Chapter 3
Social Services Portfolio
Department of Social Services
3.1
This chapter outlines key issues discussed during the 2013-2014 additional
estimates hearings for the Department of Social Services Portfolio.
3.2
The committee heard evidence from the department on Thursday 27 February
2014. Areas of the portfolio were called in the following order:
- Cross Portfolio/Corporate Matters;
- Seniors;
- Disability and Carers;
- National Disability Insurance Agency;
-
Aged Care and Population Ageing;
-
Aged Care Pricing Commissioner;
-
Housing and Homelessness;
-
Families;
- Australian Institute of Family Studies;
- Disability Employment Services and Working Age and Student
Payments;
- Women;
- Community Capability and the Vulnerable;
- Settlement Services; and
- Multicultural Affairs.
Cross Portfolio/Corporate Matters
3.3
Proceedings commenced with Senator Moore leading an inquiry into the
welfare reform review (the McClure Review) with questions regarding the terms
of reference, membership of the McClure review team and approaches to
consultation. The Department Secretary, Mr Pratt confirmed that draft terms of
reference have not yet been publicly released. He described four pillars for reform
around building individual and family capabilities, engaging with business,
building community capacity and a simpler and sustainable income support
system. Mr Pratt told the committee that the focus of the review at this stage
was on working-age payments, rather than the aged pension or the family tax
benefit.[2]
A number of less substantial payments, such as the Disability Support Pension
(DSP), might be considered depending on its impact on workforce participation.
Mr Pratt outlined some other processes underway that could potentially interact
with the McClure review, including the government's Commission of Audit.
3.4
The committee heard the review team is being led by three core public
figures – Patrick McLure, Wesley Aird and Sally Sinclair – supported by a
team of 14 departmental officers. The Department confirmed no formal
consultation process had been established, but that approximately thirty
consultations had taken place by invitation only[3],
to help start framing the thinking of the McClure review team.[4]
The organisations consulted included a mixture of business, peak community
organisations, academics and specialists.[5]
On whether consumers of these welfare payments would be approached, Mr Pratt
suggested that at the moment the McClure review is largely internal to
government but this would be considered if it became a public process.[6]
Other topics discussed included the cost of the McClure review, and whether the
standard principles of indexation and maintaining welfare parity with cost of
living changes have been taken into account.[7]
In response to a question about whether people on current payments would be
'worse off'[8]
as a result of the review, Minister Fifield described the objective as being to
support people into work and ensure our welfare system is on a sustainable
footing; 'the objective is not to be punitive'.[9]
3.5
Senator Siewert asked whether there had been any discussions by the
Department and the government on increasing the retirement age. Mr Pratt
acknowledged that the aged pension is an area the Department engages in an
ongoing dialogue with the government.[10]
3.6
Senator Seselja asked whether the Department intended to remain based in
Tuggeranong in southern Canberra. The Department replied it had received nine
proposals for accommodation, which were currently being considered, with a
decision expected to be taken prior to the budget.[11]
3.7
Senator Seselja inquired about costs incurred by the failure to have the
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 passed last year. The
Department estimated delayed revenue was in the vicinity of $1 billion.[12]
3.8
Senator Seselja also asked what measures the Department had taken to
meet its target of reducing staff by approximately 250 to 300 employees by the
end of the 2013 – 2014 financial year. The Department informed the committee
that it still needed to reduce staffing levels by 150 employees to meet that
target and had approached the government for additional funds to manage those
staff reductions. However, Mr Pratt warned that the complex machinery of
government changes meant it was difficult to neatly compare the movement in
headcount between the former Department of Families, Communities, Housing and
Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) and the new Department of Social Services.[13]
The Department confirmed it had engaged significantly fewer contractors and
non-ongoing staff.[14]
3.9
Senator McLucas was told that a total of 1,221 people from the former
Department of Health and Ageing had transferred to the Department of Social
