and how we help customers throughout that process. In short, we try to wherever possible uh do the remediation inhouse and uh and uh uh not all of the the matters result in either in in in an ar payment being made. Uh and in those cases like customers don't need to contact us but we'll we'll be reaching out to contact them in relation to the remediation.
>> Okay. Thanks for that comprehensive answer. My question to the minister then is given that there are at least 94 items issues that require historical remediation and they some of them go back quite a way. Is that why the government's dragging its feet on introducing a six sixyear limit on debt recovery? Is it because there's potentially so many debts out there and you don't want to do that until you've got all of those?
>> Completely unrelated. um our response on both of those. I mean seriously on the legal and compliance uh work this is a huge piece of work and it's changing like it may be that we have more to add to that list based on legal advice we get and that's kind of the nature of the work that's been underway. Services Australia have done an incredible job in pulling that all together and then working through legislative change, operational policy change, resolving uh items and and briefing me on how all of this is going to be addressed in a reasonably short time fra frame. Um, you know, don't under, you know, I wouldn't underestimate the work that's going into this and the integrity that's being brought to the to the to the work either, but it's not related.
>> I think the key word there is complex. And if I go to the the response to the quan, it says the operating environment can at times be complex across legislation, policy, ICT systems, and business processes leading to inadvertent misalignment. It it would seem to me that if this system is so complex that Services Australia has to do this extent of remediation, I'm somewhat perplexed as to why the people on the other side of the system who are using it are expected to be able to understand it and get it right. And we know that when they don't, there's often severe consequences for people, particularly those who are on very low incomes. Um, I guess my question is then when will somebody who has to access Centerlink payments of any description know that they will have certainty in the future beyond 6 years that at some point in their life at some undetermined time center may come to them and say 10 years ago we got it wrong and you owe us money. like how can people have certainty who are using that system and if they can't have certainty now that at least if they're six years past using it they're in the clear. At what point can the government is the government going to say to people we fixed it and now you get there's going to be a limit and you've got certainty that if you access our system and you're six years out of it no one's going to come back in 10 15 years time and say we stuffed up and you owe us. when when can people have that certainty because right now they don't.
>> Well, a couple of things there I think. one, integrity in government payments is important and if a problem arises where it becomes clear that there's a debt owed to the Commonwealth, you know, as sensitive as we can be around this and the approach we bring to it, you know, that is a matter that the Commonwealth has to take seriously. So um I think the second part would be making sure that every you know and you know I've just you know gone through this with a close family member. I can't speak highly enough of the staff at Centerlink and how they supported every single day the transactions that come through that uh you know through service centers on the phone how they work to to support people. uh and so I think I would say to people we would you know that that is the approach um that services Australia bring uh to the work that they do but there is a responsib it's a big part of our budget um pay the payment side and you have to have uh integrity measures around that um and you know deal with them as sensitively as we can and where we've made a mistake fix it and make amends Um but you know it's a big bulky complex system uh that has to be protected as well.
No one is questioning the integrity of the people who work in services Australia and in fact many people will say that they get the help that they need. >> The question is around given that every other area of the law says if you haven't recovered a debt within six years and you haven't picked up on that, then that's too bad. You'll have to forgo it. Given that the Royal Commission said people need some certainty, you you should be reinstating a six-year debt limit on recovery. given how long it's been since the Royal Commission is what you're saying that there is no point in time that a person who uses Centerlink can have the certainty that if Services Australia gets it wrong and an error is made, the government is still going to potentially come after them years down the track, even though the error is theirs and because you're refusing to reinstigate that limit. Like, is that the government's position that it doesn't matter how far in the future you realize there's been an error? >> Like, I would have thought that the goal would be to institute a six-year debt limit and then make sure that you're not making errors and if you are, you're picking them up in a timely way.
>> Senator, the the um much as I know it will disappoint you. Um
>> it's not me I'm worried about. It's the people who are actually
>> the question the question of uh that issue to do with the six years is actually a policy matter. Um it's not something that we
>> which is why I put it to the minister.
>> Well, it's not the minister's responsibility either.
>> I know it's the minister's
>> No, it's not.
>> It's it's the minister for social services who has policy responsibility
minister is looking at that.
>> We've been told that for quite some time
>> and uh you you'll recall that there was a package particularly uh associated with increasing the low value debt waiver.
>> Yes, I'm aware of all of that. I'm particularly concerned.
>> Also was led by um uh Minister.
