Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Implementation of the recommendations of the Lost Innocents and Forgotten Australians reports

CHAIR —Welcome. You have information on protection of witnesses. As public servants you will not be asked your opinion on government policy. As I always say, I cannot guarantee that you will not be asked it, but you do not have to answer it. We have your submission. Can you tell me when this submission was sent?

Ms Essex —November of last year.

CHAIR —There could well be some updates, but it is a November submission. Does either of you have an opening statement?

Ms McKenzie —I do. FaHCSIA welcomes the inquiry into the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Lost innocents and Forgotten Australians reports. The importance of these inquiries to the healing process cannot be overstated. I am confident that this inquiry will highlight where further action is needed. Beyond the payment of child endowment the Commonwealth was not involved in the administration of institutions. The Commonwealth has no legislative power over child protection. However, Minister Macklin recently said that the protection and safety of Australian children is one of our greatest responsibilities and is an important part of the Australian government’s child centred approach to the delivery of family policy.

As a nation we are attempting to safeguard our children and do all we can to ensure that the abuse and the neglect, the lack of love, nurturing and affection experienced by the Forgotten Australians never occurs again. The government is leading the development of a national framework for protecting Australia’s children, a framework that will help reduce abuse and neglect of all children.

In February this year Minister Macklin also noted that increasing the capability of service providers to understand child protection and related issues is an important part of developing the framework. As we develop the framework the input of Forgotten Australians will be vital in ensuring children are protected and that those leaving care are supported. Perhaps their greatest legacy can be ensuring that the mistakes of the past do not become the policies of the future. In addition, as the government develops the guidelines for its new family support program, Forgotten Australians will be consulted to ensure their experiences and needs are recognised. This will ensure that the family support program will provide more accessible flexible counselling and support to Forgotten Australians.

Given state and territory responsibility for child protection issues, it is important to note that individual jurisdictions are responsible for the development of policies and service delivery processes. As such, to fully implement the report’s recommendation work needs to occur across all jurisdictions. However, as Minister Macklin said on 28 March, the government understands that more needs to be done. The experiences of the Forgotten Australians and former child migrants deserve better recognition. Understanding this, the Rudd government have stated their commitment to acknowledging the past hurt caused by government actions, along with providing practical assistance for the future.

The minister said that this recognition needs public awareness and education, ongoing support and services for affected people and families, and real engagement from the community services and health sectors. The needs she spoke of are highlighted by the many hundreds of letters and personal stories she has received. To help address these needs, the minister continues to support Alliance for Forgotten Australians, which continues to develop a national voice for Forgotten Australians. This national voice will enable Forgotten Australians to share information across state boundaries and, as there remains some variability in responses, encourage states to respond more consistently.

Also, noting the important work CLAN does to enable care leavers to tell their stories and confront the trauma of their past, Minister Macklin recently approved $50,000 funding to CLAN to continue this important work. Consistent with recommendations 12, 37 and 38, and recognising the importance of uncovering lost and incomplete personal histories, the Australian Research Council, a statutory authority within the government’s Innovation, Industry, Science and Research portfolio, has provided a $550,000 grant to assist several organisations to undertake the ‘Who am I’ project. I understand senators were provided with an overview of this project at the Melbourne meeting.

I am also aware that last year CLAN were able to negotiate an agreement with the National Archives of Australia, an agency of the Australian government, to receive a number of relevant Defence service records free of charge. Also, the Commonwealth’s response to recommendation 34 remains ongoing and we maintain regular contact with state government departments regarding the $100,000 allocation for the development of state memorials.

As outline in the department’s submission, $658,000 funding will be provided to the Australian Institute of Family Studies, AIFS, in 2008-09 to maintain the Child Protection Clearinghouse. The clearing house disseminates information on child protection activities and research to professionals and organisations in this field. The clearing house has written a number of papers and resource sheets about, or with reference to, children in institutional care, including Getting the Big Picture, a synopsis and critique of Australian out-of-home care research 2007; Child Maltreatment in Organisations, risk factors and strategies for prevention 2006; A History of Child Protection 2001; History of Child Abuse Bibliography; and Traces in the Archives, evidence of institutional abuse in surviving child welfare.

