Comcare

[16:21]

CHAIR: I welcome officers from Comcare, Mr O'Connor and Mr Kibble. Thank you. Do you have any opening remarks you would like to make to the committee before we move to questions?

Mr O'Connor : No, Senator.

CHAIR: Thank you. We will move straight to questions.

Senator BILYK: Welcome, Mr O'Connor and Mr Kibble. I think you probably know what I am going to talk to you about. It is the situation with my constituent that has been going on for 23-plus years. I think we are moving into the 24th year now with regard to Comcare. I thank you for your correspondence last week. It did not actually answer some of my concerns. Though you did answer the questions, you did not actually answer some of my concerns. As I have said previously, I thank you and your officers for the work done to date but I do have very serious concerns about the length of time it takes to get some activities undertaken. I will be a bit more specific. Part of the delay in approving the medical rehabilitation program for this constituent was the difficulty that members of Comcare's clinical panel had in contacting her treating professionals. We have discussed that before. Can you explain to me what the role of the clinical panel is and why advice cannot be taken directly from the treating professionals?

Mr O'Connor : Senator, thank you for the question and for the affirmation of the work that has been done. As I acknowledged in my correspondence, more needs to be done and more quickly. The work of the clinical panel is to be able to provide expert assistance to Comcare delegates, decision makers, to make sure they have got the appropriate approach and ideas and evidence based justifications for supporting rehabilitation and, in some cases, return to work programs. The clinical panel was also engaged in treater-to-treater contact so that sometimes we find that Comcare delegates may struggle with either the particular clinical knowledge or the ability to access confidently treating practitioners.

Our experience has found that the quality of the support that is provided to workers and their families is increased if there is that direct clinician-to-clinician contact. That is a supporting framework. My understanding is that, once those conversations and discussions and the mutual support have occurred, there is an improved understanding on the part of both sides—the treating practitioners as well as the clinical experts—to improve the support that we provide. That is the work they provide. The treater-to-treater contact, as well as assisting Comcare delegates, make the correct or preferable decisions or support programs to support people in their—as in this case—return to health and rehabilitation.

Senator BILYK: In your response to me, you say regarding massage treatment as part of the rehabilitation that, after reviewing the file and on speaking with treating practitioners, it was considered preferable to manage communications to Ms X directly through her treaters for simplicity and consistency rather than through Dr X. I am a bit confused as to why we had these delays with the clinical panel when you can actually do it directly, if I read the letter right. Correct me if I am wrong, but it says 'directly through her treaters'.

Mr O'Connor : Correct. My understanding in this particular matter is it was making sure that all of the parties involved in the clinical case conference side of things, including the treating GP, are involved, and that was the gap or the opportunity to improve that understanding. It is one thing for case managers, the clinical experts, to be together, but outcomes are always improved if we engage with the general practitioner, who often has a long history of that. I believe that was the opportunity that was missed by all of the people involved here that we committed to making better.

Senator BILYK: We have been waiting for some time on details of the medical rehabilitation program and exercise program. Can you tell me when it was first explained to my constituent that Comcare would not be developing an exercise program and that this would be a matter for her rehabilitation provider? Could you take that on notice for me and let me know?

Mr O'Connor : Yes, I am happy to take that on notice.

Senator BILYK: Your letter says she was advised verbally and in writing, but I understand that the constituent was first made aware of it at a case conference on 6 February. Are you able to provide to me a copy of the letter that advised the constituent about that?

Mr O'Connor : Yes.

Senator BILYK: Apparently, in the letter sent to me by you, you say that the constituent will undergo an 'assessment of her ability to undertake the program'. Can you explain that to me?

Mr O'Connor : I understand that at the start of last week there was a conference that included the particular former federal worker here and it was about making sure that, from a clinical perspective, the rehabilitation return to independence, return to health, program was appropriate. I apologise if the letter was not clear on that.

Senator BILYK: Sorry, can you just tell me that again?

Mr O'Connor : My understanding is that all the parties involved, including your constituent, were discussing how to make sure that the return to health and return to independence program made sense and was appropriate to her conditions and support.

Senator BILYK: Who appointed the rehabilitation provider?

Mr O'Connor : My understanding is that that was appointed by the employer's case manager. But I can clarify that if it is different.

Senator BILYK: And that case manager is based here, in Canberra. Is that right?

Mr O'Connor : The case manager, in my understanding, is based in Hobart.

Senator BILYK: My understanding is that the rehabilitation provider was appointed only in February this year, which concerns me somewhat, seeing as the first time I brought this up in estimates must have been at least eight months ago, if not longer.

