Posts

The Cost of Clawing Back NDIS Fraud

,

At the February Senate Estimates I asked the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) how much money has the NDIA been able to claw back through identified National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) fraud? Funding across 16 agencies, including the NDIA, of $140 million over four years was provided in 2022 to tackle fraud. Those agencies are working together. It seems reasonable that we should know what return on this investment we’re getting since we’re paying for it.

There are major concerns with the NDIS. It was hastily brought to life and hastily implemented. There are concerns with both over and under-servicing. That’s not necessarily a reflection on the people in the NDIA, but that’s the reality.

I also asked what is being done in relation to auditing service providers who are sucking the scheme dry through fraudulent claims for services that are overcharged or actually not even provided? My questions regarding the amount actually clawed back was taken on notice, however John Dardo, Deputy CEO of Integrity Transformation and Fraud Fusion Taskforce, freely admits to having layers of concern about NDIS fraud. There are over 600,000 participants in the scheme and Mr Dardo says the system is extraordinarily immature for a scheme paying out over $100 million each day, with 400,000 claims a day. Among the risks they’re managing is whether they can be confident that a participant is a real human being, is in the scheme knowingly and actually exists.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. On the topic of fraud, how much money has the NDIA been able to claw back through identified NDI fraud? 

Ms Falkingham: I’ll ask Deputy CEO John Dardo, who leads that program, to come forward to the table. 

Mr Dardo: Thanks for the question. There are different ways to measure that. One of the ways to measure it is to think about how much we’ve prevented from going out the door by implementing systems or detecting the integrity leak before the money has left the door. Another way to measure it is to look at whether we’ve asked the participant or provider to pay the money back. Another way to measure it is by the amount of money that is subject to a prosecution activity—so where it has gone to the courts. Not all of that is recoverable, because unless there’s criminal asset confiscation, or unless there are penalties being charged, that money may not be recoverable. So there are lots of different ways to measure it. 

What I would say is that, as my colleague mentioned earlier in relation to detecting the anomalies, there are a range of things that we’ve been building up over the last 18 months to allow us to identify where there are integrity leaks, and what I would emphasise is that integrity leaks are very, very strongly correlated to participant risk. The safety of participants is put at risk when money is leaking to the wrong places. It’s because the participants aren’t receiving the services they need, or because we’ve got providers that are dodgy and are actually growing their businesses at the expense of good providers—so they’re wiping out the good providers—or because that money is actually funding activity for participants that is putting them at further risk, whether it be drug abuse, alcohol abuse, risky behaviours or other behaviours. So the money’s important, but the reason we look at the money is the participant safety impact that it has. 

What I would also say is that there’s a level of detail that I can’t share in this forum—I’m happy to do it in a private setting—because we do not want to run a 101 session on how to commit fraud against the NDIA. But I’m on the public record in previous hearings talking about the layers of concern that we have. We have, in round figures, over 600,000 participants in the scheme. The system is extraordinary immature for a system that pays out over $100 million a day, with 400,000 claims a day. It is an extraordinarily immature system. Certainly it’s one of the most immature I’ve seen. If I think about the sorts of risks that we’re managing and investing in, being confident that a participant is a real human being, is in the scheme knowingly and— 

Senator ROBERTS: Actually exists. 

Mr Dardo: actually exists is an area of risk that we’re certainly unpacking and understanding, and we’re identifying things that need to be addressed. 

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me. Out of respect for the chair wanting to conclude pretty soon, could you take it on notice to provide the figures around the categories of fraud that you mentioned earlier on, please? What money has been saved? 

Mr Dardo: We can do that. 

Senator ROBERTS: There are concerns with the NDIS. It was hastily brought to life. It was hastily implemented. There are concerns with overservicing, as you know. There are concerns with underservicing and there are concerns with fraud. That’s not necessarily a reflection on the people in the NDIA at the moment, but that’s the reality. Please also take it on notice to answer: what is being done in relation to auditing service providers who are sucking the scheme dry through fraudulent claims for services that are overcharged or actually not even provided? 