Consistent with recommendation 25 our minister is funding the Personal Helper and Mentors program, PHaMs, with up to $20 million in 2009 to deliver additional community based mental health services. Forgotten Australians are one of the priority groups for this program, which provides increased opportunities for recovery for people whose lives are affected by a severe mental illness. PHaMs helps people overcome social isolation and increases their connections to the community. In developing PHaMs’s funding, FaHCSIA has consulted with the Alliance for Forgotten Australians and CLAN to identify the mental health issues faced by Forgotten Australians.

Outside these specific or related responses, Minister Macklin and the government also support Forgotten Australians more broadly. Recognising that young people leaving out-of-home care face many challenges, our minister recently announced a $165,000 grant for the CREATE Foundation to provide more support and help. The Australian government is providing $507 million through the Medicare Benefits Scheme for the Better Access to Psychiatrists, Psychologists and General Practitioner’s program, a program that increases community access to mental health professionals and team based mental health care.

In addition to the responses to recommendation 28 outlined in our submission, the government provides a range of services for young people leaving care, including assistance with housing, life skills programs, access to brokerage funds, employment and education, and the transition to independent living allowance. The government also recently issued a white paper, the Road Home, a national approach to reducing homelessness that recognises the high rate of young people leaving child protection systems into homelessness. Under the national partnership on homelessness, state and territory governments are implementing a policy of no exits into homelessness for those at risk of homelessness.

As outlined in our submission, the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research has committed $10 million over a period of 10 years for a chair in child protection at the University of South Australia. That is over 2004 to 2013. Consistent with recommendation 29, the chair leads and promotes research into child protection and assists researchers working to combat child abuse across disciplines.

On 3 April 2009 Senator John Faulkner launched the draft exposure bill for the freedom of information reform. Consistent with recommendation 18, the amendments proposed in the two draft bills represent the first significant reform to the FOI Act since its commencement in 1982. It is a reform which will reposition the act as a cornerstone law in Australian government accountability legislation.

Government support for Forgotten Australians also extends to a range of Commonwealth payments. In addition, Forgotten Australians are able to access a broad range of Commonwealth funded or provided services, including health, housing and counselling support, and a range of concession cards.

Again, I would like to thank senators for their time and ongoing concern for Forgotten Australians. We are happy to speak to any matter in our written submission that requires explanation or elaboration.

CHAIR —Thank you. Ms Essex, would you like to add anything at this stage.

Ms Essex —No, I do not.

Senator HUMPHRIES —I would like to start at the end of the background section of the paper. I saw a formulation or a disclaimer which I have not seen before on a submission. It says:

This submission has been approved by the responsible FaHCSIA Deputy Secretary, Ms Glenys Beauchamp. The Minister for Families, Housing Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the hon Jenny Macklin MP, is aware of its content.

Ms Essex —That is simply to indicate that the submission is the department’s; it is not the minister’s submission. I understand that was a form of words we were advised to use. I was not aware that it had not been used before. My understanding is that it is used by some departments. It is just to clarify that it is the department’s views in the submission.

Senator HUMPHRIES —I do not recall seeing it before. Maybe we have had submissions like that. So this is the department’s view?

Ms Essex —This is the department’s view.

Senator HUMPHRIES —We assume that it is not starkly at odds with the minister’s view.

Ms Essex —I do not suspect so.

Senator BOYCE —What on earth would lead you to that assumption?

Senator HUMPHRIES —If it is not at odds with her views, I do not know why she has not endorsed it. I note, with interest, that unusual formulation. I know the various programs that you have outlined to us. I would like to go, first of all, to the recommendations of the Forgotten Australians report. You say that the report was responded to by the former government and it rejected a number of recommendations because they were matters for state and territory governments, not within the power of the government and so forth. You then say:

It is worth noting that in the relatively short period since the last federal election the government has made further responses to the Forgotten Australians in several areas as indicated in its commitment to a healing process.

That is this government. You then go on to say:

It is in the process of examining previous responses to the report’s recommendations to determine areas which are appropriate to make improvements and that improvements will be implemented.

Was that process a publicly announced one?

Ms Essex —No. That is part of the ongoing policy process.

Senator HUMPHRIES —Is there any sort of pattern here of policy with respect to the recommendations of committees to which previous governments have reported? There is also a report on Lost innocents. Is the government going to look at that and revise responses to that report?