Services. The Department explained it had policy responsibility for dementia
under the Aged Care portfolio, while the Department of Health retained core
responsibility for palliative care. Senator McLucas inquired about formal
arrangements for collaboration between DSS and Health, particularly on clinical
issues. DSS responded it intended to have a formal discussion between senior
staff shortly.[15]
Minister Fifield acknowledged there are shared interests for these two policy
areas with Minister Dutton, and discussed measures his office took to ensure
proper consultation occurred.[16]
Senator McLucas also inquired into the total cost of the machinery of
government changes for Aged Care, and to what extent this might impact on
services delivered.[17]
Mr Pratt confirmed that the costs are primarily incurred by the corporate part
of the Department and did not expect any impact on actual servicing.[18]
3.10
Senator Moore requested an update on the grants management system
(FOFMS), and was informed that most grants would be updated on the system by
1 July 2014, including those within the aged care, settlement services and
multicultural affairs portfolios.[19]
Seniors
3.11
Senator Brown requested information from the Department on what material
had been covered in its meetings with the Commission of Audit, especially in
relation to the aged pension. Mr Pratt responded that much of the discussions
fell into the realm of deliberative matters, but indicated that consideration
had been given to efficiency proposals, removing duplication, and
Commonwealth-state arrangements.[21]
Without referring to any specific payments or programs, the Department indicated
it had provided information on expenditure, participation, recipients of
supports and assistance.[22]
The Department took on notice a question of how many people access the age
pension broken down by age bracket, gender and state and territory.[23]
Senator Moore also expressed interest in accessing information on the mobility
of age pension recipients.[24]
3.12
Senator Siewert inquired into the boundaries between the age pension and
the disability support pension (DSP) [25],
and in particular the issue of ineligibility for the DSP for people developing
a condition, such as deafblindness, over the age of 65.[26]
The Department indicated any overlap in payments could now be more effectively
handled as responsibility for both was now held by DSS. The Department's
priority is to ensure a new departmental structure consistent with its outcomes
to enable better analysis of cross-payment issues.[27]
The committee raised concerns about an apparently lower level of support
offered by states to recipients of the age pension, as opposed to the DSP.[28]
Disability and Carers
3.13
The Department told the committee that there are currently no new grant
funding rounds open within the disability and carers area[30],
or anywhere else in the Department[31].
It did confirm the Department's website as the central source of information
relating to current grants, and those funded in the previous two years.[32]
National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA)
3.14
Senator McLucas asked questions of the Department and the National
Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) relating to changes to the National Disability
Insurance Scheme (NDIS) since the election. The Deputy Secretary, Ms Wilson
confirmed that no changes had occurred to the policy parameters of the scheme,
but that continuous improvements were being implemented as a result of trial
site experiences.[34]
The Group Manager, Dr Hartland noted there had been a focus on quality, Tier 2
and workforce and sector development.[35]
Minister Fifield confirmed there had been no changes to the budget or funding
envelope position.[36]
3.15
The committee heard that COAG had requested the COAG Ministerial Council
on Disability Reform to report back in March 2014 on a range of issues, and
cost drivers in particular.[37]
Ms Wilson spoke about the importance of getting good individualised data and
the CEO of the NDIA, Mr Bowen, commented on a number of changes as a result of
a review of the process and operating guidelines.[38]
3.16
A discussion occurred about differences in first and second quarter
results, and Senator McLucas asked Minister Fifield whether envisaged a cap on
supports, to which he replied he did not.[39]
Minister Fifield also explained the role of the NDIS Board as his prime source
of advice on whether milestones could be achieved.[40]
Senator Smith made reference to a reduction in some of the higher costs of
packages from 30 per cent to 15 per cent and the fall in cost of individual
average plans from $46,290 to $40,466 between first and second quarter results.