Mr Dardo: An enormous amount of activity. Some of that activity is some randomised integrity checks. We’ve done tens of thousands of those to try and understand, at a randomised level, what we’re seeing. The sorts of common things we’re seeing include overclaiming, duplicate claims, claiming for services that were never provided and claiming for services that are not consistent with the plan. If I think about some other risk points, we have some particular cohorts where we have very significant concerns about the behaviour of the cohorts, and, when we cross-reference our data with other data such as tax data, for example, we see that some of our providers are non-compliant with basic obligations to the Commonwealth. If they’re non-compliant with their basic obligations to the Commonwealth but they’re managing money on behalf of participants or managing services on behalf of participants, we’ve got concerns. We have several hundred providers where they’re managing money or services on behalf of participants or managing other providers on behalf of participants and yet they’re not compliant with their most basic tax obligations. We’re cross-referencing data with other agencies. 

A taskforce commenced in November 2022. At the most egregious end of the offending, that taskforce has 16 Commonwealth agencies working together to identify networks of providers or syndicates that are targeting the scheme. You may have seen some media coverage about the search warrants being executed, the prosecutions being conducted and passports being seized or surrendered as part of bail conditions. That work is continuing to ramp up. We have over 100 investigations in the pipeline, and some of those cases are very significant both in dollar value and participant numbers being affected and also in the egregious behaviour of those providers. 

Senator ROBERTS: There are a lot of costs involved. Some of the costs are from the 16 agencies that are working with you and they’ll be hidden from the total cost. 

Mr Dardo: No, those agencies were funded as part of that announcement. That funding was $140 million over four years. Those agencies, as well as the NDIA, were funded as part of that Fraud Fusion Taskforce and they’re working in partnership with us. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/1 Comment/by

Fraud Investigation of Aboriginal Funding in the Northern Territory

In mid-September of this year, a Matter of Urgency was referred to Mr Grant Hehir, the Commonwealth Auditor General, Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) by Senator Michaela Cash.

The issue was allegations that millions of taxpayer dollars had been the subject of fraud and corruption amongst senior staff of the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency and that a decision was made by ANAO not to investigate these allegations. I wanted to know why.

During senate estimates, Mr Hehir informed me that it was true that a decision had been made by ANAO not to investigate the allegations and that this decision was made purely because a review into this is already being undertaken by the Attorney-General’s office. Mr Hehir said that ANAO is not an investigatory body and therefore any fraud investigation is not within its remit.

In the case of suspicion of fraud, ANAO could refer it to the appropriate body. ANAO’s role in this case would be to undertake a performance audit and an audit of the government programme that funded this entity. The North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency receives government funding of $20 million to provide legal services in the area. I think an audit is long overdue.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again. In mid-September this year a matter of urgency was referred to the Commonwealth Auditor-General, Mr Hehir, and the Australian National Audit Office by the
shadow legal affairs spokesperson, Michaelia Cash. The issue was the allegation that millions of taxpayer dollars had been the subject of fraud and corruption amongst senior staff of the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency. Allegations were made of extensive criminal conduct by some members of the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency’s leadership. Is it true that a decision was made by ANAO not to investigate the allegations?

Mr Hehir: We made a decision not to undertake an audit in that area after making inquiries into the space and identifying that a review in the area was being undertaken by—

Ms Mellor: Attorneys-general—around the jurisdictions.

Mr Hehir: Attorneys-general. We felt that it was best for that process to play out before we did anything, noting that we’re not an investigatory body, so we wouldn’t go in and undertake a fraud investigation. We would go in and do a performance audit of, effectively, the control framework of the entity, not a—

Ms Mellor: Corruption investigation.

Mr Hehir: corruption or a fraud investigation. That’s not within our mandate. That’s not what we do.

Senator ROBERTS: Correct me if I’m wrong here—I’m jumping ahead—but, if you went in and found evidence of fraud, someone else would come in and investigate it.

Mr Hehir: We would give it off to an investigative body, whether it be the AFP, the NACC or someone like that, to do it.

Senator ROBERTS: So there was already an investigation of that kind going on.

Mr Hehir: I understand there’s a review being—

Ms Mellor: The jurisdictional attorneys-general agreed to conduct a joint review.