>> Yeah. Well, thank you for indulging me in your response. [clears throat] >> Just going to let you know you got about
2 minutes left. If you want to wrap up because then I need to rotate. I don't
think I've got anything. >> Yeah, I'm very happy to put that question again to the minister tomorrow. >> I'll [laughter] be wearing a different
>> I would add senator that >> having a better brief >> when we're undertaking the remediations. >> Uh the issue of of debt waiverss is one that is at the forefront of our mind and particularly like uh you you you mentioned it's a hypothetical scenario but 10 years ago something happened. uh we are very sensitive and look at sort of what avenues are available within law uh to make sure that we can achieve a good customer outcome uh and uh that that is part of the integrity of the system is that we're implementing the law as it is but that includes
>> that's that's questionable includes looking to wt >> yes I look I accept that some of those things are going on my issue is with the fact that you are still being asked to recover debts that are more than six years old. And I'll put that question to the minister tomorrow. Thank you.
>> Thank you. We'll go to Senator Paterson. Thank you,
>> Chair. Um I have some questions about the ombbudsman's report. Um there's obviously range of issues with it, but most kind of tellingly I guess the ombbudsman entitled their report following the law is not optional. Their media release was entitled following the law is not optional. And just in case we missed it, um in their executive summary, there is a bold sentence uh that says it is not acceptable that an agency knows for years that it is not following the law and chooses to continue to not follow the law. Um Mr. Hazlehurst, first to you, how can you account for, you know, a very damning report like this?
Um, Senator, we've acknowledged uh in our response to his report uh and with our colleagues from DSS uh that notwithstanding all of the contextual issues which I'm happy to provide further information about um we should have done better. Uh and uh it's a complex interaction that was unintentioned with some amendments that were made to the legislation. implementing the law as it then stood and as it now currently still stands, notwithstanding there being a bill now before the parliament to correct that. >> Yeah. uh would have led to perverse outcomes >> and in fact harm uh and confusion. >> Uh nevertheless, following the law is not optional. And so whilst there were several attempts to get legislation changed, uh as in bills drafted but not introduced, um uh we should have done better. So uh we we haven't tried to make any excuses around that. Um and indeed were there legislation not to be passed I have made a decision that we will change the systems to implement the law as it currently stands notwithstanding the confusion and concern that that it's connected of course to the earlier conversation about the the whole legal compliance and remediation program. Uh and there are a number of matters where the advice to us has been you really must get the law changed at the next available opportunity. And that is what we're working with our minister on and she's working with her ministerial colleagues on. and they there there's no secret they're referred to in the um in the table.
>> Sure. But the I mean the report also says and I quote information provided to our office by Services Australia shows that at as at the time of responding to our request for information. It was yet to brief the relevant minister about its choice not to apply the law enacted by parliament in brackets the minister was subsequently sent to brief on the 30th of September 2025. So if you knew that you weren't following law because it had these anomalous, you know, implications and you thought that wasn't optimal, you can't have tried to change the law very hard if you didn't tell the minister that the law needs to be
>> There'd been several attempts before the minister was the minister. the minister. We'd been working with the minister on a range of issues, but we had not provided a detailed brief on that specific one. Uh, and that was a failing on our part. We should have done that. And so we we did that in detail in September.
>> But your evidence was that you tried to get the law changed.
>> Well, this issue was first uncovered in 2019.
>> Yeah. on this.
>> So, it's been a longstanding >> issue. Um, in terms of
make no criticism of you or the government. I'm asking questions to services Australia about their awareness of the law and their efforts to correct the law. You just said in your answer earlier, Mr. Hazlehurst that you tried several times to fix the law, but if you didn't tell the minister that about this issue, how were you really trying to fix the law?
>> So those those occasions, Senator, go back as far as 2020. >> When I wasn't here, neither was the minister.
>> When I say you, I mean the royal you the
agency. There have been there my understanding is there had been a lot of engagement between uh departments uh and us uh with a view to changing the laws.
>> Yes. But just not telling the minister until September. >> last year
>> a detailed brief arrived yes in in late September. Before that and since my appointment we have been working on collating all of the different issues that were emerging over time. And so we had been in engagement on on that. Um but all of that work which has now been consolidated and I think provided in questions on notice um you know it it forms part of that work but um it's a it's a huge piece of work. I can't you know tell you how much has gone into trying to identify all of the issues. And as I said, even having we've had a new one arrive in January, I think, was that the um urgent >> advanced advanced payments, new legal advice in >> January about another issue that we add into this. >> Um and so that in terms of that, we we were working on it, but yes, a detailed briefing wasn't provided until late September. And you know we've we've um >> well
>> Senator if I could just add um so in terms of those previous attempts to change the legislation on those occasions services Australia was working with the department of social services >> um as their minister um is responsible for the legislation. >> So that that's the way the previous attempts had been made. Obviously it was still a big error not to brief our own minister at those points in time. Um but yeah that's just clarifying.