Mr O'Connor : It was, Senator.

Senator BILYK: I am very concerned about this, bearing in mind we have had meetings and one of my staff members has been involved in all the meetings that I have not been able to get to, as well as the ones I have been able to get to. I am concerned that there is still this great time line. If the issue is about getting people well and getting them back to work, let alone the issue of how many years the issue has been going on, just in the last eight months, it is still a long time for people not to be having their rehabilitation sorted out. Would you agree?

Mr Johns : I accept that. For federal workers to have to put their lives on hold for so long is not ideal. It is not acceptable. And in this case it has been agreed, including with your constituent, that the first and most important focus is the return to independence in the community and return to health. Issues of return to work will emerge when and if that return to health is confirmed and established and her being able to participate fully in the community.

Senator BILYK: What undertaking can you give me that this will not happen to other people with claims? Is there a process in place to make sure these things can happen quicker if the clients are up to it?

Mr O'Connor : Yes, there are processes in place. These are relatively recent processes—this is the revamping of our approach to better support the recovery and the return to work of people who have been harmed at federal workplaces. So the approach that we are implementing now is very different than what it was two years ago, and completely different from the support that was in place at the time when your constituent was injured in that federal workplace. So we have learnt a lot. Our new practices are quality assured: we have decision support advisors, we now have the benefit of clinical panel experts to help guide those decisions and, when things get stuck, to be able to flag those for intervention and make sure that they occur quickly and appropriately.

Senator BILYK: Would part of the delay have been that there was a delay in appointing a rehabilitation provider, do you think?

Mr O'Connor : Yes, I understand there was some delay there. It is a matter of us coordinating all of the parties involved, including the employer—or the former employer here—and getting that department on side, focused on the important needs of this constituent who used to be involved at their workplace.

Senator BILYK: You are talking about the agency there?

Mr O'Connor : Correct.

Senator BILYK: I understand that they have made no commitment to pay for the rehabilitation program. Have you been able to give any advice to the constituency about the agency's obligations, or do you do that?

Mr O'Connor : I am not aware of that development, but I will certainly make sure—

Senator BILYK: Are you able to look into that for me and get back to me on that one?

Mr O'Connor : Yes.

Senator BILYK: What advice have you given the agency about their obligation to issue written advice when they make determinations under section 37 of the SRC Act?

Mr O'Connor : I will take that on notice to be able to give you the specific instructions. I have not been part of that conversation with the case manager but I can take advice from our recovery and support staff, who have been working with the agency and their people, who I understand are now focused on the importance of this matter and for them to fully and deeply understand that their obligations as the rehabilitation authority continue, even these many years after your constituent has left the workforce and that particular workplace.

Senator BILYK: I am pleased to hear that after 23 years people might finally be focused, but it is still a great concern to me, Mr O'Connor. I would have thought that we might have been able to have this resolved within this time frame, but it just seems to linger on. I am concerned that the agency may not be committed to ensuring an outcome that is suitable to the client. What point in the development of a rehabilitation program is the obligation to issue the advice under section 37? Do you know that?

Mr O'Connor : I would have to take that on notice.

Senator BILYK: I was advised that massage therapy would be examined with fresh eyes.

Mr O'Connor : Correct.

Senator BILYK: Yet on reading your letter, which explains that members of the clinical panel reviewed the decision following discussions with my constituent's treating professionals and review of the medical evidence; the report from one of the members from the clinical panel says that he informed my constituent's psychiatrist that Comcare would not fund further massage therapy as per a decision by the AAT. So can you clarify whether the panel was guided only by the AAT's decision or considered other matters in coming to this conclusion?

Mr O'Connor : I can advise that my understanding is that the clinical panel advice in speaking with the treating practitioners also took regard of what is the evidence-based clinical justification for continuing a massage program and trying to understand if that is the right clinical intervention, but I will certainly double-check for you and advise you if that is different.

Senator BILYK: Would there be any documentation about that? Would there be notes or minutes?

Mr O'Connor : I expect so.

Senator BILYK: Am I able to have access to those?

Mr O'Connor : I would assume so, subject to the normal privacy concerns, if the constituent is comfortable with that.

Senator BILYK: If you could forward them to us as well, that would be of great help. What advice did Comcare provide to the executive director of operations at the AAT about the constituent's concerns about the information provided to them and Comcare's obligation as a model litigant?

