Chapter 3
Human Services Portfolio
Department of Human Services
3.1
This chapter contains key issues discussed during the 2015–2016 budget
hearing for the Human Services portfolio.
3.2
Areas of the portfolio and agencies were called in the following order:
-
Australian Hearing
-
Whole of Department—Corporate Matters
Department of Human Services
3.3
Senator Cameron discussed call waiting times for Centrelink customers
and the ANAO audit report Management of Smart Centres' Centrelink Telephone
Services that examined this matter. When asked to give an overview about
the new computer system that is being developed to offset wait times, Ms
Campbell said:
The largest number of calls we have is families and
parenting, at 6.6 million, compared to the next closest one at three million.
Many of those customers are not customers of other services. Many of those
customers are family tax benefit customers who may be in employment and may
have regular interaction with digital services. So our strategy is to try and
get as many of those customers onto digital services as possible so that we can
free up this very popular service and this very popular channel. We are
constantly looking at channel management. The new ICT system is very important
in that, so that we can get best practice, really good digital products to the
market, so that customers are able to use those and want to use those and will
stick with those channels, rather than going back to telephony.[1]
3.4
In relation to Centrelink's telephone wait times, the Chair asked about the
number of blocked calls—where customers receive an engaged tone. The
department said that in response to customer feedback, they have been trying to
reduce the number of blocked calls. Mr Tidswell provided the following update:
You can clearly see there the reduction in blocked calls from
2010-11, from just under 40 million down to 13.7 million last financial year.
So we have been quite active in literally weaning ourselves off using blocking
as a way in which to control average speed of answer. It is about a 66 per cent
reduction in call blocking.[2]
3.5
When asked what modules are being built to improve Smart Centres' wait
times, Ms Campbell answered:
As the minister has said, if we could have systems which are
able to be used by customers from start to go, a system that could tell them
where their claim is up to. We get a lot of calls from people who say, 'Where
is my claim up to?' They are told that claims will take a certain period, but
they might ring quite regularly to find out where their claim is up to. If we
have a system that tells them where their claim is up to, that it has gone
through, they have got the information and we expect it to be X days, we are
hopeful that that will reduce the number of calls coming into our smart
centres.[3]
3.6
The department provided an update on the Welfare Payments Infrastructure
Transformation Program (WPIT), which is replacing the old Centrelink ICT system.
The Chair asked the department to explain what the initial $60.5 million in
funding was being used for. Mr Shepherd said:
The allocation of funds is specifically for what we call
tranche 1 of the program. The major focus, as you can imagine in a program like
this, of tranche 1 is procurement activity. So we need to do all the
preparatory work around the procurement, we need to engage in the procurement
and we need to execute on the procurement. So it is a significant piece of
work. Also, as you can imagine in a multi-year program of this size and scale,
there is a significant amount of activity to set up the actual program—governance
structures, stakeholder engagement structures, risk management structures. All
of that work will occur during tranche 1 as well. The figures we touched on
before. During tranche 1 there will also be some delivery that occurs. One of
the lessons we learned from a range of large transformation programs is that
you have to get on and deliver as well as rebuild the systems. So we will
deliver a range of digital enhancements during tranche 1 of the program—the
Secretary touched on one of those enhancements—and that is, when people submit
digital claims or digital transactions, they want real-time feedback about
where they are at. Minister Morrison has talked about the Domino's pizza wheel.
When you order the pizza, you see that your order has been submitted, you see
when someone is cooking it, you see when it is being delivered. Lo and
behold—you look out of your lounge window because it is telling you, 'It's
here'.[4]
3.7
Further questions on WPIT were asked, including about fraud protection,
easing of compliance burdens and the benefits of staff. The Chair asked the
department what is being built into the system to protect customer privacy, to
which Mr Shepherd responded:
The new system will be built in a way that complies with the
government's obligations under privacy legislation as it is today. One of the
key, I guess, enhancements around privacy has already started with the
development of the Migo program where consumers actually, on a consent basis,
drive what they want to link to. That will be an ongoing feature of the digital
journey where, on an ongoing basis, consumers, who are walking with their
fingers, want to link the way they do business. But, in terms of privacy, the
program will be subject to not only the privacy provisions but also the secrecy
provisions and it also will be guided by security policies on how personal
information is collected, stored and used. There is nothing unique in that
regard.[5]
3.8
Senator Cameron asked questions about the $1.7 billion in savings over
the forward estimates with improvements to compliance measures. The department
said that this was largely from undeclared income, which was determined by
matching the department's data to that of the Australian Taxation Office.[6]
The committee was told that the cost of this measure was 'in the order of $173
million over four years'[7].
