Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Budgets, as we know, are about choices and priorities but I think it is also fair to say they carry with them an expectation of efficient and effective administration. There have been disturbing and growing questions in the last week about the government's welfare crackdown and approach to the disability support pension reviews arising from this budget measure. Both ministers, as it turns out, are aware of the case of Andrew Johnson, one of my constituents, who we have discussed through the media and in question time and here. Two things arise. In relation to the actual review under this budget measure, it is unclear on what basis, how and by whom these decisions are being made. It requires answers, as Minister Porter's advice to the House of Representatives yesterday does not appear correct. Yesterday the Minister for Social Services advised the House:

Upon receiving the letter, information was received from Andrew's mother and … the matter came to an end …

But, straight after question time, I received a call from Andrew's mother. Andrew's mother had not and still has not provided the information from specialists treating Andrew's conditions to Centrelink. In fact, she received a call out of the blue last Thursday from a Centrelink officer, after the media inquiries came to The Age, who told her that the review was completed. She asked the Centrelink officer, 'How can the review be completed, because I have not provided the medical evidence which I spent the last two or three weeks of my life gathering, and hours of time waiting for four specialists'—the specialists who are responsible and capable of providing the expert advice in relation to the disabilities which warrant Andrew's disability pension. She said to the Centrelink officer that she had it assembled and she was bringing it in on the Friday, but was told on Thursday by the Centrelink officer it just would not be needed because the review was complete. So who is right—the minister or the mother?

On what basis was this decision made, and should everyone in Australia with a severe disability go to the media and the minister? Further, Mrs Johnson was also told by the Centrelink officer she could expect further reviews into Andrew and her other son, Will, yet later that day I understand Minister Tudge told The Age's journalist that there would be no further reviews into Andrew or Will. I could have that wrong and I am happy to have it corrected. On what basis, then, was that decision made given Will's review had not even started? Further, general questions arise, in relation to this review, which go to all Australians on the disability support pension. The question I put is: why was the review conducted and under what policy direction? Yesterday the Minister for Social Services again told the House the government was 'looking at all those people in the system under 35 to ensure that those people in the disability support pension system are properly assessed for that.'

The government's budget measure from 2014-15, at page 196, states that reviews would apply to DSP recipients aged under 35 who were granted the DSP between 2008 and 2011, and that recipients granted the DSP before 1 January 2008 would be exempt. The 2016-17 budget papers, of course, announced a much greater expansion of reviews, in this welfare crackdown—in fact, 90,000 reviews plus up to 30,000 disability medical assessments for current DSP recipients to be considered at a high risk of not being eligible for the payment. Questions then arise: who are the 90,000 who are being reviewed, and in relation to the 30,000 who are undertaking or experiencing medical assessments, how is 'high risk', to quote the budget papers, determined for them? If it is government policy, as we have learned, that everyone under 35 is going to be reviewed and can expect that letter to turn up telling them to race off to the doctor, running up Medicare bills to tell Centrelink what they should already know, does that mean that everyone under 35 with Down syndrome in Australia will get a review letter to check if they have grown out of it? Indeed, a constituent contacted me in relation to this and she was incredibly distressed because she does not consider there is anything medically wrong with her son—he simply has Down syndrome. She does not have any medical records to prove this except for his annual vaccinations. She is now going to have to truck off to the doctor to prove that he is not going to be cured.

Other questions are: how are they protecting the manifestly disabled like Andrew; under what policy direction are these reviews happening; when can vulnerable Australians expect their letters; and due to the costs of the review mentioned in the budget papers do these costs factor in the cost to Medicare of people getting pointless letters to confirm that these conditions cannot be cured?

The other question that is raised as a matter of governance—it is good that we have both ministers here—is who is in charge of this? I thought, rightly, that Centrelink was administered by the Minister for Human Services, so we write to him. The Prime Minister waffled on for a minute or so—a minute was short for a waffle—and then pointed at another minister who got up and talked about something that obviously he did not know about, because another minister had already been commenting to the paper. When you read the Auditor-General's reports, these are serious issues—I get policy, I get delivery but it is unclear who is in charge. We will talk about references to call wait times in the Auditor-General's report at another time. I am curious to know whether those stats include hang-ups.

See this speech in context