Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Earlier, Deputy Speaker Goodenough noted that the Speaker had received a message from the Senate. I move:

That the consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the message be considered immediately."

The calling of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability was a significant occasion. It was a very significant occasion for people right across the country who had campaigned for it for many years. It is going to involve an estimated cost of more than half a billion dollars by the time its investigations are completed. We don't actually know the sheer number of people with a disability who have died in care, but it is estimated that between 2014 and 2017 in New South Wales government-run institutions alone there were 43 preventable deaths.

There can be no questioning of the significance of this royal commission. It is something that Senator Steele-John pushed for for quite some time, and we congratulated the government when it was finally called. But for it to be of impact and for the findings of the royal commission to have widespread public support, including the support of people with disabilities, there has to be confidence in the commission process itself. What we are dealing with at the moment is not a case, if I can use legal terminology, of actual bias amongst commissioners; we are dealing with a question of perceived conflict of interest.

In this, perceptions will count for a lot. This royal commission must not only be independent but be seen to be independent. If it is seen to be independent, then the many people in this country with disabilities who've been pushing for this for many years will have confidence in the investigative process and the outcomes. But that is not where it sits at the moment, and that is why this motion needs to be passed. Where it sits at the moment is that a significant proportion of the communities of people with disabilities in this country are saying they do not consider this process to be safe. Not only that, the community are saying that if two of these commissioners stay part of the commission then they will, in fact, boycott the process. That would be a disaster. It would be a disaster if this incredibly significant royal commission were to be impeded because the government was not willing to put in commissioners that were not just independent but also perceived to be independent.

We are dealing here with two commissioners in particular. For all members in this House, I want to repeat the point that I made at the start. We are dealing here not with claims of bias; we are dealing here with claims of perceived conflict of interest. The kinds of claims that I think would see a judge stand down from hearing a case. I say this without impugning the reputations of these two people or suggesting any wrongdoing. In this instance, the right thing for them to do would be to step aside, and if they're not going to do it the government should do it. If the government don't do it, they run the risk of creating a rod for their own back and sabotaging the very process that they themselves have set up, and it will not have legitimacy. What is at stake is whether or not this process is going to be seen as being legitimate by the very people who were calling for it to be established in the first place.

I'm going to go into a bit of detail about the two people in question in particular—again, and I stress, not because I'm making claims against them, but because this is about having the confidence of the community. When you understand the background of the involvement of these two people, you can see why the calls for them to step aside are eminently reasonable. The first is John Ryan. Before he was appointed to the royal commission, he was the director of contemporary residential options in the New South Wales Department of Family and Community Services. In that role, he was partly responsible for more than 300 government operated group disability homes, as well as overseeing the closure and redevelopment of the state's largest residential institutions. The largest of these, the Stockton Centre, has been in the process of closing down since Mr Ryan assumed the role in 2011. Residents are being moved into community settings as part of this process. Between 2014 and 2017 a New South Wales Ombudsman's report found that two women had died of dehydration and a third woman was severely injured after being moved out of the Stockton Centre and into residential care. And it found that inadequate staff training about the complex needs of these patients was a factor contributing to the deaths of these women. The same report concluded that another 41 individuals had died in that three-year period whilst under the care of Mr Ryan's employer, the New South Wales Department of Family and Community Services.

Those matters are very likely to be the subject of inquiry by the commission—or at least the people who have called for the royal commission will be seeking to have those matters investigated by the royal commission. People will be asking for an investigation into one of the commissioner's former employers in one of the single largest areas of investigation undertaken. Mr Ryan was the director of contemporary residential options for the New South Wales Department of Family and Community Services at the time, a role he only resigned from in order to join the royal commission. So it is, in fact, a potential inquiry into the impact of actions that he directly oversaw. That is a direct conflict of interest or at least an appearance of a conflict of interest.

The second commissioner, Ms Barbara Bennett, worked for the Department of Social Services for over a decade and was involved in the rollout of the NDIS, as well as other social programs that regularly interact with people with disabilities. The NDIS is necessarily going to be a huge part of the investigation undertaken by the royal commission, as will the interactions between other government social programs and disabled people. If the royal commission is going to be looking at the interaction between NDIS and people with disabilities then it may well traverse on the very areas that the commissioner was involved in overseeing. That is not just some wild claim; it is just manifestly obvious, on the face of, it that, if you have someone who has been involved in implementing and rolling out the NDIS, the subject matters that that commissioner oversaw are likely to be some of the matters that people will want to bring to the commission's attention and the commission will investigate. But what we can't have is a case of an appearance that the Public Service is investigating a public service, in the case of Ms Bennett, or, in the case of Mr Ryan, a suggestion that investigations of actions potentially under his watch, or at least under his employer's watch, will now be under a cloud or may not progress in the way that people wanted.