Ms Essex —The department of immigration has the lead on the Lost innocents report within the Commonwealth, so they would be able to answer what is happening in that regard. The statement in the submission was simply to indicate that there had been a response and we thought the committee would be interested in the fact that further work had gone on since that response, which was relatively recent work. My understanding is that we were asked specifically to address whether any additional information was available as to progress from the government’s last response.

Senator HUMPHRIES —Indeed, we are grateful. Given that the original report was a unanimous report, we would all have been disappointed by some of the positions taken by the former government, so I cannot pretend that I am not pleased that these issues are being looked at again. I am just wondering whether this connotes that there is a policy in place in the government to review recommendations of committees that the former government responded to, or is this just a one-off?

Ms Essex —I do not think there is an intention to indicate that at all.

Senator HUMPHRIES —Indicate what?

Ms Essex —That there is any kind of policy to review recommendations. It is simply an explanation that there has been some recent work in this particular area.

Senator HUMPHRIES —You indicate that the government is currently working with key stakeholder groups and several government members in both the house and the Senate to progress matters further. I am pleased to hear that. I again note that this was a bipartisan report and there was support of all the recommendations by all of the members who took part in the inquiry, not merely government members. That is a piece of commentary that you might take back to the minister when you are considering that matter. I wanted to ask about the framework for protecting Australia’s children. You state:

The Framework will be practical and will aim to ensure nationally consistent approaches to the protection of children and the services needed to support victims of abuse.

Obviously that connotes a level of cooperation with state and territory governments about how this would work. What can you tell us about this process, such as how long has it been going on, what stage has it reached, and when do you think we might have some outcomes from it?

Ms McKenzie —The development of the national framework for protecting Australia’s children has been something that has been progressed through the Community and Disability Services Ministerial Council at the request of COAG. There have been a number of items that have gone to COAG over recent meetings, including information sharing to enhance child protection, particularly child safety. We are expecting that COAG will be able to consider a child protection framework early in 2009, which was their decision on when they wanted to do it.

Senator HUMPHRIES —Is it anticipated that process would lead to state, territory or federal governments changing laws so that there is a level of alignment between the framework that is provided for the protection of children?

Ms McKenzie —The exact content of the national framework has not been finalised in negotiation between the Commonwealth and the states, so I am really not at liberty to be able to discuss that.

Senator HUMPHRIES —I appreciate those answers. What you are saying to us is that there is some review going on of the government response to the recommendations of the earlier Senate report. They have not been finalised so we cannot ask you about those. You have a framework, which has been worked out, but you have not got to a stage where you can tell us about that, either. You have listed the responses to the Forgotten Australians report, but for virtually all of them you simply refer to FaHCSIA not being aware of any further action, or you describe other processes which are known to us already. It is hard to ask many questions of you because I really do not have much to work with in that respect. I would say that I welcome a focus on coordinating and developing a stronger framework for the protection of children. We have had some very exciting things happening in places like South Australia, which I think are worth picking up and using as a model. I assume there will be an opportunity in estimates or other contexts to ask you questions when that framework is fleshed out, but for the moment there is not much else I can ask you, so thank you.

CHAIR —Senator Boyce.

Senator BOYCE —I wanted to initially go forward to your tables where you talk about funding the Australian Research Council to assist several Victorian based organisations to undertake a study on children and adolescents who formally lived in foster or institutional homes.

Ms Essex —Can you help me with the page number please?

Senator BOYCE —I would if I could. There are no page numbers.

Senator HUMPHRIES —It is the second last page before the table.

Senator BOYCE —It is the second last paragraph of the second last page before the tables. The last sentence of your submission reads, ‘The Australian Tax Office has ruled …’ If you go to the page prior to that—would it help if I just read it out to you?

Ms Essex —That would be very helpful.

Senator BOYCE —It states:

In response to elements of Recommendations 12, 37 and 38, and to acknowledge the ongoing need to help uncover lost and incomplete personal histories, the Government has provided an Australian Research Council grant to assist several Victorian based organisations undertake a study on children and adolescents who formerly lived in foster or institutional homes. This project is providing information to people who have been in care, offer a history and set of resources to people currently in care, and inform current organisations on best practice models.

Ms Essex —Yes.

Senator BOYCE —I understand the money has gone to look at Victorian based organisations. Is it only to study children in care in Victoria?