Mr O'Connor : My understanding is that one of our executive team was in contact with the Sydney registry of the AAT to share the concerns that were discussed at the meeting at your office with the constituent and also that the concerns that the constituent had about Comcare not being open, honest, fair and reasonable in the tribunal processes were made clear. I understand that we also apprised the Office of Legal Services Coordination about that in accordance with the usual process.

Senator BILYK: Would that advice have been in writing?

Mr O'Connor : I can confirm that for you, Senator.

Senator BILYK: If it is, can you also give me a copy of that? If it was not, I really would like to know why not.

Mr O'Connor : I believe the correspondence I shared with your office highlighted that there was a telephone conversation. What I am not sure about is whether or not that telephone conversation was then followed up in a written note.

Senator BILYK: But you will undertake to seek that out for me?

Mr O'Connor : Yes.

Senator BILYK: If it was not, shouldn't it have been?

Mr O'Connor : I was not privy to the conversation with the registry staff as to what their usual processes are but, rather than guess, I will refer to that discussion and the people who are involved.

Senator BILYK: In your correspondence you also mentioned that the AAT has advised the Office of Legal Services Coordination and that they are considering whether further action is necessary. Have you got any idea on what the timeline might be for that?

Mr O'Connor : No, I do not have any update on that time frame.

Senator BILYK: Are you able to find out?

Mr O'Connor : I can make that inquiry and share that with your office.

Senator BILYK: Thank you. I am still concerned about various errors in clients' records, and I understand that these are supposed to be sorted out face to face with the claims service officer. Can you confirm whether that is the case and tell me when that meeting is expected to take place?

Mr O'Connor : I do not have that detail of when that—

Senator BILYK: You are not doing very well here, are you, Mr O'Connor?

Mr O'Connor : My understanding is that the issues of the accuracy of the documentation on the file and the explanation of the documents that have been relied on, and especially the creation of a second claim file, have been the subject of both extensive conversation and telephone discussion, including with the case manager and reassurance. My understanding is that as recently as last week there was yet further explanation about the documents and the record being corrected and that none of that historical issue has affected this constituent's entitlements to incapacity payments at the time. There is, I understand, cross-referencing on both files to make sure that there is full and complete information available to people who may need to continue the support of your constituent in years to come.

Senator BILYK: What practices have been put in place in Comcare to ensure that records are more accurately kept?

Mr O'Connor : A number of reforms have been implemented over the many years since that data transfer error occurred. I believe it was back in the early nineties. It was in the migration of information from one of our technology systems to another. We have a very strict control rules around the migration of data. It is not something we do regularly; it is something that occurred back at the time of a technology refresh. We believe we have very good controls in place to make sure that the accuracy of that data is maintained and that there is integrity there.

Senator BILYK: Have you had other complaints about records that are inaccurate, based on that changeover?

Mr O'Connor : Not that I am aware of with regard to that data transfer in 1993. However, it is fair to say that, from time to time, people who have been supported by Comcare do express their concern and frustration that documents they believe have been shared are lost—that does happen from time to time.

Senator BILYK: When you say from time to time, would that be five a year? Five hundred a year?

Mr O'Connor : It would definitely be a very low number and often those complaints about inaccurate or missing records go back to files and matters for which the workers have been supported by Comcare for, in some cases, up to two decades. It goes to previous files and claims management assistance.

Senator BILYK: I am still confused. Relating back to that incident in 1988 when Comcare and the agency had a meeting with her—this is over 20 years ago—and Comcare now accepts that that caused an aggravation of the psychological injury. Am I correct in thinking you still claim that there is no further liability? I think the reasoning is that it did not occur during the course of her employment, although it did occur because of her employment and related issues.

Mr O'Connor : As I understand has been discussed on a number of occasions, and we have tried to explain and perhaps we need to continue to explain more simply or more effectively, the particular incident in our view does not constitute the grounds for a new and separate claim. It is simply an aggravation of that existing claim situation. That is the advice I have and it is consistent with what we understand to be the correct or preferable decision—that is, it is in accordance with federal law and its interpretation.

Senator BILYK: Bearing in mind it took until August 2011 for Comcare to accept any liability for the 1988 condition, I am still not completely happy about the reasoning behind those concerns. We can follow that up with Ms Morrison or someone else as well. Looking quickly at your mail again, I did notice—some might call it sarcasm; I will call it irony—that your logo is 'Putting you First'. I have to say: that did make me laugh, Mr O'Connor. Has that been around for 20-odd years or is it a new one?

Mr O'Connor : No, that is fairly recent. It tries to embrace the approach within the Australian government to put citizens at the centre of everything that we do.

