Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through this process, I'm pleased to say that Labor has managed to work with the government to secure some important amendments to the bill. The government will move these amendments. I'd like to talk through these amendments now.

In regard to advocacy, several submissions to the inquiry raised concerns about the absence of the role for advocacy in the bill, including those from AFDO, DANA, DPO Australia and QAI. Disability organisations have raised concerns that independent advocacy is not well understood in the context of the NDIS and that there is confusion and marginalisation of this important role. In a number of situations independent advocates were refused entry into closed settings such as boarding houses, group homes and larger residential facilities, despite the evidence that indicates higher risks of violence and abuse in these settings. Sometimes independent advocates are the only trusted support for people with disability, and NDIS providers must acknowledge and facilitate access to independent advocacy.

In consultation with disability organisations Labor has been able to secure amendments to ensure that the bill explicitly states that NDIS participants have the right to access independent advocacy and that provisions are made to define and protect this role. The bill will be amended to define an 'independent advocate' under section 9 of the Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 in a definition agreed with advocacy groups. These amendments will ensure that registered NDIS providers implement and maintain a complaints management and resolution system that acknowledges the role of independent advocates and other representatives of people with disability, and provides for cooperation with independent advocates and other representatives of persons with disabilities who are affected by the complaints process and who wish to be independently supported in that process by an advocate or other representative.

The bill will also be amended to expand actions that must be taken in relation to reportable incidents. They may include requiring a registered NDIS provider to provide people with disability with information regarding the use of an advocate in relation to an investigation into the reportable incident. The amendments will provide independent advocates with protection for disclosure and ensure that the commissioner must acknowledge, recognise and respect the roles of independent advocates in representing the interests of people with disability.

I turn to procedural fairness for workers. Unions have raised concern about the absence of provisions in the bill to ensure procedural fairness for NDIS workers who are subject to complaints or investigation. In consultation with unions and other stakeholders, Labor has been able to secure amendments that address these concerns. Amendments will be moved which allow for NDIS rules in relation to the management and resolution of complaints arising out of or in connection with the provision of supports or services by NDIS providers to deal with requirements relating to procedural fairness in relation to the management and resolution of complaints, and to ensure that the commissioner must have due regard to procedural fairness in performing his or her functions.

The commissioner will be able to make guidelines relating to procedural fairness under proposed section 181D(2). Labor has secured a commitment from the government in a letter from the Minister for Social Services to the shadow minister, ensuring the commissioner will consult with stakeholders, including unions, in the development of these guidelines. The government has also agreed to amend the complaints rules to include requirements for providers to afford procedural fairness to any person under their internal complaint management system, including a worker who is the subject of allegations in a complaint that results in an investigation. This would include provisions for providers and the commission for complaints handling to be completed as expediently as possible and the right of any person who is the subject of a complaint to have a representative with them in any meeting or interview in relation to that complaint. The explanatory memorandum states that the commission will have responsibility for national oversight and policy setting in relation to behaviour support and monitoring the use of restricted practices within the NDIS, with the aim of reducing and eliminating such practices.

Disability organisations, including DPO Australia, AFTO, NDNA, NDS and CEDA have raised particular concern that the bill does not include regulatory powers to enable the NDIS Commissioner to prohibit certain restricted practices. As DPO Australia states:

The current mechanisms at State and Territory level are varied and inconsistent, with some consisting of relatively weak policy functions within government departments and others having established regulatory bodies and mechanisms.

This creates inequity in protection from practices that have been found to constitute torture and ill-treatment, and this bill should be providing the highest level of protections equally across Australia.

Labor has secured an amendment that will expand the commissioner's behaviour support function to include insisting the states develop a regulatory framework including national minimum standards in relation to restrictive practices that is in line with the National Framework for Reducing and Eliminating the Use of Restrictive Practices in the Disability Service Sector and consistent with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This will strengthen the commissioner's role in a very important area.

An area that we have been particularly concerned about is the Commonwealth's consultation with the states and territories on the NDIS. We are concerned that the Minister for Social Services is forcing governance changes that will reduce the role of the states, and this is something that will undermine the success of the scheme. It needs to be emphasised that states and territories have a vital role in the successful delivery of the NDIS. It is a national scheme in which the jurisdictions play a very important part. It is imperative that the Commonwealth works cooperatively with the states and territories—genuinely cooperatively. It is important that the perspectives of the states and territories are sought and genuinely listened to. This is a national scheme, not only a Commonwealth-led scheme. This is something Labor will continue to hold the government to account on. Again, I cannot stress enough the need for the government to include stakeholders as the NDIS is rolled out. People with disability, advocates, unions and providers must all genuinely be listened to and involved to get the best results for the scheme.

