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

I seek leave to speak again on the report.

Leave granted.

This report warrants a little airtime. It is a damning report by a government-controlled committee and, indeed, one of the parliament's oldest and most powerful committees. We have the ability to initiate our own inquiries with a strong tradition, in fact, of bipartisanship for over 110 years. Quite simply, this report slams the government's administration of the disability support pension. It is highly embarrassing for Minister Tudge and Minister Porter, as it again demonstrates their complete inability to manage their portfolios with fairness and integrity, and raises new questions about their futures.

However, the politics of this does not really matter, and is not the point. This report contains a serious and thoughtful series of recommendations which I hope the government will pick up; I really do. If the government swallows its pride, reads the report and agrees to these sensible changes, then it will improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who are on, or will apply for, the disability support pension—DSP—in coming years. The DSP provides support to permanently disabled Australians who are unable to work or are unable to work many hours and, on behalf of the committee, I thank everyone who took the time to submit. We do not usually get many submissions for this committee—it is an insider committee between senior bureaucrats and the Audit Office, if you like—but this time we were blown away because we got dozens and dozens of submissions from individuals as well as advocacy groups from around the country.

I will touch on the headline recommendations. No. 1 is a full end-to-end review. In light of numerous concerns raised throughout the inquiry which remain unaddressed, the committee has recommended that DHS and DSS conduct 'a complete end-to-end review of the administration of the entire DSP program'. There have simply been too many problems and concerns identified to tolerate the government's piecemeal, shambolic approach—the stuff-ups we have heard of, the bits and pieces, the band-aiding other bits in the process and this ad hoc approach to evaluating the impact of major policy and program changes, which is responsible for the expenditure of tens of billions of dollars in public funding. Government MPs and senators signed up to this recommendation for a full and transparent review.

There was a range of findings and, indeed, I think perhaps the strongest focus of the public hearings and submissions was around the targeting of the notorious DSP reviews that this government is conducting. The inquiry heard from many people who had been targeted—picked on—by the government's cruel, scattergun DSP reviews. We heard numerous reports from individuals and from agencies trying their best to represent these vulnerable people—Australians with severe and permanent intellectual, physical and psychological disabilities, with no capacity whatsoever to work. The case of Andrew Johnson in my electorate gained national media, which started much of this. Andrew is a profoundly disabled man who, I think, is in his early 30s and is living full-time in state residential care—he has lived in full-time care since he was a teenager. He is fed through a tube and is non-verbal, yet is being asked by Centrelink and the minister to prove his eligibility for the DSP with numerous medical appointments. So there is a clear recommendation in the report to improve the data sharing between federal governments and state and territory governments so that manifestly eligible and other severely disabled recipients like Andrew are excluded from the review.

I asked DHS in the hearing, why can they not just rule out people like this—walk around, for example—in state care? They waffle, waffle, waffle—it is all so hard with the data. There was a clear failure to cross check basic data within Centrelink and with state and territory governments which would stop these pointless reviews, save public money on wasteful reviews and wasted Medicare bills. The Commonwealth government in Victoria pays rent assistance for these people. They could get that data off the system. They could send someone to walk around and tick them off a list and say, 'Well you are not going to get better, are you? Let's not send you for a DSP review.' But it was all too hard.

It is not just bad administration though. The committee also found this is driven by government policy. Tens of thousands of these reviews are continuing in the budget just handed down by this government. The committee considers that better targeting of these reviews is a must by DHS. Of course if people do not meet the requirements for the DSP, they should not be paid. No-one disagrees with that. But DHS failed to provide adequate detail to the committee about its basis for targeting.

The committee more shockingly heard recent evidence of recent data which shows only 1.6 per cent of recipients subject to the scattergun 2016-17 reviews have been moved off the DSP. The government was anticipating 10 per cent of people would be kicked off the DSP to achieve its budget saving. So this raises the real possibility that these poorly targeted, costly reviews are actually costing the taxpayer more than they save. These reviews pick on vulnerable Australians and run up the Medicare bill to prove the bleeding obvious so we recommended—government senators and MPs signed up to this—that DHS publicly report the results, costs and benefits of an evaluation of the government's DSP reviews. The question I ask is: will the minister commit to this with no waffle, no equivocation, just fess up and agree to it?

