Libby Coker (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

[by video link] This National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021 is a result of the death of Ann-Marie Smith, who passed away over 16 months ago in tragic circumstances—tragic circumstances that have been put under the spotlight by the flaws within the NDIS. These are flaws which have been left to fester under the Morrison government. This bill also follows the inquiry by Judge Alan Robertson into Ann-Marie Smith's tragic death. A number of recommendations were made consequently and, while there are some positives in this bill as a result, it falls well short of the sweeping changes that are required to ensure quality systems, transparency, accountability and, importantly, quality care and support for some of our most vulnerable citizens. These concerns go to some of the broader issues affecting the NDIS.

I am one of two federal MPs in this House from the Geelong region, the home of the NDIA. I remember when the NDIA was first established under a Labor government. It was a proud moment for Geelong and for our nation—a time to celebrate a scheme that would make life easier and better for all people with disabilities, their families and their carers. But, unfortunately, under the Liberal government, the scheme has been riddled with problems. This is despite the hard work and best endeavours of so many. At the core of the problem is a Liberal government that is not truly invested in the scheme. Instead, we see increasing casualisation of the NDIS workforce; convoluted systems that create frustration; barriers to supports and services; and proposals like mandatory independent assessments, which have been perceived widely as a cost-cutting measure. Fortunately, the many loud voices of those with disability and their advocates have resulted in the much-celebrated demise of independent assessments.

The Morrison government has got things wrong in a number of crucial areas of the NDIS, and many of these problems are the reasons the tragedy of Ann-Marie Smith happened. As I see it, these are the main issues: this government is not concerned primarily about NDIS service quality; its primary focus is about cutting costs. This government fails time and time again to consult properly when it makes changes to the NDIS. You can't make good reforms without hearing from the participants themselves; genuine consultation is required. This government has also failed to put in place adequate minimum training and qualification requirements because it's more interested in laissez-faire labour markets than in quality outcomes for people with disabilities. This government has not put in place any proactive checking and regulation of providers. This government has failed to establish an adequate schedule of regulatory infringements against a quality standards code because it thought that letting the market rip was all that needed to happen. And this government has failed to establish adequate labour market standards for providers, and the result is a more insecure workforce—the women and men who provide the vital NDIS support services.

It is a sad fact that this Morrison government has not provided the necessary safeguards to ensure that all those who access the NDIS are treated with care, compassion and respect. The sad reality is that the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission has contacted NDIS participants only once, in a joint letter to participants received in early September—one piece of correspondence from the commission to NDIS participants during a worldwide pandemic! That says it all. It should be noted that in his review Judge Robertson did take the opportunity to consider wider issues, including the safeguarding of people with disability who are particularly vulnerable. His report spoke of the buck-passing between the NDIA and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. What a tragic regulatory culture.

I would like to now turn to the detail of this bill and the proposed changes included under recommendations 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Robertson review. While Labor will support these changes, there is much more that needs to be done to ensure that people with disability receive quality care in a system that is user friendly, supportive, professional and, most importantly, centred around the needs of the person with the disability.

Leaving this aside, there are two important issues addressed in this bill—issues that are outlined in the Robertson review. Firstly, following recommendations 1, 5, 7 and 9, this bill facilitates a better exchange of information between the agency and the commission, and the disclosure of information to relevant state and territory bodies is facilitated by following recommendation 8. Secondly, clarification around the scope of reportable incidents is provided by following recommendation 6, and the strengthening of banning orders is facilitated by recommendation 10, which was outlined in a legislative change in November 2020. These two changes do offer some improvements; however, they do not properly address gaping holes in the NDIS safeguarding, such as the lack of proactive checking on service providers, and an ineffective and understaffed NDIS.

The amendments could have been so much better if the government had consulted and listened. For example, the key DRO, the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations, suggested a solution to the privacy concerns. They explained what could be achieved by establishing a clearly identified process which articulates why the participant's right to privacy should be overridden by the need to protect and be clearly documented; how a person's privacy will be protected in the context of investigations regarding abuse, including an option for an independent advocate to be appointed; and documentation of what information is then shared and with whom. To override participant privacy, the threat of abuse or disaster, such as a pandemic, has to be proven to be current, which will need to be defined. But this government just went on its merry way, didn't listen and didn't consult.

Labor believes everything possible should be done to protect people with disability from neglect and abuse. I want to say very clearly that the concerns of stakeholders and people with disability in relation to privacy and information sharing have not gone unheard. Labor recognises the right to privacy is just as important as the need to protect. This is why Labor is moving amendments to ensure there is a proper process for the disclosure of participant information. Labor will also move amendments to ensure all of these concerns are able to be looked at in detail as part of the review of NDIS safeguarding expected later this year. We will do this in close consultation with stakeholders and people with disabilities.

While the lack of consultation with people who have disabilities is a serious flaw of this government, it is not the worst of it. Very recently we saw documents leaked which showed the government's sham consultation process to try to address the community backlash requiring so-called independent assessments to evaluate NDIS participants' continuing eligibility for support. The leaked documents exposed a plan to dupe people with disabilities and the public and then to steamroll through the highly controversial changes while faking consultation. This was a disgraceful act by the minister and this government.

Before finishing, I want to put on public record my concern about the future of the NDIS in our city, in Geelong. I have been concerned regarding comments about the future of the NDIS made by the Liberal Party's new candidate. Stephanie Asher has always been lukewarm about the NDIS and in fact, early on, questioned the reason for its existence in Geelong. In relation to the NDIS, on 13 April 2013, Stephanie Asher said:

It also seems odd that there is scant work in the corporate sector, yet we are striving to head up the base for yet another government agency.

While the call is on to attract the best and brightest to our "univer-city", we simultaneously appeal to people with disabilities and their carers by positioning Geelong as the expert administrator of issues of disadvantage.

There is no question it will bring a lot of government money to the region, which means another CEO, another not for profit board and no doubt a bunch of new committees. Is that what we need?

Apart from the appalling condescension, this reeks of an arrogant and discriminating approach: 'So-called smart people attending Deakin University are okay, but do we really want people with disabilities?' It makes my skin crawl to hear such comments. I want to publicly ask Ms Asher: are you still questioning the NDIS's place in Geelong, and, if elected, will you support the continuation of the NDIS in Geelong?

I love the fact that the NDIS headquarters is based in the Geelong region. It is a strong part of our region's character. It provides local jobs and much-needed services for so many. It has the potential to be a truly great organisation, but it has a long way to go and it is not getting a fair go under this government. This bill could have been so much better. It is an example of the government's mean attitude to the NDIS. What we need is a government that truly cares—a government that puts people with disability first.

See this speech in context