In our additional comments on the inquiry report, Labor senators raised a range of other issues that the government needs to continue to work on with stakeholders to resolve. Screening and registration of workers are very important issues that the government must work on with people with disability, and with unions, to resolve. The government must talk with unions and providers about workforce training as the rules are finalised. Adequate training is obviously fundamental to the success of the NDIS. We also want to see appropriate and specific safeguards for children provided in the NDIS. We welcome the government's commitment in writing from the Minister for Social Services to the shadow minister for families and social services to work with Children and Young People with Disability Australia, CYDA, and other stakeholders to address issues specific to children in the NDIS.

Labour remains concerned about people with disability who receive supports outside of the NDIS and who will not be covered by the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework. I note that the government's response to this has been that people receiving supports through other systems, such as health, education and justice systems, will continue to be covered by the quality and safeguards arrangements of those systems and that the commission will not replace existing functions in the states and territories that have a broader scope, such as an ombudsman, a human rights commission or a public advocate. Disability organisations remain concerned about people falling through the cracks and not being covered by a disability-specific quality and safeguarding framework. We want to see the government work with stakeholders and states and territories to address this issue and ensure that people with disability are sufficiently covered in all jurisdictions. Labor will continue to hold the government to account on these important issues. They should be closely monitored as the commission is established, and in the review to be undertaken in 2021.

In closing, I want to state again that this legislation does not negate the need for a royal commission into violence and abuse against people with disability, as the government claims. Disabled People’s Organisations Australia's Therese Sands has said of the NDIS quality and safeguards framework:

It doesn't address the scale of violence and abuse against people with disability, its many different forms and the range of service and other settings where abuse occurs.

So, this bill does not negate the need for a royal commission into abuse against people with disability. Labor announced in May that should we win the next federal election we will establish a royal commission into violence and abuse against people with disability. The continued abuse of Australians with disability by people who are meant to care for them demands a royal commission. People with disability experience much higher rates of violence than the rest of the community, and in many cases this violence occurs in places where they are meant to be receiving support. Children with disability are at least three times as likely to experience abuse than other children. People with disability and their families have been campaigning for a royal commission for years. Only a royal commission has the weight, authority and investigative powers to examine these horrific accounts of abuse and violence against people with disability. Labor calls on the government to now establish a royal commission into abuse of people with disability.

In conclusion, this is an important piece of legislation. Labor welcomes the willingness of the minister to collaborate with Labor and the Senate crossbench on a number of amendments to improve this bill. They are important amendments that will strengthen protections for people with disability as part of the NDIS. We should never forget that the driving purpose of the National Disability Insurance Scheme is to improve the lives of people with disability, their families and carers. The old system of disability support in this country was broken. We now have the opportunity, through the NDIS, to improve the life of some of the most vulnerable Australians. It is my hope that, with the passage of these amendments today, we will do exactly that. Thank you.

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

I rise today to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Quality and Safeguards Commission and Other Measures) Bill 2017. This bill has two purposes: firstly, to establish the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission; and, secondly, as it exists at the moment, to make amendments to the NDIS Act following an independent review of the legislation in 2015 by Ernst & Young.

The Australian Greens strongly support the concept of an independent statutory authority to ensure that people with disability are protected from violence, abuse and neglect and that those working with and supporting people with a disability follow best practices. For a number of reasons, however, we have concerns with the bill before us today. These include the limited remit of the commission and the extensive rule-making powers that are included in the bill, which will see significant items left to legislative instruments rather than being contained in the bill and the legislation itself. We have concerns regarding the independence of the commissioner, the inclusion of market oversight as one of the commissioner's core functions, the scope of the commissioner's complaints function, the limited power of the commissioner to reduce and eliminate the use of restrictive practices, and the lack of provisions in the bill relating to independent advocacy.

Unlike the recommendation of the Senate inquiry on violence, abuse and neglect against people with disability in institutional and residential settings, which specifically called for the establishment of a national system for reporting, investigating and eliminating violence, abuse and neglect of all people with a disability, the commission's remit will be limited to NDIS participants and other groups such as those over 65 receiving continuous support. We find this disappointing. We believe it should be available for all people with disability.

