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

I move Australian Greens amendment (3) on sheet 5193:

(3)    Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (after line 11), after section 20, insert:

20A  Application to Administrative Appeals Tribunal

                 An application may be made by a person to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of a decision relating to his or her rehabilitation program where that program was provided by a non-CRS officer.

This amendment relates to AAT review of rehabilitation programs. I alluded to this issue in my second reading contribution, being the ability of clients to appeal against rehabilitation plans. The clients of private service providers will not have access to the same appeals mechanism as clients of the CRS, which has in place a system which clearly outlines what client rights of appeal are. No clear appeals process is outlined in the legislation for the clients of private service providers, unlike the situation for clients of the CRS. All that DEWR officers were able to offer by way of explanation, when this issue was put to them by the committee, was that if a client were not satisfied with the result of an internal appeal to the organisation that is the subject of the complaint they could attempt to pursue the matter through the Complaints Resolution and Referral Service, although it is unclear what powers, if any, this body would have to intervene and direct or compel a private provider.

While the vast majority of service providers delivering government funded services to other parts of the social services sector are doing so in a responsible and ethical manner, for those areas there is a degree of accountability and oversight not contained in this bill. We believe it is important that all clients should have access to an appeals mechanism. Those going through the CRS do. We are seeking to provide an appeal mechanism for the clients of private providers as they are in circumstances where they are being required to undertake rehabilitation services. If they go to a private provider, the private provider will develop their rehabilitation plans. The clients may not agree with those rehabilitation plans. As I have said, I am sure that in the vast majority of cases everything will be straightforward, satisfactory and above board. But there is the potential for clients not to agree with the plans and for the private provider not to be okay, and there may be a time when clients do want to appeal. Under the CRS there is a provision, complicated though it may be, but for the clients of private service providers that is not so, so we are seeking to put in place a provision whereby those using private services have the right of appeal. This is what this amendment seeks to do.