>> So my understanding minister is notwithstanding the detailed brief being given on the 30th of September that you were first made aware in July 2025. Does that sound right? I think that's from the report.
>> I I mean I'd have to check that but it it could have formed part of the overall you know we've got a lot of different issues going on here. How are we going to fix them? Do they require legislation? Do they require a policy fix? Does it require engagement with DSS? >> And in part of those discussions, but it was certainly later that um I was briefed on the detail of the 35%.
>> Sure. So let's say between for the sake of the argument between July and September, you you became aware, Minister. Um Mr. Hazley, correct me if I'm wrong, you started um Service Australia in January 2024. When did you first become aware that Services Australia was not following the
Uh in respect I'd need to take that on notice in respect of this specific item. Uh Senator um over the course of my first few months in the role um I became aware of more and more >> issues like this one. some of which uh there was no longer a legal issue but there was as um Senator Allman Payne was questioning us earlier there's there was a remediation task but to be frank there was no program there was no gathering of those things so from about October of 2024 we commenced a process of drawing these things out and together. Um as is reflected in the question on notice response um a very substantial proportion of them we had corrected >> the issue prospectively um but nothing had been done yet >> to address it retrospectively. Uh and that's been a big part of what frankly wrapping our arms around uh to ensure that we have a considered approach to that because prior to that actually know how many of them there were.
>> Sure. And so the program developed the centralized register and in design of the program senator we've taken into account the royal commission the robo debt scheme >> ombbudsman's report theo audits and so uh have constructed it so it's a centralized register there's then a ready tool and and way of engaging uh with responsible policy agencies with escalating to Mr. Hazlehurst and the minister uh issues that are there and to drive forward towards pathways of solutions and then uh we also have a closure process where we don't simply take something off the register but we actually have a formal governance around it. So it's much more gripped up how we how we're seeking to address >> these issues now than in the past of the period you're discussing.
>> Sure. But I mean this is not ancient history, right? This is in the last couple of years. And Mr. Hless, I appreciate you did not cause these problems. You inherited these problems, sometime in 2024, you're not sure when, and you would have learned that Services Australia was breaking the law and you did not inform your minister for at least until July 2025. So, we're talking at least 6 months where you knew Service Australia was not following the law and you didn't tell your minister. Is that
>> uh, Senator? the I'd need to take on notice precisely when as the minister described we commenced the process of engaging both the current minister and the former minister in the lists of issues that we were coming up with. So I'll need to take on notice exactly when that was. Uh but there was the the first detailed briefing that we provided to the minister on this specific issue was as you referred to and as the ombbudsman pointed out uh September
>> but in a postrobo debt environment surely one of the first things you do when you are told that service Australia is not following the law is tell your
Well, yes, Senator, and I'll take on notice exactly when [clears throat] and in what form we provided further advice. there was no hiding of these issues. They were drawn out as a list of concerns that we had and that we were It was a question of the detail of the briefing and we didn't do it properly and I acknowledge that. I'm not sure what else I can say.
>> Yeah, I'm not ascribing motive. I I have no idea what what the motives were and I'm not I don't want to impute any. So I don't know whether you quote hiding or not hiding, but certainly the minister was not told. The agency knew it wasn't complying with law and the minister was
>> I'll just repeat what I've already said, Senator. I'll take on notice the question of specifically when these particular issues were brought to relevant minister's attention. the question around these set this set of issues uh was has been raised um over time with both ministers, the former minister and the current minister. >> Uh and naturally enough, they've been very [laughter] concerned about it. >> Sure. >> Uh as have I.
>> But wasn't in the incoming ministerial brief to the new minister after the
>> Uh I would have to check that. Um, I think there probably would have been mention about um legal and compliance issues. >> Um, but I I'll check. I'm surprised I I thought we were they would all been released.
