Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, , 2:15:56 to 2:41:42
Officials provide updates on the establishment of the Office of Social Cohesion and the implementation of community-focused democratic resilience programs.
Topics: Social cohesion, Public service staffing
Speakers: Stephanie Foster PSM, David Shoebridge, Brian Hickey, Jana Stewart, Unknown Speaker, Hon Jonathon Duniam, Hon Murray Watt, Paul Scarr
>> Um failed to meet targets on um uh on even maintaining uh capacity in detention centers. Um failing to meet targets on um providing basic health facilities in Naru. How do you explain that failing to meet the targets for ba basic health facilities on Naru? >> Senator, um, >> you didn't I have a message for my team. You didn't address any of this in December. How is it that you're failing you you're implementing a policy to pump more and more vulnerable people into Naru and you're failing to meet even basic targets on health delivery in Naru? >> So, Senator, would you be fine with that, too? >> It is incorrect. I didn't cover though. uh issues in December. We did absolutely cover the issue of detention which is the one you had raised in your earlier question. If you would like me to cover the issues, >> my earlier question was about onore about your offshore cruelty. >> Senator Shoebridge, we will let the secretary conclude her response before we interrupt. >> If you would like me to go to that specific performance measure, Senator, if that wasn't covered in December, then I'll ask the relevant officers to do that in the relevant outcome. >> Thank Well, I'd like you to answer all the questions about a February audit report and not hide behind questioning that you um received from another senator. >> Senator, >> that's a reasonable expectation and we'll come back to this until we get some answers. >> Thank you, Senator Schub. Senator Daniel. >> Thank you, chair. So, back to this matter of the social office of social cohesion. Uh roughly 15 staff. I just wonder uh have you got a list of key achievements that have been brought about as a result of the work of the uh office of social cohesion in that time of its existence. >> Uh Senator, I can give you uh some of the achievements they've done since establishment in September 2024. Um they've done a range of programs uh as Miss Foster said across different stakeholder groups. Um the libraries as community cohesion hubs project which was in partnership with the Australian library and information association I think around 215 uh libraries. Uh the Australian resilient democracy network uh that was formalized through an umou with the Australian National University. um a significant youth engagement program through a civic engagement youth advisory group and a social cohesion youth reference group. Uh as Miss Foster has already said, the secretary steering group on social cohesion. Um they've sponsored two GovHack um challenges in 2025. One was on bridging social divides to bring people together to strengthen social connections and one on connecting new citizens to Australian democracy. Uh they've also worked closely with the SPS um television station on a series called examining and understanding hate. It's a series of podcasts and short videos. Um
the office has undertaken and as Miss
Foster said um a number of other
achievements working across different communities and engagements at the local level. of the office and indeed those projects it sponsors and organizes? So, center um
of your last set of questions,
um social cohesion is is an enormous
subject which um touches on many aspects of our society and many
Um and so
our um early efforts and I think that
was right that that's about 18 months um of operation. Um uh I think what we've seen is a range of uh trying to pull out the things that will make most difference. Um the the next
phase uh will clearly be us needing to
evaluate and and feed that into our
>> Thank you very much. I've got some questions I'll put on notice for corporate. Thank you. >> Thank you for your assistance, Senator Daniel. Senator Shoebridge.
>> Uh thanks Jim. The the audit report says um that home affairs failed to meet the target of 80% of policy advice provided to government was was assessed by 80% of policy advice had to be assessed by um government stakeholders as being
government stakeholders that was assessed being high quality? Was it 1% 5% 50%. >> So Senator uh this was a subject that we talked about at length in December. Um and I can summarize that uh discussion for you. There were three elements to that um uh metric. uh we needed to meet all three to achieve the target. We were short by a very small amount on one of the three and that related to impact. Um and in terms of the impact, the finding was not that the advice was not impactful, it was that we didn't have an effective way of measuring that impact. And so we've worked with the ANAO to make sure we have a more effective measurement um for that.