We also asked if the government had considered the Medicare costs in devising these measures because they have to be included. Literally it costs hundreds of dollars to get specialist appointments to prove this stuff—'will not get better'. Have they done a cost-benefit assessment? The department admitted, well, yes there was a regulatory impact statement but then later the committee was told in supplementary answers that it was confidential and we cannot have it. The true cost to the government of undertaking the DSP reviews including the waste in Medicare to gather medical evidence remains a secret, and I call on the government to release the impact statement. What has the minister got to hide?

The committee also received dozens of submissions and heard evidence of the fear and anxiety caused by letters arriving in the post giving people 21 days to submit evidence or lose their DSP. There is clear evidence that 21 days is very often an insufficient time line to get medical specialist reports. Who can get a medical specialist appointment within 21 days for complex neural and psychological disorders and satisfy Centrelink, particularly as the committee found, if you live in a regional and remote area where there are no specialists? So what does this mean? It takes longer to get a letter; it takes longer to get a specialist appointment. The department said, well, anyone can ask for an extension and they will get it. But this seems stupid. We had 42 million unanswered calls in the last year to Centrelink and tens of thousands of those are from people on the DSP, freaked out by these letters ringing the department to say, 'Please give me more time.' It seems a pretty simple way to cut the volumes of calls so the recommendation is that the government must consider increasing the time given for clients to provide documentation as 21 days is totally inadequate in thousands of cases.

The most bizarre moment, if I could pick a most bizarre moment of the hearing, was when I asked what I thought was a clear, up-front let's-just-start-easy moment to a senior DHS official, a deputy secretary. I asked would the deputy secretary agree that Down Syndrome is not going to be cured? I thought this was an easy one. She said 'no'. No, she could not give me that assurance. I said, 'But surely you would agree it is not going to be cured?' She said, 'I would not be so arrogant; I am not a medical practitioner.' She was a bureaucrat so she could not say that Down Syndrome would not be cured. Everyone knows it is a genetic disorder, and we heard numerous reports of letters being sent—stupid letters—asking people to go to a medical doctor and prove that their Down Syndrome had not been cured. And so the committee made a recommendation to review the list of conditions which provide eligibility for the so-called 'manifest automatic grants of the DSP', particularly chromosomal disorders such as Down Syndrome, which obviously will not be cured. Down Syndrome Australia has strongly advocated for this, welcomed the report and agreed with the need for more targeting. Obviously a small percentage of people with Down Syndrome work and want to work and are supported to do so, but I have been told there is not one person with Down Syndrome in Australia working full-time in the open employment market through a competitive process. There must be a more efficient way to do this.

The final point I want to make is about—there is a lot more, but time does not permit—significant concern regarding the government's latest changes to assessment processes for new applicants. People with some familiarity over the years with the system would remember the 'treating doctor's report'. It was very clear what you needed to provide: a very long complex report gave the right information. The government has changed that; now you just provide your raw medical evidence, and someone—who is not a medical practitioner but a bureaucrat or an allied health professional—will have a look at it and say yes or no. And it is only if you get recommended for the DSP that your case will then go to a medical doctor to try and knock a few more off. We heard of a range of problems that arose from this.

To be fair, the system is only about 18 months old, verging on two years old, but we have made a clear recommendation—given the concerns we have heard about, including the wasted costs of pointless appeals, which just run up bureaucrats' time and lawyers' time, and traumatise people who then get the DSP—to just undertake a transparent review, with input from independent experts and stakeholders, of these changes. If it is working, then have the evidence out there and listen to the experts. If it is not, make some changes.

We heard about poor communication, poor performance, deteriorating performance and increasing time lines. In closing, I would say that so much of the stress is because of the sustained and ongoing cuts to Centrelink and DHS by this government. The staff are doing the best they can, yet in this budget we saw the start of the privatisation of Centrelink, with 250 jobs going to an unnamed call centre and another 1,200 jobs—

Government members interjecting—

Read your budget papers. This must be stopped.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to commence by commending my colleague and friend, the member for Bruce, and also the Deputy Chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, who conducted the inquiry into the Auditor-General's report, for the work that he did on that committee.