Senator ROBERTS: So it had nothing to do with the referendum that was upcoming or anything like that. It was just purely—

Mr Hehir: No.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, that’s good.

Senator Colbeck: Do you conduct their annual audits?

Mr Hehir: It’s not a government entity.

Senator ROBERTS: So when will you review that decision and conduct an audit?

Mr Hehir: As I said, it’s not a government entity. So, if we were to audit, we would be auditing the government program that funded it. That’s the space that we would go in on. If there were information subsequent
to the review that the program looked like something that was worthwhile auditing, we would consider it in that context.

Senator ROBERTS: You may have to correct me if I’m wrong here, but is it possible that millions of dollars may have been misused when almost $20 million is provided to the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency each year to provide legal services? If that were your suspicion, you wouldn’t be doing it—you would hand it over to an investigative body.

Mr Hehir: If there were a suspicion of fraud, we wouldn’t investigate it—we would give it to an investigatory body. As I said, fraud investigation isn’t our purpose. When we do financial audits, we do control works to get assurance around whether fraud has been undertaken or not, but, again, if we suspect there’s fraud, we pass it onto someone else to do that sort of criminal-type investigation.

Senator ROBERTS: My further questions have to do with the corrupt use of money, so that’s not you—I mean, that’s not on you to investigate.

Chair: It’s maybe the agency that gives out the money. I might give the remaining time to Senator Nampijinpa Price.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d be happy with that.

Senator Colbeck: So, Mr Hehir, you would investigate the conduct of the program, not the operation of the organisation, because it’s not a government organisation.

Chair: No, you’d hand it over for criminal investigation.

Mr Hehir: We can follow the dollar into government funded entities and audit the entity. We do have the capacity to do that under our act.

/1 Comment/by

Greens live in a parallel universe

,

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I need to say clearly that the climate change agenda seeks to mislead well-meaning Australians with pseudoscience to introduce and hide an economic and social agenda that Australians would otherwise reject. Senator Rice’s motion does mischief. Australia does not have a carbon budget. The Senate has not voted for a carbon budget. The coalition’s supposed climate action plan cap that underpins government policy does not include a carbon budget.

Our international agreements do not include a carbon budget. The only place one can find a climate budget is in the Greens’ own little parallel universe, where the aspiring elites in the Greens are in control of an economy that is not only green but rancid. The devastation that will be caused to our economy by the measures the Greens propose in order to limit carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will destroy our economy, destroy jobs and steal opportunity from our children.

The insult to real scientists is that Senator Rice calls climate change a science based agenda. No, it’s not—definitely not. The argument in favour of a looming climate disaster is based on unvalidated computer models—nothing else. These are the same models that have failed repeatedly and miserably to predict temperature movement.

The largest single driver of climate is the sun, which has moved into a solar minimum that is tracking the Dalton minimum, when the Thames froze over and crops around the world failed. In fact, crops are failing now. Northern China is experiencing widespread hunger, as exceptional cold destroyed the winter cereal crop. Australia, on the other hand, has moved from a dry cycle to a wet cycle. This is not climate change; it’s a natural cycle.

I have challenged the Greens on many occasions to prove their position with empirical scientific evidence—data—and they have repeatedly been unable to. Indeed, today is day No. 502 of my challenge in the Senate to the Greens to simply provide the scientific evidence for their claims and for their alarm and to debate me on the science. Look at them all, looking at their phones; they won’t look at me. I challenged the current Greens Senate leader 10¼ years ago, and nothing.

That is more than a decade, and nothing. I notice that world-renowned scientist Tony Heller, who relies on solid data, has today challenged the Greens to a debate on social media. That’s not going to happen either. And now we see the Nats. Well, that’s another joke. So the Greens have no carbon budget and they have no idea.

Subject MPI: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansards/0cd97387-e8a2-46f1-92cb-16f6be35aee2/&sid=0148

/by

People suffer when political whims dictate policy

,

When policy development is at the mercy of the political whims of which ever party is in government, it cripples industry and Australia’s future economic prosperity.

Instead of reputable evidence, policy makers defer to political beliefs and vested interests, resulting in a policy failure that wastes an eye-watering amount of taxpayers’ money.