80%. What was the percentage that was met? >> The percentage was 52.94%. 52.94%
Senator. >> Well, you see that answer from Mr.
Hickey throws a very different light on your answer, doesn't it, Secretary? The target was 50% was 80% and barely half of the policy advice provided to government was assessed by stakeholders have been of high quality. >> Those two answers don't fit well together, do they, Secretary? >> Well, Senator, I'm trying to explain to you the complexity that lies be behind the simple target and um >> why almost half of your government stakeholders said your advice wasn't up to scratch. >> That's not correct, Senator. That's the headline metric that you're reading out. But when you go underneath that um we had set the target as achieving a score of at least three out of four across three separate quality criteria and we
met those in both influential and informed and we failed by a small amount in impactful. Um, and as I said, um, uh, we need to make sure that we've got a better way of evaluating impact in order to meet that criteria. And so there is um, there is much more meaning in what lies underneath the topline metric than there is in the metric itself. Oh, you see secretary, I you know, in some ways I admire your effort to put this spin on it, but when the target is 80% of policy advice being assessed by stakeholders and the actual outcome is 52.9%, all the spin in the world is not going to square that. >> We've got a point of order. >> I think we're all used to the disrespectful way that Senator Schub treats public servants in estimates hearings, but I would ask him to refrain
from being openly disrespectful to
public servants. he can ask his questions without the sneering disrespect of the last question. >> Well, I utterly reject um the minister's
position and it's his usual >> I think the I think um >> usual you know mar what behavior >> do you mind? >> Uh I think the minister is referring to comments he made about the speaker. Yes. And I and I do think that it's inappropriate to uh refer to witnesses answers in that way. I think you can refrain from uh asking questions that refer to um witnesses answers in that way. >> And just on the point of order chair, if if I may, I asked a number of questions to Secretary Foster in relation to this
particular issue in December. We had a uh courteous uh discussion with respect to the complexity of assessing the key performance indicator and uh Senator Schub might care to have a look at the transcript in that regard. >> Correct. Thank you. And I remind senators uh that it is incumbent upon all of us to treat witnesses with dignity, courtesy, fairness, and respect. >> Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. Um thanks to the the failure to meet the targets for providing health services on NARU. Um um the failure to address quality failures identified through monthly performance management reporting on health services. Given the government is is sending more and more incredibly vulnerable people to NARU. Um, how do you explain that failure to deal um with health services to such a vulnerable population who have nowhere else to go? Uh so Senator there are a couple of um areas that are relevant to your
question. Um in respect of target 80 um which was found unable to be determined. Um, this is an example of where we actually achieved what we intended to, but we didn't include time frames in the action plans and therefore it didn't meet auditing standards. And so I said before um right at the start of your questioning um that it is actually necessary to understand what's behind the top line to understand how performance actually um worked. So 100% of quality failures were subject to an abatement within 2 months as required by the target and in every one of these instances there was an action plan in
place to address it. What we have we need to include time frames for completion of remedial activities so that they can be monitored. Um so that was the the reason um for that particular target being unable to be determined. The second one you referred to was target 81 uplifting Naru's regional processing capability. Um this was um
an ambitious range of initiatives in partnership with governments of other government of another country. Um and they focused heavily on the activities undertaken by the government of Naru rather than the capability uplift initiatives that we undertook. Um so in short this would be one of the targets where we need to focus on the things that we can do and influence and we're >> So the I assume the purpose of home affairs activity and heaven knows how many hundred million dollars of Australian taxpayers money was to uplift capability in NARU but you're proposing to change it. So there's not actually about whether or not the capability was
not activities in Australia um um and activities within home affairs um designed to achieve that outcome, meet targets. So we're we're going to
actually step away from actual services,
actual delivery to a kind of bureaucratic assessment of what the the
effectiveness of home affairs internal reporting >> is is that what's proposed? >> So