The disability support pension is a vital part of our welfare safety net, to provide support for permanently disabled Australians who are unable to work or unable to work very many hours. Unfortunately, it has become a mountain too high to climb for many Australians. This report has highlighted many issues raised through the inquiry. I wholeheartedly support the committee's recommendation for a complete review of the administration of the disability support pension from go to whoa. It really is needed.

This inquiry focused on the reviews of the DSP, the government's 'scattergun'—as we have heard—approach to try and get some people off the DSP and back to work. These reviews appear to have been very poorly targeted, very costly and not very successful. Only 1.6 per cent of people who were reviewed were actually moved off the DSP. What was the point? The problems go way beyond just the review process itself. There are problems with the way the DSP is assessed and administered that cause Australians no end of heartache. And it is not just the incredible amount of time it takes; it is the insurmountable hurdles that people have to jump to prove they are eligible. It is the apparent disregard for their welfare and for the medical expertise of their treating doctors. And it is heartbreaking, completely demoralising.

My office has been helping several people trying to navigate the DSP process. Sometimes it is like hitting your head against a brick wall: it might be nice when you stop, but unfortunately these people cannot stop. They are desperate for help. We all understand there have to be evaluations and assessments and there have to be limits for eligibility, but these evaluations and assessments seem to be completely out of step with the reality of the lives many ordinary Australians seeking this important safety net are trying to lead.

I will give you one example. My office has been helping a fellow called Alex. Alex can barely walk—and I mean that. He does not just have a limp. He needs to be helped to take even the smallest, slowest steps and he struggles to sit down and stand up again. He is 62, and until five years ago he was a bus driver. In his words, his knees are completely stuffed. In the past five years, he has had both knees replaced and required revision surgery because of complications. In his left knee, he has pain and stiffness because of, in the words of his doctor, the failure of the knee implant itself. In his right knee he has pain, stiffness and instability because of the failure of the knee implant, because of the massive and complicated infection that followed and because he has also endured upper limb deep vein thrombosis because of the intravenous catheter that was used to treat the infections.

In his report his doctor writes that the symptoms in both knees are 'ongoing and permanent' and require Alex to take analgesics indefinitely. It advises that Alex is in need of help for domestic tasks, gardening, cleaning and cooking, and that these requirements will be lifelong. The doctor writes that there are no further surgeries planned for either knee despite the fact that there is a 25 per cent chance that one or both knees will fail again. If he does require additional surgeries they will be 'more complex, expensive and risky' as a result of previous failures. Alex is facing amputations. Currently, his doctor writes, he is not fit to work as a bus driver and not fit to perform any type of work at all. He writes, 'This will be ongoing and permanent.' It does not get much clearer than that.

Alex's disabilities, caused by botched knee surgeries, failed implants and the subsequent complications have now been going on for five years, and they are not going away. The doctor does not plan to do any more surgery. Alex's injuries are ongoing and permanent. Yet does he qualify for the disability support pension? No, he does not qualify.

Doctors do differ in opinion, and Alex accepts that. But the second doctor who assessed Alex for the DSP did so in a half-hour interview over the phone. That is right—on the phone. So this pain, this weakness, this stiffness and this instability that Alex now lives with, has lived with for five years and will live with forever was assessed in half an hour over the phone. For Alex, that was the most galling part—that the DSP assessors did not even conduct a face-to-face interview with him, let alone a thorough medical examination.

Alex appealed the decision and was rejected again. My office has made a representation on his behalf to the Minister for Human Services and a departmental liaison officer reiterated the rejection. Here is the rationale for the rejection: although Alex's medical condition was 'considered to be permanently and fully diagnosed', it was not considered to be 'fully treated and stabilised'. Not fully treated and stabilised. This fellow, who has had both knees effectively replaced twice and has endured infections and complications that have left him barely able to walk and with very little likelihood of being able to endure any further surgeries has been deemed not fully treated and stabilised. It beggars belief.

He is not the only one; it is a common story. It is the unholy trifecta or the catch-22—or potentially catch-33, if you like, seeing as there are three elements. To qualify for the DSP you have to have a permanent disability fully diagnosed and fully treated. Apparently, Alex has not been fully treated. This is after half an hour on the phone and contrary to what his treating doctor of several years has said.