I come back to what I said at the start: the calls for these people to step down are now growing. We are here debating this because a majority of the Senate has asked that, if they don't stand aside, the government stand them aside. So we now have a very large section of the parliament, from across the party-political spectrum, representing broad community support saying that these two people ought not sit as the commissioners. And we now have the community itself saying: 'We've got some alternative proposals that would ensure that the government can independently pick some people who would meet the selection criteria. We are not seeking to appoint them, but there are some criteria that could be applied that would ensure independence.' And the government itself is being stubborn and pigheaded. As a result, people with disabilities are now saying they don't feel safe before this royal commission and are going to boycott it. The royal commission will be tarred from the beginning if these two people do not do the right thing and stand aside. If this was a case before the court, in a heartbeat the judge would stand aside—because they would know that you can't have the appearance of a fair trial if it is into matters that you yourself were directly involved in. But that is what we have got here.

My message to this place is that the disability community can't do it by themselves anymore. They pushed and pushed and got a royal commission up, and they want this royal commission to be successful. People are prepared to come and participate in it. But they do not want a royal commission where people don't feel safe before it because the government is picking the very people who should be investigated by the royal commission! If the government could just put aside its pig-headedness and stubbornness for one second, it would realise it would be doing itself a favour—because if it just put in two other people that have the broad support of the community then it would have widespread political support and it would be understood and appreciated for having done the right thing. But if the government is not going to do it then the parliament should make the government do it. I commend this amendment to the House.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great honour to second this amendment to this motion today. When the Prime Minister announced the royal commission in April 2019, he said that Australia needed to:

… establish a culture of respect for people living with disabilities and the families who support, love and care for them.

He said people with a disability 'deserve our respect' and that the establishment of a royal commission was 'so above politics'. If the government is serious about respect for those living with a disability then the government must act to prioritise their voices and their experiences.

Sixty disability organisations have called for the removal of Mr Ryan and Ms Bennett, and that is a decision I am sure they have not taken lightly. Fifteen hundred people have signed a petition calling for the removal of Mr Ryan and Ms Bennett. The government should listen to those people living with a disability who have already stated that they no longer feel safe in giving evidence to the royal commission. We can't have that. We need people with a disability who would like to give evidence. That in itself is a very daunting procedure and a decision people do not take lightly. If they want to provide evidence then we need to ensure that they feel safe to do so. When people who are desperate to have their voices heard are considering walking away from the very opportunity that they have fought so hard for, that they have spent years fighting for, then there can be no mistake that the commissioners have lost the confidence of the people they very much need to have confidence in them—and that is the disability community.

The very integrity of this royal commission is at stake. This is a very serious matter. I make no comment on the individual commissioners and have no doubt that they accepted their appointments seeking to further the interests of the disability community. But the perceived conflicts of interest presented by their past roles and experiences, I believe—and I know that many people across both chambers believe this—are unmanageable. Sixty disability organisations and 1,500 people were willing to put their name to the petition. I strongly urge the government to reconsider the appointments of Mr Ryan and Ms Bennett.

I would just like to acknowledge the tremendous and courageous work of Senator Jordon Steele-John. Since entering this parliament, he has been a tremendous advocate for not just the royal commission but people living with disability.

Coming from the NGO space, I know that organisations are often fearful of going on the record against government policy. Organisations are often fearful that there will be some kind of backlash against their organisation from a funding point of view. So it is very, very rare for an organisation to stand up against government policy like this. These are, I believe, very reasonable calls that are being made by many in the disability sector and many individuals who are living with a disability.

So, I would urge the government: please reconsider the appointment of Mr Ryan and Ms Bennett. And if Mr Ryan and Ms Bennett happen to be listening or reading the Hansard, perhaps they could reflect on the concerns of the disability organisations, on the concerns of those who have been willing to sign a position and perhaps consider resigning from their roles. Again, I am very pleased to second this motion and very pleased to second the good work of the member for Melbourne and of course Senator Jordan Steele-John, and I commend this motion to the House.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the members who have spoken during the debate on this motion, and it's good to see Senator Steele-John here in the House. As always, you are very welcome.

The Australian government—and I know I can also speak for the opposition in this role—takes violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disability very seriously. That's why on 5 April this year the government announced the establishment of a Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. The royal commission will run for three years, delivering an interim report no later than 30 October next year and a final report no later than 29 April 2022.

It's important to recognise that all state and territory first ministers provided formal or in-principle support for a joint royal commission. This is a national effort. A joint royal commission will allow the royal commission to look into matters that are the primary responsibility of the states and the territories. That includes health, mental health, education, justice settings and other interface issues between levels of government. Once the royal commission commences, details of how and where to make submissions will be available on the commission's website, and I encourage all Australians to be involved if they feel led.