Senator Roberts said, “We must have an Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI) to scrutinise science, protect scientists from politicisation, and give all industry players the confidence that the policy is warranted and just.”

Politicians often ignore the vast uncertainties in many areas of science used for policy development, and true scientific oversight will enhance public debate and transparency.

“Australia’s climate policies are a stunning example of policy determining the scientific “evidence”, rather than science informing policy,” added Senator Roberts.

The diminishing trust in government’s use of data for policy development is being felt across a range of industries.

In the area of science governing Queensland’s reef regulations and farming, Dr Peter Ridd says, “It’s not until we can get our scientific institutions to be trustworthy that we will finally be able to trust science again.

Evidence-based policy making is not a new concept, though it needs more prominence in Australian political debate.  The design of good policy depends on a solid foundation of reputable science.

“I am committed to more transparency in justifying policy, and welcome contributions to the development of an oversight body, such as the Office of Scientific Integrity,” concluded Senator Roberts.

/by

CSIRO’s conceit stands by discredited science

,

This week Senator Malcolm Roberts revealed CSIRO’s complete lack of scientific justification for climate policies and CSIRO’s only response was to state their world ranking.

Senator Roberts said, “CSIRO’s response to my findings came before my report was even released, which reinforces the academic arrogance that comes from believing they are above questioning. 

 “We all know CSIRO is an iconic and esteemed Australian institution in many areas of research, which is why its track record on climate science is so worrying; it’s not up to standard.”

Three levels of government base expensive and far reaching climate policies on CSIRO’s advice, which largely comes from inadequate and unvalidated climate models.

“Rather than address the obvious flaws in their climate research, CSIRO chose instead to deflect to a lame appeal to authority, instead of citing credible science.”

The absence of a scientific response from CSIRO can only mean that they stand by the discredited and contradictory papers they cited and later withdrew, because the papers failed to prove their claim.

“Let me make this very clear, all politicians need to be seriously questioning the science that they glibly use to make climate policies, and Parliament must scrutinise the quality of this science.

“The CSIRO’s flawed climate models have not been validated, they contradict real world measurements and should not be used as the basis for spending billions of dollars of taxpayers money on damaging policies,” added Senator Roberts.

A team of 17 acclaimed climate scientists reviewed CSIRO’s evidence and were sadly disappointed with CSIRO’S lack of scientific rigour.

Senator Roberts will travel to Queensland’s major regional centres next week listening to people across many industries that poor science and damaging policy have ravaged.

“We must have an Office of Scientific Integrity that will scrutinise the science, protect scientists from politicisation and give all industry players the confidence that the policy is warranted and just,” concluded Senator Roberts.

200903-CSIROs-conceit-stands-by-discredited-science

/by

Willie Soon claims CSIRO committed scientific malpractice

Willie Soon claims CSIRO committed scientific malpractice. Willie Soon is an astrophysicist and Geoscientist and researcher at the Solar and Stellar Physics (SSP) Division of the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

I spoke with Willie Soon about the CSIRO’s reliance on a paper called Marcott el al (2013) to prove that the Earth’s temperature today is unprecedented.

Willie Soon was scathing in his assessment of CSIRO’s use of Marcott (2013) by saying “Two weeks after publication this paper was completely destroyed and yet, someone as high up as CSIRO trying to say this paper is legitimate and can be used as a supporting scientific evidence, is scientific malpractice”.

It’s hard to fathom that the CSIRO presented a paper that has been discredited and discarded by the scientific community and yet are relying on their supposed stellar reputation as a defence. This is shameful, and I call am calling on the CSIRO Chief Executive, Dr Larry Marshall, and executive Dr Peter Mayfield, to resign.

Both have been complicit in the economically destructive policies based on CSIRO’s misplaced climate research.

Press conference – https://youtu.be/QIWZSjQ18CY

Media Release – https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/senator-roberts-calls-on-csiro-head-to-resign/

Report – Restoring Scientific Integrity – https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/restoring-scientific-integrity/

Question time on CSIRO – https://youtu.be/5l31VlPoXvM

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts]

Willie Soon is an astrophysicist, a geoscientist and aerospace engineer and researcher at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard Smithsonian Centre for astrophysics based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

He has co-authored the Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection with Steven Yaskell. He contends that most global warming is caused by solar variation and not human activity. Professor Soon is outspoken and clear. We’re going to have some fun and we’re going to have some really strong points raised, I’m sure of that.