Ms Essex —It is a localised project. My understanding is that was the project methodology. It was funded in this particular location. There is a range of reasons why you would do a location based project, including access to participants in the project, resources and confining it to the issues of a particular institution or set of institutions, bearing in mind that state regulations and state experiences vary from state to state. My understanding is that it was a desire to have that kind of methodology that led to it being only about Victorian participants. It was not funded on the intention that it should only be Victoria. I can get you some more details about the participants and outcomes of that project.

Senator BOYCE —Is that project still ongoing, or is it completed?

Ms Essex —I will need to check that.

CHAIR —I will just break in. We have a request for filming from SBS and they also work for ABC and others. SBS has been following this committee around. Is there any problem with that? No. Go ahead.

Senator BOYCE —I am wanting to get to when we might expect outcomes from this project and how they might be made useful to other organisations in the area?

Ms Essex —To give you a full answer to that it might be most helpful if we took it on notice.

Senator BOYCE —That is fine. Ms McKenzie, during your opening statement you spoke about encouraging state governments to fulfil their responsibilities in regard to the Lost Innocents. Could you tell us what that encompasses? What has been done in terms of encouraging state governments?

Ms Essex —I can answer that for you, if that is acceptable.

Senator BOYCE —That is fine.

Ms Essex —There is a range of processes within government that are used to encourage progress on particular issues. We have regular discussions with our state and territory colleagues about these issues.

Senator BOYCE —What do you mean by ‘regular discussions’?

Ms Essex —I can get the exact frequency for you on notice.

Senator BOYCE —Is this some sort of departmental officer—

Ms Essex —No. It is officer-to-officer communication, which is the way these things normally progress. There is an officer in my branch who has issues relating to the Forgotten Australians as his primary focus. So he maintains contact with state and territory departments. He maintains contact with the relevant stakeholder organisations and keeps a watching brief over what is happening; for example, in memorials or counselling, what facilities are available to particular Forgotten Australians and what options they might be able to pursue in relation to each state and territory.

Senator BOYCE —By ‘options’ do you mean services that are available?

Ms Essex —Services that are available, which, I understand, varies from state to state.

Senator BOYCE —Do you have an overview of that?

Ms Essex —We have an overview of that.

Senator BOYCE —We might send hundreds of people to talk to your officer. If someone understands it, that is great.

Ms Essex —What we could do is provide for you, on notice, a summary of the process that we undertake to ensure that we maintain contact with the states and territories.

Senator BOYCE —Also, could you give us an overview of the services that are available in each state?

Ms Essex —We can give you an overview of what we are aware of.

Senator BOYCE —Thank you. The other question I had was also about what a particular phrase means. You spoke about the Forgotten Australians being a ‘priority group’ within the next funding round for PHaMs. What does being a ‘priority group’ get you?

Ms Essex —I understand that the next funding round for PHaMs has not been finalised. Let me talk about why Forgotten Australians would be a priority group for PHaMs. The department is aware that Forgotten Australians and Australians who leave institutional care are significantly represented in those people who access and use the PHaMs service. The feedback the department has received is that they have particular needs in relation to services. Priority groups are about those groups being able to access the appropriate services. My understanding is that the department also has feedback that Forgotten Australians and people leaving institutional care benefit from the Personal Helpers and Mentors Program. It is about ensuring that the right people get the right access to the right program at the right time.

Senator BOYCE —If I were a Forgotten Australian I am more likely to get funding from PHaMs than otherwise?

Ms Essex —You are likely to get an appropriate response for your particular issues.

Senator BOYCE —I am trying to tease out what you might get if you are a priority group that you would not otherwise receive? It is all very well to say someone is a ‘priority group’, but as a recipient of a service would I have a sense that people were prioritising my needs?

Ms Essex —You would have a sense in two respects. One is that we would not link you up with a service that was likely to cause difficulty for you because it was linked to the previous institution that you had lived in, for example. That is a very important thing for people. We will get some advice from the relevant policy area in our department about what priority access group means in this particular context and we will provide that to you on notice.

CHAIR —I have been following the PHaMs program closely and I have not seen anything on the website that identifies care leavers. I may not have seen the appropriate stuff, so I am really interested to get from the department any information that clearly identifies care leavers as being a particular group that is being looked after by PHaMs. Also, your opening statement commented on the consultation that had taken place with organisations. I would like to get details of that as well.