This report has highlighted some of the problems with the DSP, but it has barely scratched the surface. A complete review is sorely needed. We need to challenge the assumption that a half-hour phone interview is enough to diagnose a complex medical impairment. We need to challenge the assumption that 21 days is enough time to get a specialist's report when we patently know that it is not. It is just ridiculous. We need to challenge the assumption that a punitive scattergun approach to flushing out people who could be working when they are not is offensive, insulting and damaging to many ordinary Australians. It is not good enough that a treating doctor's report is replaced with a phone assessment by a bureaucrat—it really is not. It is not good enough that people already under stress are given review deadlines they have no hope of meeting because they simply cannot get to see a specialist. Data must be shared between federal and state departments so that manifestly eligible recipients are not targeted for reviews. This would save time, energy and the most precious budget.

This government must not pick on vulnerable Australians and run up unnecessary medical bills and Medicare bills to prove the bleeding obvious. This government must better resource Centrelink so that fewer mistakes are made and fewer appeals are needed, and so that people have somewhere and someone they can actually go to for help and talk to. The delivery of the DSP must be done in a committed and transparent way and evaluations must not be ad hoc or over the top and on the hop.

The committee heard evidence of DSP eligibility reviews being conducted on Australians with severe and permanent intellectual, physical and psychological disabilities with no capacity whatsoever to work. Imagine what that does to them and their loved ones. Labor supports efforts to help people with a disability find work and no-one wants to see the system rorted, but this government is going about it completely the wrong way. These reviews have been cruel and unfair. The whole process, actually, seems to be cruel and unfair and not particularly efficient, thoughtful or smart at all. Surely this can be run better. This is a terrible indictment of the minister. I endorse the committee's recommendation that the Department of Social Services and the Department of Human Services conduct a complete end-to-end review of the administration of the DSP. It is well overdue.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak about this report. I commend my two colleagues the member for Bruce and the member for Paterson for their contributions in outlining some of the flaws in Centrelink eligibility for the DSP. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit's inquiry into Commonwealth risk management was based on the Auditor-General's report Qualifying for the disability support pension. This report and its recommendations have been put together by a government committee, and I have to say, from what we have heard from the other speakers and from what I have heard and read in this report, it does not paint a pretty picture. But let's be honest: when you look at the Turnbull government's track record when it comes to Centrelink, it is not exactly glowing. Since the election, we have seen Minister Tudge and Minister Porter preside over one scandal after another—and I will go through them very quickly. There was the robo-debt fiasco, which is still continuing, the leaking of private information from Centrelink, the blowout in Centrelink call waiting times, continuing efforts, as we have heard, to cut pensioners' allowances, 5,000 jobs being cut from the DHS workforce and staff having gone three years without a pay rise. When you take away 5,000 people over the last few years from a department, the pressure on staff is enormous, and they do the best they can under the conditions that they are working in.

This is a further damning report, which again raises questions about the competence of this government to manage Centrelink and the services provided to our most vulnerable citizens. Here we are, nitpicking with some of the most vulnerable people in this country, while at the same time we give glowing praise for a $65 billion tax cut to the top end of town. These are people who are the most vulnerable in our society—people who have severe disabilities, who have gone through workplace accidents or motor accidents and who have been born with ailments. These are the people we should be doing everything we can to assist and make their lives a little bit easier, not nitpicking and trying to get them off the system so we can save a few dollars.

The disability support pension provides support to permanently disabled Australians who are unable to work or unable to work many hours. The DSP is a lifeline to people who are often facing enormously difficult situations. I have heard from many constituents in my electorate who are frustrated by the rejections and by having to jump through hoops, being made to feel like they have no need for the DSP; yet these people are ill. I have spoken to them and seen them. They are disabled and, in some cases, will never be able to work again. I will come back to these constituents in a minute.

I highlight the fact that this inquiry raised a number of concerns. These concerns still remain unaddressed by the government. The committee recommended, for example, that the Department of Social Services and the Department of Human Services conduct a complete end-to-end review of the administration of the entire DSP program. Recent data showed that only 1.6 per cent of the recipients subject to the scattergun approach in the 2016 and 2017 reviews have been moved from the DSP. That is a minute little amount—1.6 per cent. This raises a question. It raises the possibility that poorly targeted, costly reviews are actually costing the taxpayer more than they are saving by doing this nitpicking with some of the most vulnerable people in Australia.