>> They have been um and
>> um I'd have to check. But look, I remember from coming in a com conver you know at our briefings conversations about a range of issues. Um and the discussion I had was can we pull it all together? Can you be clear with me about what requires legislative change? Can we prioritize the most, you know, because it was clear to me there was so many of which what are they 144 of which some have been completed. It was kind of I need this information in a in a way where we can work out a pathway through all of these things. Some of them require policy change, some of them require ICT change, some of them require legislation. I want to know what they are and then we can start dealing with them which we've done in that first bill that you know so if we prioritize the legislative uh response because it is an optional to follow the law. Um we've got some of those changes through the next bills coming through and there will be more after that. Um
>> but Minister, what is your expectation of uh agencies and officials in your portfolio that if they discover they're not following the law, do you expect to be notified properly? sufficiently prompt in this instance?
>> Uh, look, I've had a discussion with Services Australia um about that. Like I think, you know, and Minister Hazlehurst has said, you know, it would have been a a more detailed briefing um earlier would have been better. Uh but I also acknowledge the huge amount of work that is underway to try and and the fact that advice is changing. So, you know, for things that um we believe the intent of the the way the law is and the policy is is that things happen this way to then get advice that say that it's you no long you know you don't have legislative authority for that or it's being interpreted in a different way. >> Um you know then you have to deal with that as well. So we it has been some changing advice over a number of the issues raised in the the work that's being done.
>> Sure. But again in a post robot environment surely as a minister your instruction to your department and agencies in your portfolio is please tell me immediately if you are not complying with the law.
>> Uh yes yes
>> and this was not immediate. I mean the ombudsman's made that incredibly clear.
So, Senator, we've said we've agreed with that >> So, we agreed in our response. Both the secretary of DSS and I agreed that so I'm not
>> sorry. Sorry, Mr. H. You agreeing to that is not the end of the matter, right? That does not mean the parliament can't ask questions about it. That's not mean proposition can't be put to
disagreeing with you.
>> And it's it's legitimate area of inquiry.
>> Sure. No, no. I'm just saying I'm I'm not disagreeing with you. We should have done better. We've got put in a range of processes and a and a program with appropriate governance now to ensure that it doesn't happen again. Uh so
>> sure, but I'm I'm sure that was also said after robo debt that we'll put in place processes that make sure this
>> Uh well, at one level this is a response to robo debt. At one level, the period from the middle of last of 2024, October of 2024 was still through the period where we were implementing changes as a result of robo debt. And this was an area of concern and that is why we introduced this program. This particular issue we should have briefed, >> absolutely should have briefed the minister in detail earlier. No question.
And I think the other thing that's influenced by robo the robo dirt lessons and recommendations is um you know getting legal advice on a whole range of things that have been done for a long time that people thought were compliant that you know there is a different opinion on on on the authority there that definitely has had an impact.
>> Okay chair uh thank you if you need to rotate the call. I've got other issues but I'm sure you may want to rotate the
call. We will go back to Senator Allman
>> Mr. Turble, notwithstanding that you're going to be giving me questions, sorry, answers on notice about supported home and hardship, do you have the figure to hand just for September and October in the number of applications before
Uh yes, Senator. So for September, the number of hardship claims was 571. >> And in October, it was 858.
>> All right. Thank you. And I appreciate you providing me the other stuff on notice. And chair, I promise I am done
>> Okay. Back to you expected. Thank you. >> Me, too. I I want to follow up on the questions from previous rounds of estimates on the immigration detention fraud issue or the fraud that was conducted from immigration detention centers of Medicare. Um let's let the relevant officials come So, in uh Quan responses in relation to this fraud, which last time we had an update, I understand was about $8 million. Um, you said that three individuals have been charged with offenses. Are there any updates on that?
>> Uh, yes, Senator, I'll I'll start and then to Mr. Timson if he wants to add any further. So in relation that there was three persons of interest who were arrested at the time of the um uh at the search warrant execution and uh there was there's been four briefs of evidence that have been accepted or briefs of evidence in relation to four persons of interest accepted by the comealth director of public prosecutions. But do you want to discuss what we've seen in terms of activity? And
>> can I just clarify in relation to that statement? >> Three people have been charged and four brief evidence. Is that for additional people or those three people and one other person or
>> Peter Timson, general manager, fraud control investigations division? Uh yes, Senator, that's a fourth person, >> not in the detention center.
>> Right.
>> I I would like to also say it is an ongoing investigation. I
>> understand. Yep. And I understand that will constrain your responses to some degree and I won't press you to um say things that are prejuditial. So three individuals have been charged but there is a brief of evidence about a fourth person who's not been charged or that person has also been charged but just isn't in an immigration detention center
>> that has been referred to CDP. Yep. >> For a prosecution.
>> Yep.