Ms Essex —We will provide that for you.

CHAIR —I have just been through your website and I cannot see anything.

Ms Essex —We will raise that with the relevant area.

CHAIR —A huge issue with people was that they could not find themselves in the white paper on housing and yet what we see in the white paper on housing is young people leaving care. That is absolutely true.

Senator BOYCE —And a focus on preventing homelessness.

CHAIR —I have heard about homelessness in the PHaMs program, but what this group of people are saying is that they have a sense of identity as being people who were affected by care in the past; they are not young people leaving care, per se. I am interested because I think it is a natural thing, and I cannot find it. I would like to see where the department has actually used a strategy of identifying this group and engaging with them.

Ms Essex —We will provide that on notice.

CHAIR —Thank you.

Senator BOYCE —I asked questions earlier in regard to a point you just touched on, which is the number of people who have serious concerns about being confronted in any way by organisations that are somehow associated with the previous institutions; for example, perhaps having a Salvation Army counselling service when they were in a Salvation Army home. You mentioned one way that you are trying to assist people in that area. What else is happening in that regard?

Ms Essex —I do not have policy responsibility for the PHaMs program in terms of the detail.

Senator BOYCE —I am not being specific.

Ms Essex —In relation to Commonwealth government programs, by providing a diversity of providers and choice of provider—allowing people to choose the provider that they access—we hope to give people a range of choices that allows them to choose a suitable provider and a suitable range of services. It is important to recognise that Commonwealth funded services also work with state and local government funded services, and some services that are funded by the third sector. It is important to see those services as a whole that are available to people.

The Commonwealth has an investment in services in the broader family relationships and family support space. That is very much about all people, but with a focus on people who have particular challenges in either their relationships, their access to the community or perhaps in money management. There is a range of programs that are funded that aim to support people in a range of different ways. Those programs are not restricted to any one provider. In a geographical location, using the combination of state and local government services—Australian government services and other services, we see that there is a variety of choices open to most people. There are geographical areas in which that might not be the case. For example, it is difficult to have choice and multiple providers in some rural and remote areas, but wherever possible we seek options for people.

Senator BOYCE —We also had evidence this morning from Families SA that they had great difficulty in getting help organisations, for want of a better word, other than church organisations to set up in South Australia. Have they approached you at all about assistance to get some non-religious ones?

Ms Essex —Not to my knowledge, but there are some non-religious providers.

Senator BOYCE —I realise there are. They are saying that in South Australia they have problems in getting people to set up in Adelaide.

Ms Essex —We would welcome a discussion with them to see if we can assist them in any way.

Senator BOYCE —Ms McKenzie, you raised in your comments the changes proposed to the Freedom of Information Act. What would these mean for the Forgotten Australians in terms of their ability to access information?

Ms Essex —I can answer that. One of the things that Forgotten Australians speak about regularly is the difficulty of accessing their own records, or records that are relevant to them, particularly in relation to siblings, their history and their identity. Our understanding is that the changes proposed to the freedom of information laws may make that process simpler for them, less costly, and give them better access to government records. We are continuing to work with our colleagues who have responsibility for that legislation to better understand how that might be useful and to provide that information.

Senator BOYCE —How would it be simpler?

Ms Essex —I do not have the detail in front of me, but I am happy to give you some information on notice.

Senator BOYCE —I will ask this question, although I suspect I already know the answer. Would this affect access to information in the records held by non-government agencies?

Ms Essex —My understanding is that the Freedom of Information Act would not do that. There may be certain circumstances in which the Privacy Act is of assistance, but the Attorney-General’s Department and the Prime Minister’s department would be a better place to provide assistance on that.

Senator BOYCE —I was musing earlier with some of the other members of the committee as to why DIAC continues to have responsibility for the Lost Innocents, the child migrants group. Have any discussions taken place as to whether the responsibility for that area should be switched over to FaHCSIA or not?

Ms McKenzie —I am not aware of any discussions like that.

Senator BOYCE —The other concern that is evident from the evidence that we have taken to date is that there is no one organisation that appears to have the responsibility for oversighting how well the Commonwealth, the states, church agencies and other institutions are performing in terms of even adhering to the recommendations that have been made or responding in any way to the recommendations. Has that issue been raised with the department?