In the meantime, the government will continue to take significant steps to make sure that the services and the supports provided to people with disability adhere to strong quality and strong safeguards. This includes establishing the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, which is already operating in every state and territory except Western Australia, where it will commence operations from 1 July 2020. It is very important that people with disability and their families, carers and advocates know that during the royal commission they should continue to report any violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation to the appropriate authorities.

The total funding for this important inquiry is $527.9 million. Over half a billion dollars is being put forward to ensure that voices are heard and truth is achieved. This includes $102.2 million over three years allocated to the Department of Social Services to fund individual advocacy support and counselling services for people participating in and impacted by the royal commission. The government has consulted widely on the development of the terms of reference, including disability peak bodies, state and territory governments and members of the public. Indeed, the Prime Minister personally wrote to all premiers and chief ministers on 21 February this year seeking their in-principle agreement to establish the royal commission. The government also held an out-of-session meeting of the Disability Reform Council on 8 March this year to seek agreement to establish the royal commission.

Furthermore, the Department of Social Services ran a public consultation on the draft terms of reference from 13 to 28 March this year, closing at midnight on that later date. Targeted consultation was also undertaken with disability peak bodies and advocates and of course more widely with state and territory governments. The government received over 3,700 responses to the online survey on the draft terms of reference. Thirty per cent of respondents were people with disability, which was pleasing to see; 96 per cent of respondents agreed that the terms of reference should cover all forms of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disability in all settings where they occur; and 95 per cent of people agreed that the terms of reference should look at all aspects of the quality and safety of services for people with disability.

This entire process has been done with the widest possible consultation, the widest possible support from state and territory governments and the full concurrence of the COAG Disability Reform Council. The Hon Ronald Sackville AO QC was appointed as the chair of the royal commission, supported by five other royal commissioners: Ms Barbara Bennett PSM, Dr Rhonda Galbally AC, Ms Andrea Mason OAM, Mr Alastair McEwin and the Hon John Ryan AM. Appointments of commissioners were made by the Governor-General based on recommendations from the Prime Minister. The government will continue to stand by these appointments, noting that this process has had significant and sustained consultation.

Mr Ryan and Ms Bennett were appointed because they have valuable contributions to make to the inquiry. Both commissioners have been recognised for their significant contribution to public service in their respective fields. To the extent that any commissioner's association with people with disability has the potential to be in conflict with an aspect under inquiry, the commissioner has processes in place to identify and manage that matter. I'll go into those processes shortly. I am confident that the royal commission will undertake its inquiry with diligence and the necessary impartiality for all those engaging with the commission. The panel of six commissioners was selected to represent a diverse range of backgrounds, including lived experience of disability, judicial and policy experiences and Indigenous leadership. In making these appointments the government sought recommendations from both the disability sector and state and territory governments. Again not only the formation of the royal commission and the establishment of its terms of references but the appointments of the commissioners were done with wide state and territory consultation, including with ministers that sit around the Disability Reform Council and/or their respective premiers or chief ministers.

At the time of the appointment of the royal commission each commissioner was required to disclose any conflicts or risks of conflicts to the official secretary and take any steps reasonably required by the office of the royal commissioner to resolve or deal with any conflicts as a condition of appointment. Indeed at a meeting of the royal commissioners on 19 June 2019 the issue of potential conflicts of interest was carefully and fully traversed by the commissioners. The commissioners declared their real, perceived and potential conflicts of interest to each other and there was a careful analysis of these declarations and a considered review of the potential impact each person's declaration may have on the conduct of meetings or hearings of the commission and the conduct of research and the formulation of recommendations and the times when it may be necessary for an individual commissioner to excuse themselves from participation in a particular issue or a component of an issue. Generally where individual commissioners have previously been engaged in a statutory or public sector position which intersected with the work or potential work of the commission then that intersection was clearly identified and noted and will be acted upon when and if such an issue arises at any time during the life of the commission.

It is important also to understand the current quality and safeguarding arrangements in place for people with disability, because the government is taking significant steps to make sure services and supports provided to people with disability adhere to the strongest quality and safeguards possible. This includes the establishment of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, which has hit the ground running. All governments of all persuasions across this country remain committed to ensuring appropriate safeguards are in place. It is important to note that the NDIS commission is an independent statutory authority that works to improve the quality and safety of NDIS services and supports. The commission will register all providers, handle complaints, receive reportable instances, manage quality standards and enforce a code of conduct for NDIS providers and workers. As stated, the commission commenced operations in New South Wales and South Australia at 1 July last year and in the rest of the country from 1 July this year, except in WA, where it will start 1 July next year.

The government has put an enormous amount of thought into the royal commission, its terms of reference and commissioners. It has gone out of its way to embrace fully the reflections of states and territories, their respective disability ministers and respective Premiers and Chief Ministers. The Prime Minister has been personally involved in—

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.