We also would like to strongly point out that this does not replace the royal commission that the Senate inquiry that I initiated and chaired recommended very strongly in our recommendations. The disability sector have been very clear that, while they support this—and they have made a number of comments about improvements, which I will come to—it does not replace the need for a royal commission. I am really pleased that the ALP is now supporting a royal commission. I hope they will support our second reading amendment that has been circulated by Senator Steele-John on behalf of the Australian Greens, which I now move:

At the end of the motion, add:

  ", but the Senate:

     (a) is of the opinion that this bill does not negate the need for a Royal Commission into violence, abuse, and neglect of people with a disability; and

     (b) calls on the government to establish the Royal Commission as a matter of urgency. "

Therese Sands, the director of Disabled People's Organisations Australia, said at one of the hearings of the inquiry on the bill's provisions:

… we note with disappointment that the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission will not provide comprehensive protection against violence, abuse and neglect for all people with disability across a broad range of service systems and situations. It will only provide protection to the 10 per cent of people with disability who directly access NDIS supports, and it will not have a mandate to address individual or systemic issues outside of the NDIS. This means that the majority of people with disability as well as NDIS participants, when interfacing or using other service systems, will have protection only through existing regulatory and policy frameworks that have to a large extent been shown to provide inadequate protection.

Having chaired that inquiry into violence, abuse, and neglect against people with disability, I can very strongly tell you that the existing state and territory provisions are not adequate. I am glad to see that the government has committed to working with all states under the National Disability Strategy to ensure that people with disability who are receiving service outside the scope of the commission are covered by appropriate quality and safeguard measures, with this issue also being considered as part of the review of the framework in 2021.

This is an issue that really should have been resolved before this bill came before the chamber. It is very important that these issues be addressed, and 2021 at this stage seems quite a long way off to me. It's especially important, as we know that a number of states are winding back their current arrangements. For example, New South Wales is one of the first to be winding those back, and a great deal of concern has been expressed by people with disability about the current winding-back of state arrangements.

While the bill provides the overarching structure for the commission, the operational detail will be provided for in legislative instruments. The bill contains 23 rule-making powers. Six of these rules are essential to the operation of the commission. While we understand that the government is currently consulting on a number of these sets of rules, the consultation is currently limited to a select number of organisations, as are the rules, and so the rules have not yet been publicly released. We find it concerning that a large amount of the operational detail has been withheld from the legislation and will only be publicly available following the passage of this bill.

When considering this bill, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills raised concerns regarding the placing of significant matters in delegated legislation rather than in the bill itself. The scrutiny committee specifically mentioned the code of conduct and the breach of it potentially being the subject of significant penalties, and was of the view that its establishment:

… should be included in primary legislation unless a sound justification for the use of delegated legislation is provided.

In a subsequent report the scrutiny committee acknowledged the minister's response regarding this and other matters regarding the bill, but reiterated its scrutiny view. Consequently I will be moving an amendment to have the draft code of conduct, which is only eight points, included in the bill.

A number of submitters and witnesses to the bill's inquiry raised the issue of the commission's independence. There are concerns that the minister's ability to direct the commissioner will impact on their independence. The relevant provision of the bill states:

The Minister may, by legislative instrument, give directions to the Commissioner about the performance of his or her functions and the exercise of his or her powers.

The commissioner must comply with these directions. While the explanatory memorandum indicates the directions must be general in nature and cannot relate to a specific individual or NDIS provider, the commissioner needs to be able to carry out their work without fear of interference from the minister and/or the government of the day. We would like to see this power qualified so the minister's directions must be consistent with the vision and principles of the National Disability Strategy. At the very least, such directions should be disallowable by the parliament, and I will be moving an amendment to this effect in the Committee of the Whole.

We are also concerned about the commission's proposed functions of providing NDIS market oversight and also investigating, managing and resolving complaints and conflicts, particularly when its market oversight role may impinge on its ability to rule on complaints under its complaints function where the market is thin, such as in regional and rural areas. As Mary Mallett, the CEO of the Disability Advocacy Network Australia, said at one of the hearings:

If you have a service—using a remote area as an example—where there are lots of complaints coming in about the service and it's clear they are not providing good service or that there are issues about their registration maybe, the commissioner has also got to manage the issue of the risk of that service provider withdrawing and there being no service provider in the area. It's an odd tension that is consciously in there. We've talked about it with the DSS quality and safeguarding people at an earlier stage. It is deliberately in there, but that's a challenge for this commission to manage. It's one where we would worry about how that's going to play out.

Accordingly, I will be moving an amendment in the Committee of the Whole to remove market oversight as one of the commission's core functions so that the commissioner's complaints function is unhindered. I find this provision very concerning.