Senator BILYK: Well, yes.

Mr O'Connor : In some cases it can be an aspiration that we continue to strive for.

Senator BILYK: I have heard that word a bit lately, actually, Mr O'Connor, in all sorts of contexts. If you could follow up on those issues for me—

Mr O'Connor : Yes.

Senator BILYK: It still concerns me, as I said earlier on, that there is still a failure to communicate in some areas and I think that if everyone is working together that should not be happening, so I would like you to follow up on that. I think that there is still concern by the constituent about the records issue, let alone the other ones I have mentioned. As an ex-union official, of course I hope that nobody gets injured at work but can I say I certainly hope not too many people get injured at all and have to go through this process because it is certainly taking a lot of time and it causes so much extra stress. I note your letter to me says that you want to resolve it in a timely manner and that it remains a priority. I would really like to resolve it in the interests of the constituent but also for anybody else that is experiencing these issues. I will look forward to your letter—can you give me a timeframe of when you might be able to respond to my concerns?

Mr O'Connor : I would be happy for our team to respond to your office next week and to keep you updated. My understanding is—and I repeat the fact that this is a priority for our team and we are playing catch up, there is no other way to describe it—that we are trying to fill in the gap and we cannot put those 20 years back to that particular constituent.

Senator BILYK: I acknowledge that but I still think that things could be going a bit faster than they are going and that people could be a bit more cooperative in some areas.

Mr O'Connor : And we repeat our commitment to do that A lot of work and energy has been put by our recovery and support staff into this, as with the case manager and the treating providers, but we accept the challenge and the opportunity to do more and do better to help your constituent in her recovery and return to health and independence.

Senator BILYK: Thanks, Mr O'Connor. That is all from me for today, Chair.

CHAIR: Mr O'Connor, I have acknowledged on previous occasions that there has been a significant change in the way Comcare deals with these things and I know a particular matter that I have discussed here previously you have taken a personal involvement with and that is to be commended—I think it is still unresolved, actually, but I am not sure that is your fault. There are overlapping superannuation issues as well. My question really is how many of these legacy cases—for want of a better description—are still hanging around that have just been there for decades and are still unresolved properly?

Mr O'Connor : The fact that there is even one is of regret and concern. I expect that we are looking at probably in the order of a dozen matters that relate to the approaches that were taken and I think it is a timely reminder that federal employers who are accountable as the rehabilitation authority just cannot forget about these workers because otherwise that temporary disadvantage, that temporary hardship, will turn into major disadvantage. There are a number and a number have come forward, thankfully, because of the publicity around some of the work that we have done and we welcome that. We welcome the scrutiny in terms of being able to provide support. There are not many dozens but there are a number and often these people struggle with understanding the processes and the entitlements, and the crossover with the superannuation scheme and entitlements is often a difficult and complex one. Trying to guide people through that is challenging.

CHAIR: I am just wondering whether there are any thoughts being given to, again, a task force or something, for want of a better description, that might involve you and the other authorities involved to actually grab these dozen or so—I would actually like you to take it on notice and give me a figure if you can—cases and actually get rid of them. They keep coming up and when you look at them, they are tragic cases and they have caused enormous disadvantage to people over a long period of time. It really would be good to get rid of them or resolve them.

Mr O'Connor : I think resolution is a better issue, to give certainty and a path to recovery where that is appropriate. Under federal law, our work is to continue to support those people in their return to health and independence and, where possible, their return to work. In some cases folks have gone out on invalidity retirement or superannuation, and trying to help them back into meaningful employment, in many cases in their 'third age', the last part of their working life, they want to contribute and be able to help their families. As we know with one particular case, young kids are growing up in worklessness, and that is not good.

CHAIR: Could give some consideration to this. Again, if it is a problem with different agencies actually working together, that is something that as parliamentarians we can assist with, I suspect. I would like maybe at the next estimates to hear a report on a strategy to overcome these issues and on what obstacles you might see that are actually involved—in a constructive way. If you want to contact me outside the estimates, I am happy to be of any assistance as well if there needs to be an overall look from a political level. I will leave it there.

Senator ABETZ: That line of questioning intrigued me, Mr O'Connor. 'Third age': what cohort of the population is that?

Mr O'Connor : When I refer to third age, that would be people who would be older workers, perhaps over 40. It is always dangerous to put on a specific age.

Senator ABETZ: As soon as you mention that, I must say, I get a bit twitchy. So, what? Over—

Mr O'Connor : These are people who would be approaching the last several years of their working life in a usual age. But what we are seeing is—

Senator ABETZ: Over 40? We are not Greece.