The committee also found that the time to complete assessments and reviews has increased. I go back to the DHS cuts to the workforce. Obviously, this has an enormous effect on people and waiting times, leaving people hanging in uncertainty for lengthy times, for months on end in some cases.

The report recommended reviewing the eligibility conditions for the DSP, particularly for the chromosomal disorders such as Down syndrome, about which we heard from the member for Bruce, who spoke very well about it earlier. He was saying that a lot of these people will never, ever be able to work, and here we are putting pressure on people with Down syndrome.

It also recommended improving data sharing between the federal departments and state and territory governments so that the eligible and other severely disabled recipients could be excluded from different reviews et cetera. It recommended undertaking 'a transparent review', including input from independent experts and stakeholders, of the government's recent changes to the DSP assessment process and also considering increasing the time given for clients under review to provide documentation. As we heard, 21 days has proven to be totally inadequate when it comes to doctors' reports, for example. Sometimes we see people waiting for three months before they see a specialist, let alone 21 days, and especially in the public system.

These are some of the things that we have been hearing. I will highlight some of the cases in my electorate of how this system is failing vulnerable Australians. One of my constituents came to me very frustrated over having been rejected for a DSP despite suffering from a long-term chronic medical condition, including severe osteoarthritis in the hands and knees—he had a knee replacement—and a degenerative disease of the lumbar spine, amongst other ailments. Just looking at this gentleman, you could see that he was in excruciating pain. Despite medical practitioners confirming that he is unable to work as a result of these conditions and will never work—that was the medical practitioners' report—he was refused a DSP. My constituent thought that the entire process was unnecessarily long and challenging and has resulted in a great deal of stress, and the stress has added to his ill health.

Another constituent came to me incredibly stressed and frustrated for his son. He came to see me on behalf of his son, who has been rejected for a DSP. His son was involved in an accident which left him with severe physical disabilities. In fact, at the time they thought he would never walk again. It has also contributed to his mental health issues. Advice provided by the treating hospital absolutely confirms that the problems with his back and leg are degenerative and permanent and will become worse over time. He is in excruciating pain. He is on painkillers. He is unable to work or stand for long periods, and he is on antidepressants as well. Despite overwhelming expert advice from medical doctors—not a bureaucrat—my constituent is not eligible for the DSP. He has been denied repeatedly. This is compounding the already significant health and psychological problems that he has.

Another constituent came to me in desperation. Following a workplace injury, this constituent was unable to work and was confined to her home. This constituent was a waiter in a hotel. The trapdoor was left open. She turned around, walked back and went straight down into the cellar. She went into hospital and they operated on her spine—again, another one who basically did not walk for months and months.

The interesting thing about this is that, going back a few years, this particular constituent was granted a DSP because of this workplace accident. Her husband then increased the bonuses or something with his workplace, earning more money; therefore she was cut off the DSP, which is fair enough, because the income was fairly high. He is now retired. There is no income. She has gone back, and they have refused her. After her being on a DSP, being eligible and on a pension, being considered to be severely disabled, now they are refusing to give her a pension and saying, 'Go out and look for work.' She can hardly walk, let alone work. Most of her time is spent managing her pain. This particular constituent went from being a strong, productive employee who had worked most of her life as a waiter in pubs around Adelaide to someone dealing with constant, unrelenting pain. This constituent, the second time round, did not qualify for the DSP.

There are countless such stories, and I know that we on this side of the House will continue to fight for those vulnerable people—for people with disabilities, people who are at the bottom of the ladder when it comes to income and when it comes to their lives. We are very lucky to have our health, to be able to walk, to be able to work. There are people out there who, through no fault of their own—through accidents and ill health—do not have that ability.

As I said, our duty as members of parliament is to look at how we can make people's lives better, not worse. What the current government are doing with these DSP guidelines is making people's lives much harder, adding to their health issues and adding to the problems they have. This should be stopped. Like the member for Bruce, I would like to see the impact statement. Why won't the government release the impact statement? If there is nothing to hide, they should show it to us. We need to do what we can. The government are a truly heartless government, and incompetent.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am probably more sad than anything else to be speaking to the motion on this report, which is before the chamber. I want to heartily endorse the comments made by my colleagues the member for Bruce, the member for Paterson and, just prior to me, the member for Hindmarsh in talking about how significant the issues raised in this report are.