3.9
When asked by Senator Cameron why these
measures were not done before, Ms Golightly replied:
The tools that we have had to investigate these particular
cases have been very manual based, and we have been doing some. But what this
measure does is give us better tools to be able to do those investigations
quickly and more efficiently.[8]
3.10
Senator Xenophon asked the department questions relating to the Child
Support Agency, in relation to fraud in the assessment process. The department
took a number of questions on notice, and in responding to a question about the
protocols of handling allegations, Mr Volkers said:
There are a number of mechanisms in the Child Support Scheme.
One of the most basic, fundamental ones is that there are two parents always
involved in this process so the scheme itself has an almost built in checks and
balances mechanism. Many of the issues that are raised by one party will be
checked with the other. For example, it might be a change in care so one person
will notify us of that change in care. We talk to the other party to check
that. Then if there is a dispute we gather evidence and make a decision. That
is analogous to a lot of the processes that happen in the Child Support Scheme.[9]
3.11
The committee inquired into the current enterprise agreement
negotiations, which formally began on 3 June 2014. The department told the
committee that 36 meetings and two offers have taken place since then in
relation to the bargaining.[10]
Senator Reynolds asked what the key elements of the February offer were, to
which Ms Talbot answered:
The February pay offer was for a total general pay increase
of 4.15 per cent over three years, which average out at about 1.4 per cent per
year. It was headlined by a general pay increase in 2015 of 1.5 per cent, 1.5
per cent in 2016, and 1.15 per cent in 2017, which provides the total of 4.15
per cent. The other element was salary advancement for the three years of 0.5
per cent, which meant a total of 1.5 per cent salary advancement for those
staff eligible to receive it. [11]
3.12
Senator Cameron asked the department to outline what the calculations of
the February offer were in terms of money that will flow from the employees
back to the department. In a series of responses Ms Talbot answered:
For the increase in working hours the productivity saving was
approximately $95 million.... Reducing the accrual of personal carers leave was
$2.1 million... Reducing incremental salary advancement was $76 million... The
workforce reprofiling target was $38 million... Changing the eligibility for
higher duties was $6 million... And reducing the preparation of pack-up time was
$18 million... The total productivity figure is approximately $238 million.[12]
3.13
Senator Reynolds asked the department for an update on the industrial
action that has taken place since the last estimates. Ms Talbot said:
Since last estimates, we have had two periods of industrial
action. The first period was from 30 March to 10 April. We received a notice of
industrial action every day from 30 March up until 10 April. The notice
identified five identical actions: coordinated lunchbreaks for the whole
department, ban on the use of auxiliary codes, which are codes that indicate an
individual is following their planned schedule for a particular day by staffing
scheduled environment, bans on wearing the corporate uniform—that is only for
those staff who are in face-to-face customer service, providing customers with
CPSU verbal authorised statement for staff receiving inbound calls, and
providing customers with a CPSU written authorised statement which was only at
26 sites. This period included two double lodgement periods[13],
two public holidays over the Easter break, school holidays, and we had very
high leave ceilings, given the time—
3.14
The committee discussed the Government's announcement on 22 May in
relation to Centrepay and the new criteria for consumer leases. Senator Cameron
asked the Minister why the Government did not ban the lease-buy operations.
Senator Payne replied:
We have made the decision in relation to the indefinite
consumer leases, the indefinite unregulated consumer leases and the less than
four months consumer leases to exclude those. We have increased the options, as
I mentioned earlier. In making that decision, and in my discussions with the
Assistant Treasurer, I have also had stakeholders put it to me that the sorts
of consumer leases that we are talking about still do play a role for a certain
cohort of Centrelink customers. I have had this discussion, for example, with
the National Welfare Rights Network who made this observation in their
submission to the Centrepay review which the previous government instituted.
They still hold that view, for example. Some of our colleagues who represent some
of the more remote areas of Australia remain concerned that families who do not
have access to any other sort of credit, because of their financial situation
and their status as a Centrelink customer, still are quite limited in their
options in what they can access. So the option of consumer leases in the
regulated sense remains important for them.
That is not to say, though, Senator Cameron, that I do not
appreciate some of the concerns that you have raised, and obviously people
speaking to you have raised, and in fact have been raised directly with me. I
intend to continue working with the Assistant Treasurer to try to identify ways
that we can ensure that our customers are as well informed as possible. We have
already made changes to the presentation on our website, so you can see the
ASIC link, the MoneySmart link, to make those assessments. We have been
speaking about training our staff in this area about exposing our customers to
information about other options, including no- and low-interest loans and so
on. I am just hesitant at this point in time to completely cut off that option.
I do intend to follow it up further with the Assistant Treasurer.[14]
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page