Ms Essex —No. To my knowledge it has not been raised with the department.

Senator BOYCE —Not by any of the groups?

Ms Essex —I am happy to go and check to see if it was before Ms McKenzie’s or my time, or if it has been raised with more junior officers and we are not aware of it, but we have no personal knowledge of it.

Senator BOYCE —What would your view be about a process for oversighting progress from all of the organisations that are involved?

Ms McKenzie —At this stage I do not think that we would have a view.

Senator BOYCE —I thought that might be what you would say. Thank you.

CHAIR —I asked someone earlier these questions. It is about the graphic you provided with the updated responses to all of the recommendations. I was particularly interested in the ones that said that it had been discussed between states. Queensland had a template and we were waiting to see what was happening. It is recommendation 22, which says that jurisdictions were to complete a template and that it was going to go to Queensland and they were not aware of any further action. The witnesses from South Australia said that they believed that they did provide information to that process. There was another one with exactly the same process where a copy of it had gone to Queensland and we were not aware of what was happening out of that.

Ms Essex —We are happy to review the Hansard and clarify those things for you.

CHAIR —It is 18. It is exactly the same thing. Obviously, when these recommendations came out there was some action taken to look at interstate coverage of care leavers, which was an incredibly sensitive area. That was 22 and then 18, which was clearly about access to information. Both of those things indicate that there was some action. Disappointingly, that the attorneys-general did not take up the discussion, but certainly some work had been done and I was wondering what had happened to that.

The other one is recommendation 39, about tertiary institutions, where we are looking at particular training. I think we had spoken with Professor Scott in South Australia during the inquiry. We definitely had discussions with people about that. The chair had been very recently appointed when we had these recommendations and it seems that there was going to be some discussion between the government and the chair. It was put off because of a personal issue, but we do not know what happened after that.

Ms Essex —I will take on notice to give you an update on what has happened in relation to that.

CHAIR —That would be useful. The other thing I want to talk about is AFA, the funding for AFA and the role of AFA. Whilst there have been particular issues about funding generally from the evidence we have had in the submissions, the fact that the department did have the inaugural conference and that AFA came out of that conference, my understanding from reading minutes was that the call for AFA was actually something that the people who had attended the conference had agreed on, which was a very positive move. My understanding is that the ongoing role and funding of AFA is, at this stage as with most budgetary things, only until the end of this financial year.

Ms Essex —Yes.

CHAIR —It would be part of an ongoing response whether that would continue with funding and its role as an advocacy group, not a service provision group?

Ms Essex —We are not in a position today to be able to give you an answer on that.

CHAIR —The other issue is consistently about calls for funding for CLAN. In your submission you said the original money was given around the time of the report. I remember that. It was 2004. Even before the recommendations were put forward there was funding given to CLAN to keep it going. There has been one further injection and then one very recent injection. That seems to be stimulant funding rather than ongoing funding. Is that how the department would see it?

Ms Essex —My understanding is that there have been two types of funding available to CLAN. One has been in relation to particular projects, particularly around dissemination of information to care leavers, and some funding has been around supporting the ongoing, more reactive work that CLAN undertakes. We continue to discuss their needs with both CLAN and AFA, and continue to be engaged in conversation around that. We would certainly be always open to discussions with those organisations about their funding needs.

CHAIR —The other issue was from other groups that feel that at times the only Commonwealth funding is going to CLAN and that there is a range of organisations that work in providing support, counselling services and those kinds of issues to care leavers. Particularly in evidence yesterday there was some concern that it was focusing the funding into one area without calling for tenders and without having an open availability of organisations. It is the difference between acknowledging one group as a national group, which they claim to be. There are differing opinions from some of the evidence that we have had but, nonetheless, CLAN is the group that has the highest profile. But there are a number of them and there were suggestions made that if you are looking at funding support services for people who are care leavers then it needs to be clearly identified and open that a number of organisations are able to put themselves forward. That has not happened until now, has it? My understanding is that the CLAN funding has not been part of the tender process.

Ms Essex —I will need to check, particularly around the communication project funding, because I was not in the department at the time.

CHAIR —If you could get that clarified it would be very useful. Thank you very much.

Proceedings suspended from 2.44 pm to 3.13 pm