Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The Greens oppose schedule 1 in the following terms:

(1)      Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 22) to page 4 (line 11), TO BE OPPOSED.

This amendment, and a series of other Greens amendments, relate to the rehabilitation arrangements, the secretary’s role in rehabilitation arrangements and the certification of private providers.

As I said in my speech on the second reading, the Greens do not oppose, per se, the provision of rehabilitation services by private providers. We are concerned about some of the provisions in this bill which, we believe, may leave the system open for providing inappropriate services, or for providing services that potentially do not meet the standards. This specific amendment opposes the secretary’s ability to enter into an arrangement with an uncertified private rehabilitation service, because we do not believe that the arrangements allowed for in the bill are satisfactory.

We are also looking at the fact that provisions of the bill currently provide private providers with a 12-month grace period in which to obtain certification. CRS is currently meeting standards which have long been regarded as important to the provision of quality services to people who are accessing assistance at a time when they are in significant personal and emotional need. The certification process is very important to clients and the community alike. It assures us that the agencies people are seeking assistance from meet certain professional standards. A full 12 months of practising without necessarily meeting these standards could, we believe, result in unnecessary risk to vulnerable people. Therefore, we are deeply concerned that people are going to be accessing services where providers do not necessarily meet certain standards and the standards that are required of CRS.

In my speech on the second reading, I went into some detail about our concerns around this. We are concerned that standards will not be met, meaning that people will not receive a standard of service that we as a community expect, and that it will unfairly disadvantage CRS, who are already meeting the standards. They will be competing with private operators and private providers who do not have to meet the standards and therefore may not have the same financial requirements on them for meeting the standards. They will in fact be getting a 12-month grace period in which they do not have to meet standards and will therefore have an unfair advantage when competing with CRS. The other concern is that clients will not be receiving the standard of care that the community, the clients themselves and their family members expect. I commend this amendment to the Senate.