Mr Bowen stated he would not draw too many conclusions on the variations as
they were more likely a factor of the phasing schedule.[41]
3.17
Mr Bowen noted some changes implemented since 6 January 2014 included
the use of section 55 notices to speed up access, and the holding of NDIS
readiness workshops to assist people in considering plan options prior to their
individual meeting.[42]
In response to a high number of access requests being driven by people whose
support needs are best met in another system, further detail around eligibility
and the determination of 'reasonable' and 'necessary' has been added to the
operational guidelines.[43]
Mr Bowen mentioned work around establishing an evidence base for what leads to
good outcomes, and research projects underway.[44]
3.18
A key aspect of the successful delivery of the NDIS will be to manage
and meet the public's expectations in terms of adequate supports for
participants while keeping scheme costs under control. Senator Smith asked
about any 'expectation gaps' within the community. Mr Bowen cited the gap was a
function of behaviour driven by how people previously had to access disability
services but that attitudes are slowly changing.[45]
3.19
Further topics of discussion included the need for mainstream housing
efforts to continue outside of the NDIS,[46]
discrepancies in numbers found in the bilateral agreements and the Scheme
Actuary's analysis,[47]
and support available for people deemed ineligible for the NDIS.[48]
Senator Siewert inquired into progress being made in WA, and Dr Hartland
confirmed the intergovernmental agreements were close to finalisation for the
establishment of the trial later this year.[49]
Senator Seselja had questions in relation to the ACT trial site. The committee
was informed it would be based on learnings from other trial sites, including
the best way to bring people into the scheme, whether by age, provider or
another denominator.[50]
3.20
Senator Moore inquired into what reviews had been commissioned by the
government, DSS or NDIA. Mr Bowen discussed the Boston Consulting Group review
on efficient delivery of the core and critical functions of the NDIA. A Board
initiated capability review by Mr Jeff Whalan, Dr Jeff Harmer and Mr Peter
Anston, had delivered its completed report to the Board for consideration.[51]
He also noted a review on mitigation strategies around full scheme transition
that was soon to commence.[52]
Ms Wilson made reference to the independent KPMG review commissioned by the
Department to look at cost drivers and plan completion, as well as work on
readiness for the next trials[53].
The Department and the NDIA took several questions on notice related to funding
and terms of reference for these reviews.[54]
3.21
Senator Smith asked for clarification of statements made by
parliamentarians in the media with reference to the privatisation of NDIS.
Minister Fifield made a distinction between service delivery, which was always
designed to be fulfilled by not-for-profit organisations and private
organisations, and administrative functions, some of which is already being
outsourced.[55]
However, he declared there were no plans or intentions to privatise or sell the
scheme as there was "nothing to sell".[56]
3.22
The committee also discussed the variance in numbers in the bilateral
agreements and those in the actuarial analysis in the second quarterly report,
with South Australia accounting for the majority of these figures.[57]
Dr Hartland emphasised that the re-estimate of trial sites does not affect full
scheme costs, but average costs still do need to be watched and managed
closely.[58]
Aged Care and Population Ageing
3.23
The committee inquired into the reallocation of the $1.1 billion Aged
Care Workforce Supplement. Mr Pratt indicated the Department was looking at a
range of options to advise the government on how the money could be disbursed in
terms of its election commitments, and receiving input from a variety of
stakeholders.[60]
The Department informed the committee of transitional arrangements in place to
maintain the supplement for providers who had signed up, with an allocation of
approximately $5 million.[61]
Senator Smith also asked about the conditions for receiving the supplement, and
was told that in theory all providers of residential care, home care, HACC and
the National Respite for Carers program would have been eligible. Despite this,
the Department noted that only 15 out of roughly 1000 providers had made the
required commitments.[62]
3.24
Senator McLucas then inquired into the progress made on updating the
imminent changes to Medicare on 1 July 2014. The Department noted the three
main changes occurring are to the financing arrangements for both home care and
residential care, legislative change focussing on subordinate legislation and
the means testing arrangements.[63]
The Department noted that the primary ways these changes would be communicated
was through the MyAged Care website and the contact centre.[64]
3.25
Senator Peris directed some questions on funding for aged care in the
Northern Territory. The Department undertook to provide Senator Peris with
information on financial contributions made over the past four years,
applications to establish or build new aged care facilities, and numbers of
aged care patients in hospital due to shortages in adequate facilities.[65]
3.26
The committee had a discussion on the new Home Support Program, which it
was told was a consolidation of the National Respite for Carers Program, day
therapy centres, assistance with care, housing for the aged and the
Commonwealth HACC programs into a single program from 1 July 2015.[66]
Consumer directed care was still observed as a critical focus driving the
program.[67]
3.27
The committee inquired into the government's progress in fulfilling