Mr O'Connor : I think I said over 45.

Senator ABETZ: Even over 45. Don't most people put in another 20 years?

Mr O'Connor : Well, it is part of the changing dynamic of the Australian workforce, Senator, that Australians need to keep working longer.

Senator ABETZ: So the third age to you is anybody from 45?

Mr O'Connor : I am reluctant to put a—

Senator BACK: You should introduce a fourth age, Mr O'Connor.

Mr O'Connor : I try to keep it in threes.

Senator ABETZ: Keep it simple. Can you just make the third age ten years plus from 45? My line of questioning relates to correspondence that you would have received from Dr John Culvenor, a name that would be known to you. Did he email you, Mr O'Connor, on 19 January?

Mr O'Connor : Correct.

Senator ABETZ: And he outlined what he considered to be some important errors on the Comcare website. Is that correct?

Mr O'Connor : Correct.

Senator ABETZ: Comcare has acknowledged that there were some errors on the website?

Mr O'Connor : Correct.

Senator ABETZ: Yes. It is a pity that such an expert in these matters, who can assist Comcare, should not be considered worthy of being accredited for a training course. We have been down that track before, but it just goes to show the sort of expertise that we are ruling out. Can I ask: in relation to courses accredited before 1 January 2012, is it regulation 760?

Mr Kibble : Correct.

Senator ABETZ: There was a document that is headed 'Approved Courses—HSR training courses approved under the WHS Act 2011.' I think reference was made to 11 providers.

Mr Kibble : That is correct.

Senator ABETZ: Can you take me through that list because, as I count it, I got 13. Undoubtedly, there are two that are combined into the one or something. Do you have that list handy?

Mr Kibble : We do not, but we can take that on notice and clarify that for you.

Senator ABETZ: There was the ACTU/Trades and Labour Councils—ACTU/TLC. There were seven of those, then we had Job Safety Assistance Pty Ltd and then Australia Post/CEPU, John Holland, Linfox and Financial Services HSR Training. Can you take the list on notice and tell me how we count those 11, or 13? Can you also tell me, for example, whether the Linfox Pty Ltd course is in collaboration, for example with a trade union, to your knowledge?

Mr O'Connor : I will ask for Mr Kibble's support on that.

Mr Kibble : I do not think it is, but we will confirm that on notice.

Senator ABETZ: All right. The chances are that the John Holland one would not be but Australia Post/CEPU is one that the provider is separately Australia Post and CEPU, so that is where some of my double counting may have occurred. I am grateful if you can assist me with that. I think Dr Culvenor was hoping that you were right on your website because then he could have joined the training courses. Is that correct? But you acknowledged you were wrong and so he could not. All his hopes were dashed.

Mr Kibble : Yes.

Senator ABETZ: Yes, I thought that was how I should, regrettably, understand all this. In relation to the Work Health and Safety Bill package, are we of the view that there is provision in the legislation for the ongoing conduct of training accredited under repealed legislation?

Mr Kibble : Yes, under the transitional provisions of the new Commonwealth laws, the HSRs training is recognised and they continue for a further three years.

Senator ABETZ: You would be aware amendments were moved in relation to that and they were rejected by the parliament, so amendments allowing for the ongoing conduct of courses, providing they were updated with the current legislation, were knocked back. Does that change anything as far as Comcare is concerned?

Mr Kibble : Not that we are aware of. We are administering the laws as passed by the parliament. To clarify, the existing HSR courses that were accredited under the previous guidelines are approved until 1 January 2013.

Senator ABETZ: I am sure that this could not be right but is Comcare promoting e-learning in relation to OH&S generally?

Mr Kibble : We are promoting e-learning packages for employees and managers about the new model laws—yes.

Senator ABETZ: It is a pity Dr Culvenor could not have a little bit of that in his course in relation to HSR, but we have been down that track before. I must say it is still not satisfactory now.

Senator XENOPHON: I just want to follow up on the issue of getting an update from Comcare on the implementation of a CDDA type scheme. I think we have discussed it previously when at the last estimates you made the point that the most recent meeting was on 4 November 2011 in terms of the answer on notice. Given that it has been nearly two years since the ombudsman's recommendations, is there at least a date by which the scheme might be established and what is the general progress of the scheme?

