Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Hansard source

Briefly, I will try and address all of the questions you have raised, Senator Xenophon. It is unfortunate that we have missed up to nearly two hours.

In terms of your advocacy question, I can advise that all external merits review applicants are entitled to a support person. This could be a friend or a family member. It could be an independent advocate funded through the Commonwealth National Disability Advocacy Program.

With respect to your second amendment, the government does not support that amendment essentially because it is important for the agency to explain the reasons for its decisions where this is needed. This is already provided for by the AAT Act and the Administrative Decisions Judicial Review Act which will operate to give NDIS participants the right to seek written reasons in relation to reviewable decisions. The amendment that you propose would go beyond the ADJR and AAT acts by requiring the CEO to include the notice in every reviewable decision the reasons for that decision. There is a risk that this would place an unreasonable and unnecessary administrative burden on the CEO in the agency and not greatly advance the interests of people with disability.

The CEO and their delegates will of course make thousands of decisions, many of which—in fact I suggest most of which—could reasonably be anticipated to be totally uncontentious. Putting in that provision means that every time that the CEO makes a decision, there has to be a set of reasons given.

With respect to your third amendment, in brief, I can say the AAT typically does not award costs. It is empowered to do so only in relation to specific areas so, as a general rule, the AAT does not award costs.

Your fourth amendment goes to the review of decisions, and the advice that I have received is that the provision does not have practical legal effect and is unnecessary. It would duplicate the work already done under the ADJR act which defines the categories of decisions to which judicial review applies. It is good legislative practice not to duplicate provisions in the law as I am sure you understand better than most. It clutters and confuses Commonwealth statutes.

With respect to amendment (5), I am advised this provision is already covered in clause 4 and is unnecessary. We are working with people with disability. We will ensure that communications with them are given in the right form.

Finally, your final question to get a formal response: as we discussed earlier privately, I am quite happy to provide a written response to the questions that you raise. Thank you for your engagement with this part of the bill, and I look forward to continuing our discussions.