A truth that many of us should keep at the forefront of our minds is the sentiment—I do not remember the exact quote—that a society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable. It is something I believe should lead the principles with which we—both those of us in this parliament and those who hold an executive position in the government—approach public service. This report tells us very clearly that there has been a significant failure—in particular, in this case, by the relevant ministers—to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our community. My colleagues outlined many examples of the difficulties and challenges these people are already dealing with in their lives, particularly those who have a disability—whether they were born with that disability; whether they acquired it through one of a variety of unfortunate circumstances, such as a car accident or a workplace accident; or whether it was the result of some form of illness or a required medical intervention that then had a traumatic impact on them. These people are already dealing with challenges in their lives, and they are seeking to have quality and dignity in their lives. They should have no doubt that in our community they have every right to expect dignity and respect. That means that when, as a government, we engage with people we should do it in a way that sustains dignity and respect, not in a way that not only takes away dignity and respect but adds to the trauma and difficulty they are experiencing in their lives.

The report before this chamber, the report of the inquiry of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit into the Auditor-General's report 18 of 2015-16, titled Qualifying for the disability support pension, is sadly a very damning report—and, I might say, by a government controlled committee. It raises very serious questions for both the relevant ministers, Minister Tudge and Minister Porter, about how their departments' interactions with these very vulnerable people are managed and how both fairness and integrity are sustained in that process. We should not forget that the disability support pension is there because we expect it to provide support to people who are permanently disabled Australians, who are unable to work or unable to work for very many hours.

There were numerous concerns raised throughout the inquiry, and they still remain unaddressed. The committee has recommended that both the Department of Social Services and the Department of Human Services conduct a complete end-to-end review of the administration of the entire DSP program. It is recommended that the DHS publicly report the results, the costs and benefits of the government's DSP evaluations. I think my colleague the member the Hindmarsh outlined that recent data shows that only 1.6 per cent of the recipients who have been subjected to what was a very scattergun review through 2016 have actually been moved off the DSP. And that does not measure the effects on so many others put through that process, who got through the process despite being under extraordinary pressure and having unreasonable demands on their time, on their resources to be able to do that—all for a saving of 1.6 per cent of recipient receipts. So this is a very significant report, and it should be given very, very serious consideration.

The committee itself received dozens of submissions and heard significant amounts of evidence. I want to highlight some issues that I understand my colleague the member for Bruce has also outlined. Twenty-one days is an insufficient time frame to obtain medical specialist reports and provide documents. I do not know how many of those who devised such a time frame actually have experienced the reality of trying to get access to specialists—let us not even go into the out-of-pocket costs that you are now increasingly subjected to from that process as a result of some other changes made by this government—but 21 days was just an unreasonable and insufficient time. The reviews were also very poorly targeted, and the vulnerable Australians who were targeted by them consistently ran up Medicare bills—and, as I said, increasingly higher Medicare bills as we have seen the rollback of the support given to people financially as out-of-pocket costs go up.

Communication was appalling. It resulted in wrong decisions, that, of course, then led to very costly, very time consuming and, I have to say, very stressful appeals having to be undertaken. There were the increases in the time taken to complete those assessments and reviews, and the failure to crosscheck basic data within Centrelink with the state and territory governments that would have stopped pointless reviews of profoundly disabled people living in 24-hour state-based residential care. There was a serious lack of publicly available data regarding DSP service delivery and performance, and an ad hoc approach to evaluating the effectiveness of significant program and policy changes. These are all really significant and important issues to be raised in terms of how we treat very vulnerable people. I just want to add in the time left to me that this is, sadly, a reflection of a broader approach by this government and these ministers towards people who need support in our community.

I know there was some evidence around the robo-debt debacle that was also inflicted on many of these people and on people more broadly, and, as I understand it, is about to be rolled out onto a whole lot more very soon. In my area, I had representation from Kerrie from Mount Keira. She became a widow in 2013, and her three young children lost their father. Four weeks before Christmas, she received a letter saying she owed more than $4,000 for payments received in the 2013-14 financial year. She was very distressed because she had painstakingly, through her grief, done everything to ensure she was correctly claiming her payments following her husband's death. She was sent this letter in error, and had to spend many hours trying to get through to Centrelink while also working full time, studying and raising her children. It turns out it was an administrative malfunction in the Centrelink app that led to an overpayment as Centrelink had not processed the pay slips that Kerrie had provided. This led to the overpayment. The debt was subsequently halved.