[Willie Soon]

Yes. I have read your report and in it, I think you mentioned something that really puzzles me of course, in the sense that when you look for, you ask for evidence, they actually were trying to essentially, I will say it out loud and be fair, they were actually trying to bully you by let’s say, offering the evidence from a paper published in science magazine, supposedly prestigious journal.

And authored by a person named Sean Marcott with four or five authors, I mean the senior author’s a distinguished professor of course at Oregon State University in America. But Sean Marcott, well, during that time was actually doing his PhD thesis. And I was very, very shocked in the sense that you were talking to them during the time period of 2016 to 2017.

And this paper by Sean Marcott was published in 2013 roughly March. And if the average citizen do not know about some of these facts, I think they can be excused, but more so the professional scientists, knew that this piece of work who attempted to claim that over 10,000 years, okay, you have basically temperature from high warming from 10,000 years ago to roughly about 6,000 years, very, very warm.

This is called the mid Holocene warm optimum, and then cool a little bit down to let’s say, 20th century, and then they have this one line that they patch, what do you call the indirect data, hit the instrumental thermometer data to look like there’s a sharp hockey stick jumping up. Okay? And that is scientific malpractice.

There was no such thing in the actual paper, there was no such thing in Sean Marcott’s PhD thesis, in fact, the paper was completely fallen apart. Thanks to science and technology. Thanks to internet. It was completely fallen apart, two weeks after the publication. Because the authors, two of the senior authors, okay? Right?

One of the person is Shakun, Jeremy Shakun was at the Harvard postdoc at that time, and then Marcott was still a student. They both came out and said, “oh no, no, no. Our people didn’t say that, oh, our time resolution of our Holocene that was 300 years at best, which mean we dunno anything from every 300 years. So how can you talk about 100 years attaching to this, to show this crazy warming?”

What I’m trying to say is that it is a form of bullying because two weeks after publication, this whole paper was completely destroyed. And yet you have somebody as high as CSIRO and chief scientists of Australia, trying to say that this paper is legitimate and can be used as a supporting scientific evidence, by the way that paper was cited. They came out in March.

They were somehow mentioned in the fifth assessment report-

[Malcolm Roberts]

On the United nations.

[Willie Soon]

which came out Yeah, United Nations report. The last report which… And used that to support that, an even more famous hockey stick, which is done by professor Michael Mann for the last 1000 years.

And this is the kind of a scientific malpractice that I felt very sorry for them because I do not know what gave them the audacity, but these are the facts. And then I felt very sorry for the average Australian, especially the taxpayer. Why are you paying for this kind of nonsense? It’s actually nonsense.

And these people just because they have some PhD degree under their name, it doesn’t mean that they are very sensible. In my humble opinion, these people are highly misguided and they are very, very wrong in doing that. They should not ought to be doing that. And I really thank you enormously because I have met many politicians myself, I mean, most of them do not have the courage or conviction.

In fact, I think they’re a bit lazy because they don’t want to learn science, science seems to be a bit too hard sometimes. People are all scared of science, but for us, science is a wonderful tool, is one of those tools to enhance and improve our knowledge, to find that kind of understanding about our natural world and our human world. It’s a wonderful thing.

/by

CSIRO has misled Parliament

CSIRO has misled parliament. Last night in the Senate I laid out my argument that the CSIRO has misled parliament by allowing the government to base climate policies on CSIRO’s advice which includes discredited scientific papers and unvalidated models.

The onus is now on parliament to provide the empirical scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut. Until that is provided, the government must immediately halt all climate policies which are a multi-billion drag on our economy.

Press conference – https://youtu.be/QIWZSjQ18CY

Media Release – https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/senator-roberts-calls-on-csiro-head-to-resign/

Report – Restoring Scientific Integrity – https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/restoring-scientific-integrity/

Question time on CSIRO – https://youtu.be/5l31VlPoXvM

/by