Rick Morton
@squigglyrick.bsky.social
19K followers 401 following 1.4K posts
I write. Author of Mean Streak and other things. Reporter. I write a decent newsletter: rick-morton.ghost.io
I write. Author of Mean Streak and other things. Reporter. I write a decent newsletter: rick-morton.ghost.io
![Screenshot from the article. The text reads:
Illustrative of the government's approach to the system is an app the DEWR claims it built to provide "alerts on known risk areas".
, including providers booking dodgy
appointments that can penalise jobseekers.
When the ombudsman asked to see it, the department had to admit the app does not yet exist.
"Later in the investigation when we sought further information on this data App, DEWR changed its previous advice, stating that the risk monitoring data App for monitoring TCF [Targeted Compliance Framework]-related data was in fact not complete and was expected to be gathering data by late 2025," the ombudsman wrote.
The ombudsman revealed a catalogue of other examples where the department or Services Australia, which administers the welfare cancellations and occasionally checks the work of providers issuing suspensions, made misleading claims to his office, to him, to jobseekers and to the public.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:y5jtxfxnv4exgujkdbmy43jp/bafkreiakutdnw67stuml4xooynfe6gms377a4rai6begtvzhqv3uxszyvy)
![Screenshot of article excerpt that reads:
What Butler could not do in his press club speech, or subsequently, is guarantee children will not be negatively affected by agency decisions in advance of any rollout. He told the audience that any child “enrolled in the NDIS now – or who become enrolled before that time [2027] – will remain on the scheme, subject to its usual arrangements, including reassessments”.
These “reassessments” have been turbocharged after a significant investment in the agency’s access and eligibility team. The Saturday Paper has previously revealed the agency was sending out thousands of eligibility reassessment letters suggesting people may no longer have a right to support, and demanding further unspecified evidence within 28 days. This process resulted in people being wrongfully removed from the scheme. Some who were able to appeal managed to be reinstated.
The Saturday Paper later revealed the agency relented under pressure to extend this timeframe to 90 days but, under the direction of then chief executive Rebecca Falkingham, used a deliberately bastardised version of this process to kick a disability advocate off the scheme without evidence. The advocate was later reinstated with an extra disability recognised under the act.
Villamanta Disability Rights Legal Service says these abuses of power are becoming more common and materialise in both policy decisions taken by the agency and in a new flex of its power made with the backing of legislative reforms that began in October last year.
“More matters are being met with intransigent conduct by the NDIA at the Tribunal, resulting in an increase in other funded advocacy services seeking our assistance for support with their work,” the service says in a report obtained by The Saturday Paper.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:y5jtxfxnv4exgujkdbmy43jp/bafkreihfmbucurypdknd2whv2hoxjakm2dipl3eekcwhxbxsnj267nt32u)
![2.69 On 26 July 2023, the complainant made a second complaint to a more senior official about
the manner in which their initial complaint about stakeholder engagement had been handled.
Following a meeting between Health and the complainant, the complainant requested that their
original and second complaint be dealt with independently of the department’s Aged Care Group.
In September 2023, Health engaged Sparke Helmore Lawyers to investigate the two complaints.
The investigation concluded that:
(a) the conduct, the subject of the Complaints, does not constitute a suspected breach of the
APS Code of Conduct; and
(b) [the officials’] conduct falls below the standard of behaviour that would reasonably be
expected in the circumstances, particularly when engaging with a stakeholder.
2.70 Sparke Helmore Lawyers relied in part on records provided by the official who was the
subject of the initial complaint. The official’s records did not reveal that the complaint had been
shared with external parties (see paragraph 2.68). The investigation report stated that Sparke
Helmore Lawyers had been instructed that Health did not have a policy to deal with complaints
made by third parties or stakeholders. This was incorrect. The 2021 complaints management policy
applied to members of the general public, Health’s customers and clients, and other external
stakeholders.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:y5jtxfxnv4exgujkdbmy43jp/bafkreidv6k3il45icqmo7ln45rqzxakfanrsq4lnbyxbqrqbddppuky5o4)