Murray of Warrawong was working as a part-time truck driver due to poor health. He reported his earnings as required and retained an accountant to lodge his tax returns to make sure he was doing the right thing. He was also sent a debt letter asking him to provide documentation. He had begun working full time part way through the year—a good thing, but he certainly paid the price. He had to take time off work and contact previous employers to get the required paperwork as he did not have his pay slips. He also received a second letter regarding the 2015-16 year. It took a 90-minute phone call to sort it out. He particularly said to me that, given the government is giving big business a tax cut, he felt this process made it even worse for him.

Sue of Wollongong is a contract worker who correctly reported her earnings at the time and yet received a debt letter for more than $5,000 for a time when she had had three employers. Centrelink did not have her updated address, so, of course, she was one of those who ended up with a debt collector chasing her. She could obtain pay slips from two of the three employers, but the third had a problem with their system.

I do not want to forget John from Warrawong who is a 62-year-old Santa. He also received a debt letter from the government. These people, each and every one, are just a sample of the people in my community who were doing the right thing and were treated with great disrespect by that appalling robo-debt debacle. (Time expired)

Ross Hart (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 10 June 1908 the newly formed Commonwealth parliament passed the Invalid and Old-Age Pensions Act. The legislation was groundbreaking. Prior to that the elderly or infirm received no financial support and their care fell to family, religious and charitable institutions, or government asylums. Life in such institutions was often far from easy. From 1910 the invalid pension was available to people aged 16 and over who were not receiving the age pension and who were permanently incapacitated for work.

Over the last century, Australia has seen a slow evolution of policy for people with a disability. That evolution took an important step in the 1980s. Ultimately, the informed consensus was that people with disability should be assisted to establish patterns of life that were close to, or the same as, those of society more generally. In 1983, Labor moved to adopt this principle with the result that public policy reflected a more inclusive approach to service provision, encompassing integration and access to mainstream services. The findings from the subsequent review in 1985 revealed that persons with disability wanted to more fully participate and be a part of the mainstream community.

Labor accepts that we all look to belong and contribute to our society. In my first speech in the parliament I spoke about social isolation. I said:

The long-term unemployed suffer in many ways which are difficult to comprehend … a person experiencing long-term unemployment is highly likely to lose their support networks, which are vital for their continued participation in community life.

The evidence is overwhelming that all people want to contribute to the best of their ability, and this has been made evident in the culmination of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. But this divisive government seeks to demonise the most vulnerable Australians in our society. In the name of ensuring administrative efficiency of the expenditure of the Commonwealth, this government has proceeded in a manner which cannot in any way be described as 'efficient' to demonise and marginalise those vulnerable and disabled within our community.

As is stated in the executive summary of this report, the DSP is a complex program providing billions of dollars of support for hundreds of thousands of individuals each year, and has been operating for several decades. Effective risk management is therefore vital to ensure administrative efficiency, and that the budget pressures are balanced against the burdens placed on individual claimants and recipients. This report, however, raises new questions about the ability of this government to manage important portfolios with fairness and integrity.

The relevant ministers responsible for the Department of Social Services and the Department of Human Services bear responsibility for yet more bungling and insensitivity with respect to these portfolios. The final report of the JCPAA inquiry into the Auditor-General's report, Qualifying for the disability support pension, is a damning report. It is so significant that the committee has recommended that it is necessary for there to be an end-to-end review of the administration of the disability support pension program, involving consultation and engagement with stakeholders. The review system appears to have been so poorly undertaken that the committee has recommended that the departments of social services and human services undertake and publicly report the outcomes from an evaluation of the reviews of recipients under 35 years of age.

The committee was particularly critical of a failure to properly target those who were the subject of review. It is outrageous that it is even necessary for the committee to recommend the review of the list 1 conditions that provide eligibility for manifest grants of the disability support pension. The fact is that this committee found it necessary for particular attention to be given to the merits of including chromosomal disorders, such as Down syndrome, on list 1. It is necessary for me to elaborate as to the extent of the incompetence that has been uncovered and exposed as a part of the audit and the subsequent inquiry. The public inquiry highlighted that long-term recipients of the DSP, even, remarkably those who suffered—

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed on a future day.