>> They're not in detention
>> but not and not yet charged.
>> No.
um we prepare briefs of evidence for the CDP. They hold the de delegation as to whether or not to prosecute on behalf of the Commonwealth.
>> Yes. Yes. Understood. So those three individuals who have been charged, are they just remaining in immigration detention or have they been incarcerated in the prison system? What is their
status? Uh my understanding is they've been released on bail and being given visas as persons prosecuted before or alleged prosecutions before the court.
>> Wait, so they're out of immigration detention after allegedly committing an
Department of Home Affairs. Senator,
>> I'm not suggesting you're responsible, but if you're aware of the facts, they're important. Um so they commit immigration alleged fraud in immigration detention and then they're released on bail on visas.
>> That's correct.
That seems um again not your area of responsibility but surprising. Um
>> can I just say there are on bail conditions as well?
>> Sure. One would hope. One would hope. Um in Victoria not very uh strict generally speaking. Um but not your problem. Um have you identified any other potential instances of fraud in the Melbourne
As we mentioned, uh, Senator, that the investigation's ongoing. So, um,
>> yeah, I'm talking about other instances, not necessarily these people, but, you know, has this prompted an investigation into other frauds from immigration detention?
>> I'd just like to say there are other investigations underway. Whether or not they're linked to the detention center or people in there, I'd prefer not to comment on that.
so there was a report in the Herald Sun by Mark Butler on the 2nd of October last year and it had a a kind of passing reference in the story uh about an apparent Services Australia inquiry into a quote alleged corruption of a government official and your agency commented in that article, "Investigations into the nature and extent of the alleged offending remain active. It would not be appropriate to comment on ongoing investigations. Are you able to confirm or not whether a Commonwealth official is one of those four people that a brief of evidence has been provided for?
>> That's in relation to a charge where someone's the allegation is being a corrupt Comwalth official. Yes. >> Where someone is pretending to be a Comwalth official when they're not a comworth official.
>> Not an actual comic official.
>> Someone pretending to be one of us.
>> Understood. >> right. So there you have no concerns that any Commonwealth official was party
>> We also conduct internal investigations in the agency and we wouldn't comment on that if that was an active investigation.
>> Sure. But in relation to this particular instance, I I took it from your answer that the issue here is someone impersonating a government official, not a government official participating in
the fraud. Senator, separate questions that that is that answer whether or not that's linked to anything internally that would still be subject to investigations.
>> Right. So there's possible link to an internal issue in this instance.
>> Not that I'm aware, but we don't we don't say that that's not the case.
>> Okay. Okay. So, yep. I do understand that. Um, so there there would be no need at this stage for a referral to the Knack, for example, over, you know,
something, we'd let them know in according with Nack 2022.
tell me a bit more about your remediation of the potential vulnerability that was exploited here
>> We work with uh Department of Health with notifying the service providers and also working with those that have been affected by this matter, noting it's ongoing investigation. M
>> but in terms of changes to your systems to prevent this from happening again
>> taking steps senator to um uh with our processes internally and with communicating with our staff. Uh what this is is uh an instance and we see this with lots of uh the fraud attempts where people will contact the agency uh obviously attempting to to impersonate somebody else in order to access a payment. And so reinforcing those processes around authenticating people. Uh and we also ensure that we communicate with uh um customers or in this case providers about the need to have uh strong authentications in place and to be careful about people contacting them attempting to impersonate our staff which is the matter that Mr. Timson referred to.
>> It was ultimately end users that were taken advantage of. I mean it was a comm that was defrauded but it was end users who were effectively the victim in that
fraud. That's right. And and that's quite common where people will use uh scam activity or impersonation activity to attempt to harvest your credentials or personally identifiable information >> so that can be used to contact us to impersonate you. M
>> um is the estimate of the losses from this particular fraud still at 8 million?
>> That's correct, Senator.
>> Y um so you've reasonably confident that the full extent of it has been captured. It's not an ongoing issue.
>> There's no further offending in relation to this investigation.
Okay. Thank you. >> Uh chair, do you need to rotate the call or am I your last customer? you are the
last customer. If you have
>> in that instance, just give me one minute to review my pack and whether it needs to be strictly asked now or whether it can go on notice and then I don't think any of the remaining questions are strictly timesensitive, so I'm happy to put them on notice.
>> Um, we will, um, take an early mark for dinner. >> Um, and we will return at 7:50 with >> our next uh, group, which is the Future Fund Management Agency. Thank you very much to Services Australia. We appreciate your time this afternoon.