Proof Committee Hansard

Page 18 House of Representatives Wednesday, 30 November 2016
Dr Charker: On the latter, if there is really significant concern about getting information that a person does
not already have—noting that some people already have this information—then I would just restate the comments
I made before about really encouraging people to contact us to seek an extension or find another way for us to
help them get that information.
On the first issue, which is really around the targeting: as we touched on earlier, we have been doing quite a lot
of work to try to refine the targeting. We started off with an initial set of criteria and then, based on just an initial
set of cases that we have commenced this financial year, we went back and have now improved a lot of the
targeting. We still struggle with the issue that I touched on before, which is that our targeting is as good as the
information that we have on the system to support the actual selection process. So if we do not have indicators on
the system which indicate, for example, that a person may in fact be manifestly eligible because of a particular
attribute that their condition has or that they have, then we may, unfortunately, pick up a small number of them,
but we are looking to try to find other indicators which together might indicate that someone is actually quite
likely to be manifestly eligible, and we then undertake additional checks of that person before we then initiate the
review.
CHAIR: Thanks, Acting Chair Hill; I am back now.
Mr HILL: You said some people have this information on hand. I am looking at the medical evidence
requirements sheet and, again, the submitter experience. The advice from DHS/Centrelink to people continues to
be that it needs to be current medical evidence—that they will only give weight to medical evidence within a
recent time frame, even if it is close to a manifest condition. So, again, that seems to be misunderstood and to
contradict—and we have dealt with the previous point about a medical certificate versus real medical evidence—
the consistent signal sent out, which is: you have to get current medical evidence; you have to go to your doctor;
things have to be done recently. The dot points are voluminous: 'formal diagnosis'; 'When was each medical
condition diagnosed?'; 'The name, qualification and contact details of the professional who made the diagnosis'—
which is kind of difficult when you are talking about conditions that are 20 years old and the doctors have died or
retired. We have had these cases come in. So, again, what you are saying does not seem to reconcile with the
advice which you write and give to people.
Dr Charker: Was there a question that you wanted me to respond to in relation to that?
Mr HILL: Yes. I guess the question is: can you think of ways which could help clarify this? You said that
some people have this info, and yet the advice that submitters are giving is that they do not have the information
because it is not current, because why would you have gone to the doctor in the last two years to prove you still
had Down syndrome?
Dr Charker: Indeed, which would typically be a manifestly eligible condition.
Mr HILL: So is Down syndrome considered a manifestly eligible condition?
Dr Charker: It typically would be, would be my understanding. To the extent that it is associated with
intellectual impairment—with IQ of less than 70—then that would be regarded as manifestly eligible under
current policy settings.
Mr HILL: And do IQ tests have to be recent, or would you take one from 15 years ago?
Dr Charker: I would have to get advice on that, I am sorry.
Ms Toze: We can consider IQ tests done, for instance, at a special school, or contact with a special school
principal as well. There is historical medical evidence which is relevant to the review measure and which we will
consider.
Mr HILL: It sounds like there is room to perhaps clarify things.
Dr Charker: Sure.
CHAIR: My apologies if I traverse some questions that have been asked in my absence. Towards the end of
the questioning of the NGOs, we took some evidence from them about what further improvements could be made
to improve the transparency et cetera, and we will ask you to respond to those on notice at the conclusion. But I
am interested in getting some specific information about what you are doing in regard to the performance
measures that are being developed and if there is some information you can share with us in regard to that.
Dr Charker: I am actually wondering whether I might be able to ask my policy colleagues—
CHAIR: It might be Ms Wilson?
Dr Charker: because that is a joint issue.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT COMMITTEE