>> get rid of a meaningful target. um the meaningful targets are those that we can actually um impact which is what we're working with the uh audit office on um and I I should say that they have been
enormously helpful in their support to
us in working through how to get these targets uh better focused. Um clearly our intent is to lift capability in Naru but it Naru as we often say is a sovereign nation. Um and uh we will continue to work with them on that
you intended NARU to deliver? What was the capability that wasn't delivered? So, Senator, I think we're getting very much into the detail of issues that we'd normally cover in the relevant outcome. Um, but Mr. Hickey's just um reminded me that in fact um we have just done our review of our performance in the first two quarters of this financial year and that we are indeed meeting on track to meet that target uh this year. the new target that you've worked with or this existing targeted target >> and it's an amended target senator. >> Yeah. Well, >> yeah. So, it's not actually about capability uplift in NARU, it's about some internal bureaucratic targets. So, having having changed the target from a meaningful outcome, you're now going to hit it. Is that the situation? So, Senator, as I said, we're working with the ANIO to make sure that the targets are actually um measurable and um meaningful for the Department of Home Affairs activities and we'll continue to
do that with them. >> Thank you, Secretary. Thank you, Senator Shouage. Senator Dian, >> thanks, Chair. And I misled you all
before I'm have a couple more questions. go to these very basic issues of the ASL across the department. Do you have that number with you? >> I do, but I will get my >> Sure. >> back up to help. >> That would be great. And a breakdown by APS and executive level. >> Yes. He's going to be here. >> I'm going to try and >> I reckon I'll take those. I'll explain. >> I'm sure I'll get to it. finish out the cross portfolio, we have some status reports on the quanss that Senator Shu bridge asked about. So I could do that before you move to outcome one. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh Senator um >> Oh, sorry. >> So Charlotte, do you want to go to the ASL?
>> Uh yes. So sorry, Senator. What information would you like on our ASL?
>> Uh yes. Breakdown, I guess, by division
provide it on notice, it might be >> Yeah, I might need to. I don't have a divisional breakdown of totals for the >> Sure. Okay. Do you have the ASL for the National Security Division? >> Uh, not with me, but we might be able to get that before we um go to the next. >> So, just to be clear, Senator, we have a um national security group and then it has a number of divisions uh in >> Okay, why don't we go group and then perhaps by division under that? Um again, I presume the same answer applies. Okay, this could be very quick. >> Great. uh if and similarly within that group how many vacancies uh currently exist
as well um how what's the ASL allocation under the role of faz counterterrorism policy and violent extremism and is there a breakdown of those allocations by branch and how many vacancies within that section whatever nomin we're applying to this. Um, also, and again perhaps on notice, what's the ASL of the National Security and Resilience Division? That I presume is separate to >> the one we were just talking about. >> Mr. Hansford as um head of national security um has two groups within them.
They have a number of divisions and resilience is one of those divisions in
the two groups. in that. Okay, understood. All right. So those >> and so we'll get all of those figures
for you on notice. >> Okay. All right. Look, and the rest here I'm going to put on notice, I think. Chair. Yes. >> Figure pardon. >> No, don't worry about it. I'm just I'm making a joke at your expense. >> It was a useful exercise. >> Thank you. All right. Now, you've got some updates for Senator Schubert on his points.
24358 that is currently uh with the minister's office. Um AE25010
that is currently with the minister's
office. Uh AE 0 AE25011 again currently with the minister's office. >> Sorry Mr. Hickey so we don't have to go back and run through all the numbers again. Can we start again with when they went to the minister's office? Can you include that as we go through? >> Yes certainly senator. So for the first one, SE 24358 >> uh went to the minister's office on the 6th of December 2024. >> AE >> sorry 6th of December 2024. >> Correct, Senator. Sorry, I think we might have said 3rd of December. So just correcting that to the 6th of December. >> 6th of December 2024. >> Uh AE25010 went to the minister's office on the 3rd of July 2025. Uh AE25011 uh went to the minister's office on the 3rd of July 2025. AE25012
uh went to the minister's office on the 3rd of July 2025. Uh it was returned and is currently with the department for some revisions. Uh AE25013 uh went to the minister's office on the 3rd of July 2025. uh is currently back
with the department for some revisions
as well. Uh AE25014 uh was first provided to the minister's office on the 3rd of July 2025. Uh he's currently back with the department for revision. Uh AE25089
currently with the minister's office. It was provided to the minister's office on
the 19th of March 2025.