its election commitment to develop a high level steering committee in agreement
with the aged care sector to work on priorities for further reform and the red
tape reduction agenda.[68]
Minister Fifield indicated the announcement on membership of the steering
committee was forthcoming, but it was broadly representative, including of
consumer groups.[69]
The committee heard the funding for this group was provided as part of the Living
Longer. Living Better package and not the workforce supplement.[70]
3.28
The final session in this outcome concerned the Torres Strait aged care
master plan.[71]
The Department informed the committee the tender for a consultant for the master
plan had been set up. Some discussion also occurred around the relocation of
the Star of the Sea, an aged care facility located on Thursday Island.[72]
Housing and Homelessness
3.29
The Department confirmed that a transitional National Partnership
Agreement on Homelessness (NPA) was in place until the end of June 2014, but it
was classified as a terminating initiative as it had not received ongoing
funding.[74]
A decision had still not been taken by the government as to its future.[75]
Senator McLucas also inquired about any discussions or negotiations that had
taken place between Minister Fifield and his state and territory counterparts
to extend the funding under the NPA.[76]
There was a discussion about the commitment of both opposition and government
parties to addressing homelessness.[77]
The Department indicated the government does not favour a target based approach
to homelessness but rather one that is broader than social and low income
housing, and based on mapping the supply.[78]
3.30
The committee raised concerns about the delay in processing applications
for the National Rental Affordability Scheme and discussed consultations
informing potential changes to the scheme.[79]
The National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA) was also mentioned and the
Department outlined the areas the Minister was interested in addressing,
including the failure of the NAHA to deliver a growth in the supply of
dwellings.[80]
3.31
Senator McLucas asked about what formal processes there are for a state,
territory or Commonwealth minister to raise issues around housing and
homelessness. Mr Pratt suggested an exceptional meeting could be organised. The
Department also addressed concerns about engaging with the housing and
homelessness sector with reference to a new Social Services Ministerial
Advisory Council.[81]
The committee was informed that to avoid duplication, the government had
decided the Commonwealth would no longer be participating in the National
Regulatory Council or contributing funding for its establishment.[82]
Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS)[83]
3.32
Senator Brown inquired into the forced adoption support services scoping
study and was informed that the report was near finalisation.[84]
Dr Higgins gave a comprehensive overview of the methodology employed, which
included workshops and inviting written submissions. Professor Hayes noted the
AIFS was currently undertaking 54 studies and undertook to provide the committee
with a list of the projects it was involved in.[85]
Specific mention was made of the Australian Temperament Project, Pathways of
Care, Beyond 18, Footprints in Time and Family Pathways.
Families
3.33
The first discussion under this outcome focussed on the Department's
role in the drought assistance efforts through the Family Support Program and
Targeted Community Care Program which has funding of up to $10.7 million for
the provision of services to 4,000 to 5,000 people through existing providers.[87]
Senator Brown requested information on any contracts that had been entered
into, but was told there were none.[88]
Senator Siewert sought clarification on the division of responsibilities
between the Department of Social Services, the Department of Agriculture and
the Department of Human Services.[89]
3.34
The committee asked about the review of the current paid parental scheme
and its expected completion date, which was confirmed to be near finalisation.[90]
The current budgeted expenses for paid parental leave were noted as $1.579
billion for 2013 – 2014, but the Department could not provide the figure for
how much the new scheme was expected to cost.[91]
The Department indicated the government was still considering some key
parameters of the scheme, including the definition of base salary and
replacement wage[92]
and work around costing the scheme and drafting legislation were currently
taking place.[93]
Senator Smith asked about whether businesses had expressed concerns about the
administration and operation of the current scheme.[94]
Minister Fifield confirmed the government's commitment to deliver the scheme by
the same date and within the same scope as what it promised at the election.[95]
3.35
Senator Brown sought information on new funding agreements under the
Family Support Program. The Department indicated the initial work was focussed
on reducing red tape in all grant funding programs, leading to a process of
re-negotiating agreements.[96]
The new agreements would be for a longer term of five years.[97]
3.36
Senator Siewert inquired into the business reallocation of disability
management services process. The Department noted the outcomes of the star
rating system for service providers were announced on 28 November 2013 and the
complete transition was to take place on 3 March 2014. The committee heard that
8,000 people were impacted by the process, and the changes to their provider
were communicated to them through a letter at the end of January.[98]
The Department confirmed that around 15 per cent of contracts were re-allocated
around the country to high performing providers.[99]
Women