Mr O'Connor : The department, I understand, answered that question on notice for us and have the carriage with the Department of Finance for looking at that matter. Further work has been undertaken, I understand. We remain keen to support that work and to progress it as quickly as the departments can—

Senator XENOPHON: The department provided a response and I was hoping I could get a better response from you. Take that as a compliment, Mr O'Connor. The department said:

Comcare could be empowered to make discretionary payments in respect of detriment caused by defective administration.

It is a bit equivocal there: not whether it should be, but whether it could be. They go on to say:

The most recent meeting was on 4 November 2011.

The timing of any amendments and any consultation on same is a matter for Government.

Are you saying that Comcare has done its bit? Are there any further meetings or is there any further input that is required by Comcare from your point of view as to the mechanics of such a scheme being set up?

Mr O'Connor : We continue to support the discussions. We have remained firm and consistent in our view that the solution that was identified in conjunction with Professor McMillan, the former ombudsman, still remains the preferred position to move towards, but we do require—

Senator XENOPHON: That is a CDDA type scheme?

Mr O'Connor : Yes, it is a proxy for the compensation for defective administration.

Senator XENOPHON: Sure, so it is quite fair to say that Comcare is not averse to that. You support the former ombudsman's recommendations. So it certainly cannot be said to be an impediment from Comcare's point of view in saying that it is not an appropriate approach.

Mr O'Connor : That is correct, and we continue to support the department to resolve any particular difficulties that may be in the way.

Senator XENOPHON: I could ask the Parliamentary Secretary: it has been a long time, a couple of years now, since those recommendations. It seems that Comcare has done its bit to cooperate with the establishment of such a scheme and the mechanics of it. I do not know whether the department could answer that?

Senator Jacinta Collins: I am sure the department could answer where it is in terms of advising government in considerations of that, and they will be appearing later tonight.

Senator XENOPHON: Sure. I will follow it through, because I think for those who have a genuine grievance, it would be a very important safety valve. Mr O'Connor, as always, thank you.

CHAIR: Senator Xenophon, I will make sure that the secretariat advises you when the appropriate officers in the department are before us.

Senator ABETZ: If I may quickly traverse an area that we did some time ago, and that is in relation to detention centres and—remind me of what the terminology is—the notices of compliance, was it?

Mr Kibble : It might have been 'improvement notices'.

Senator ABETZ: Have any further investigations been undertaken—audits? Have any notices been issued?

Mr Kibble : Senator, the last time we discussed this we had what we call the national investigation, and there was as part of that one improvement notice issued in relation to the Villawood detention centre. We have canvassed that before. We currently have three open investigations in relation to—

Senator ABETZ: Did you say three open or ongoing investigations?

Mr Kibble : Ongoing open.

Senator ABETZ: Oh, same dif. Alright. Ongoing investigations in relation to detention centres?

Mr Kibble : Yes, Senator.

Senator ABETZ: Which ones are they?

Mr Kibble : They are investigations in relation to an incident involving a forklift at Scherger in March 2011, the death of a client at Curtin in March 2011, and a SERCO officer being found unconscious at the Curtin centre in November 2011.

Senator ABETZ: When do you anticipate being able to wrap up those investigations?

Mr Kibble : Shortly, Senator.

Senator ABETZ: Quicker than Fair Work Australia, we trust. Do you think six months?

Mr Kibble : Less than that.

Senator ABETZ: By the time of the May estimates?

Mr Kibble : I would imagine yes, Senator.

Senator Jacinta Collins: He might be loath to promise such a thing.

Senator ABETZ: He did it with such confidence that I will take comfort in that. Thank you. Just to absolutely be sure, have all improvement notices been complied with in relation to the detention centres?

Mr Kibble : Senator, just to finish off, since 1 January 2012, there have been three improvement notices issued in relation to detention centres.

Senator ABETZ: Right, sorry. Just as well I did ask that because I was thinking there were no such notices but just investigations that might lead up to an improvement notice. Sorry to detain you, but can I have that detail please? Three improvement notices?

Mr Kibble : Yes. These notices cover a variety of issues, including improvements to emergency signage, fire-fighting equipment, electrical hazards and general maintenance. I can take on notice, Senator, their status. As I understand it, they are all still ongoing. I do not think the date for finalisation has come yet.

Senator ABETZ: If you could take that on notice for me.

Mr Kibble : Yes.

Senator ABETZ: There were three improvement notices. In relation to which centres were they issued?

Mr Kibble : I will take that on notice too, Senator.

Senator ABETZ: You cannot tell us?

Mr Kibble : I do not have that information with me now.

Senator ABETZ: All right.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr O'Connor and Mr Kibble for your presentation and attendance at the estimates today.