uh AE25091
uh again with the minister's office and was provided to them on the 19th of March 2025 >> and Senator of the three that are back with the department for revision I will make sure that we expedite those answers for you. Thank you, Secretary Minister. One of those matters seeking information
transferred to regional processing countries has been sitting in the minister's office for a year and 3 months. Um, how on earth do you explain that it looks like deliberate intentional refusal to do the minister's job and provide accountability to this
minister? One year and 3 months sitting on the minister's desk. >> Well, I I don't have the background to that to be able to answer you. >> Well, will you will you seek an explanation from the minister for it
sitting on the minister's desk? that >> and I'd ask the same about matters that have been matter a matter that's been for almost a year the department's done its bit given it to the minister on the 19th of March 2025 and again sitting on the minister's desk for almost a year how do you explain that >> and minister a series of questions about uh critical information that Home Affairs and the Minister knew about the Jural Caravan explosives event
sitting on the minister's desk, failing to just move it off the desk and send it to the to the secretariat for this committee since July of 2025. A matter of significant public interest. How do you explain failing to provide any of those answers the department since July 2025? >> Well, again, I'm happy to take that on notice. I would again make the point um that this minister, this department, and this minister's office have cleared and answered an unprecedented number of questions on notice um asked uh in this parliament. I gave you the figures before. Um the uh addition the the the special estimates that were held in December, nearly 2,000 questions on notice were asked, 1,965. I don't think that number has even come close in any other estimates hearing. It's nearly double the other highest number of questions on notice. And despite that, 1749 of those 9 1965 questions have been answered. Um, so as I say, um, this department, this minister, this minister's office do everything they can to respond as quickly as possible to questions on notice, but senators have a responsibility to think about whether the questions they're asking are actually necessary. Um, uh, because the them. >> Minister You can make those assertions about everything possible, but I point out the fact that the department has put an answer on the minister's desk in relation to asylum seekers being transferred to regional processing countries. They put it on the minister's desk on the 6th of December 2024. You can't possibly say it even comes close to everything possible to provide answers to the committee. 1 year, 3 months,
[clears throat] and I can't see how many days. >> I've taken that question on notice. Um, but to remind you, um, budget estimates 2425, 1,048 questions asked, 1,042 answered. Special budget estimates 2425 676 asked 666 answered and so it goes on with over 90% of questions on notice being answered over 90% of unprecedented numbers of questions on notice that were never asked in previous parliaments along with unprecedented numbers of OPDS along with unprecedented numbers of FOIs. Um and of course at the same time that people are critical of ministers and departments not answering questions on notice um they're also critical of
departments and ministers not doing other things. the more time we spend on in some cases frivolous, not necessarily the ones you're talking about, in some cases frivolous questions on notice, such as requests for pictures of IKEA furniture purchases for department offices or how many desks there are in departments and agencies or requesting publicly available information um about when agency heads were appointed and when their tenure ends. If keep people keep jamming up the system with those sorts of questions on notice, then it is going to take longer to answer ones that you might consider to be significant. Well, Minister, it's obviously a political choice if you want to answer
things about IKEA desks >> or about what this government knew about the jural incident, about what this government knows about the PE asylum seekers being transferred to third
countries and the matters of significant public interest that >> answers which have been sitting on your minister's desk for months or more than a year. And I'd ask you to provide um timely responses if you can to this. >> Well, we always do. Well, clearly not >> Senator She in 90% of the time. >> That concludes the questions we have for cross portfolio, corporate and general matters. Uh you are released. We'll take
a very short suspension while we welcome