3.37
Senator Moore led the discussion by inquiring into the current
arrangements for the sharing of policy responsibility between the Office for
Women and the Department of Social Services, particularly the second action
plan for women. The Department emphasised that Minister Andrews and Minister
Cash were approaching this in a collaborative way, but the Office for Women was
taking a leading role in some of the high-level women's issues more broadly
speaking.[101]
The Department explained the relationship between the first action plan and the
second action plan, which it expected would be ready by June 2014.[102]
The second action plan was intended to set future directions and priorities by
building on the work of the first action plan.[103]
The committee heard of international experiences relating to violence against
women, and how Australia had participated in roundtable discussions on this
topic.[104]
An evaluation of the framework was being developed for the 12 years of the
national plan.[105]
3.38
The final part of the discussion related to one-off grants for
respectful relationships and community action, and the ongoing responsibility
of the Department for education programs within schools.[106]
The Department also emphasised the Commonwealth did not hand money over to a
particular state but rather funded national initiatives of value to most or all
jurisdictions.[107]
Community Capability and the Vulnerable
3.39
Senator Seselja inquired into applications the Department had received
for exemption from the ATM limit measure, and specifically, how much staff time
was being dedicated to considering these applications. The Department informed
the committee it had received 3,500 applications and there were seven staff
members currently assessing these.[109]
It could not indicate the rationale behind the majority of these exemption
applications but did discuss the legislative grounds which they may be based
on.[110]
Senator Seselja also made reference later in the outcome to an online Guardian
story regarding comments made by the director of an ATM operator which
indicated a misunderstanding of a ministerial directive.[111]
The Department declined to comment on this case specifically, or any others
when pressed, but confirmed the process of responding to reports of potential
non-compliance was ongoing.[112]
3.40
Senator Stephens requested an update on the National Secretariats Funding
Program. The Department noted that this program was being considered in terms
of a grant reform process currently underway. The main features of this reform
included the reduction of red tape, longer term agreements with organisations,
simpler arrangements, one contract per organisation and reduced reporting
requirements for organisations.[113]
3.41
The committee sought information on the re-establishment of Community
Business Partnerships. The Department indicated that this would occur by the
end of March 2014.[114]
3.42
Senator Siewert focussed attention on the government's proposed
abolition of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) and
asked for detailed information on stakeholders that had been consulted on any
future processes to transfer its functions.[115]
The Department noted the government's intention to create the National Centre
for Excellence which would have an educational, support and broad research
function rather than a regulatory one.[116]
Senator Smith questioned the purpose of a register of charities, to which the
Department responded it was to allow the public to determine the bona fides of
a charity.[117]
The Department noted the importance of balancing regulation with reducing the
imposition on organisations, in light of a discussion about the ABC's 7.30
Report about Care4Kids.[118]
3.43
The committee then heard about the evaluation of place-based income
management, currently being undertaken by Deloitte Access Economics.[119]
The final report for the longer term Northern Territory evaluation is expected
in June 2014.[120]
Settlement Services and Multicultural Affairs
3.44
Senator Moore inquired into the date for when new settlement grant
applications would open. The Department responded that any such grants were
currently being considered in the reform process.[122]
The Humanitarian Settlement Services program, however, was to continue as it
was a procured arrangement rather than a grant. An allocation of $105 million
had been given to this program, which includes the Complex Case Support program
for entrants requiring specialised services.[123]
The committee heard this was to be reduced to $81.7 million for the following
year, to reflect the new government reverting to a program accepting a lower
number of humanitarian entrants, than what was committed to by the previous
government in its final year.[124]
3.45
Senator Smith made inquiries about the progress of the National
Settlement Framework and interactions with migrant resource centres.[125]
The Department clarified that the government may fund programs run out of
migrant resource centres, rather than the organisation per se.[126]
3.46
The final part of the outcome covered questions on the Building Multicultural
Communities Program and the reduction of the original allocation for the
program by $11.5 million in the MYEFO.[127]
Senator Moore requested clarification on decisions to cut funding to
organisations who did not return paperwork in time, and how such decisions were
communicated.[128]
The Department took a question on notice about whether a month turnaround to
return paperwork was standard practice in terms of funding streams.[129]
The Department also agreed to provide the committee with information on
arrangements for the management of grants through the newly established program
office.[130]
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page