Some submitters to the bill inquiry suggested that the commissioner should also be able to receive and investigate complaints about the National Disability Insurance Agency and local area coordinators. As it stands, the commission will be responsible for receiving, investigating, managing and resolving complaints about the provision of services or supports by NDIS providers. Complaints about the NDIA and LACs—local area coordinators—will continue to be dealt with through existing channels, such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Expanding the scope of the commissioner's complaints function would make it easier for people with disability and for the sector to know where to make a complaint, and to actually use the system. It would also provide the commission with a more holistic picture of systemic issues and trends, and it would assist the commissioner to deliver on one of its core functions—that is, to provide advice or recommendations to the agency or the board in relation to the performance of the agency's functions.

The minister's office provided me with the following information following my letter to him outlining the concerns of the Australian Greens regarding the bill. Specifically, he said: 'Partners in the community, which include local area coordination and the Early Childhood Early Intervention, will be held to equivalent or same quality and safeguard arrangements as the NDIS providers.' I just don't see how this legislation does that and how he can guarantee that statement. Accordingly, I will be moving an amendment in the Committee of the Whole to expand the scope of the commissioner's complaints function to include local area coordinators and providers of Early Childhood Early Intervention services. That will make it clear. This amendment will also expand the scope of the commissioner's complaints function to include the NDIA.

We have further concerns about the limited power of the commissioner to reduce or eliminate the use of restrictive practices, as the bill does not provide the commissioner with regulatory powers to prohibit certain restrictive practices or impose criminal penalties. The government argues that this is because the Commonwealth does not have the power to directly regulate restrictive practices, making it necessary for the states and territories to continue to authorise such practices in behaviour-support plans of people with disability in their jurisdiction. As DPO Australia said in their submission to the bill's inquiry:

The current mechanisms at State and Territory level are varied and inconsistent, with some consisting of relatively weak policy functions within government departments and others having established regulatory bodies and mechanisms.

The commission should have the strongest possible powers with regard to restrictive practices and their elimination. Having chaired several inquiries that have dealt with issues of restrictive practices, I can only echo and support the comments made by DPO Australia: the states and territories do have varied and inconsistent mechanisms, and some are relatively weak. I would go further and say there are 'very weak' policy functions within government departments, and I think there's an absolute need to strengthen these provisions. I'm glad to see that the government has circulated an amendment that expands the commissioner's behaviour-support function. I quote from the supplementary explanatory memorandum:

The amendments made will require the Commissioner to assist the States and Territories to develop nationally consistent minimum standards in relation to restrictive practices that are in line with the intergovernmental agreement to the National Framework for Reducing and Eliminating the Use of Restrictive Practices in the Disability Service Sector.

While the amendment itself mentions the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, this is not mentioned in the section of the supplementary explanatory memorandum that I have just quoted from. The inclusion of the CRPD in the amendment is important, as the National Framework for Reducing and Eliminating the Use of Restrictive Practices in the Disability Service Sector still falls short of CRPD.

We are further concerned that the role of the senior practitioner is not in the legislation. While the explanatory memorandum provides that the senior practitioner will be the officer responsible for this role, we want to see this formalised in the legislation. As such, I will be moving amendments in the Committee of the Whole requiring that there be a senior practitioner and allocating them the responsibility for the behaviour support function. This will ensure that the behaviour support function is not deprioritised at any future stage.

The Australian Greens have concerns over the lack of provisions in the bill relating to independent advocacy, given the important role independent advocacy plays in supporting people with disability. While the quality and safeguards framework itself refers to the important role of independent advocacy, this is not currently reflected in the bill. People with Disabilities Western Australia said in its submission to the inquiry:

There is a concern that the Bill will establish a dual role for the Commission when handling complaints. The Bill details that Commission will support people to be heard and provide protections for victimisation should they make a complaint, there is potential for impartiality to be compromised if the Commission is both interrogator and supporter. There is a strong case for independent advocacy to be available to ensure the rights of people are upheld in an unbiased way.

There was also concern that the bill did not cover independent advocates who may disclose information. I'm glad to see that the government has circulated a number of amendments that will see independent advocates referenced in the legislation, including an amendment that the commissioner must acknowledge, recognise and respect the roles of advocates—including independent advocates—in respecting the interests of people with disability, and will see independent advocates protected for disclosing information.

I'm pleased to see that the government took on board the concerns raised by people with disability, their advocates, ourselves and the ALP in the inquiry into this bill. We noted in our additional comments that we supported a suggested involvement of community visitors made by a number of submitters, and I'm glad to see that the government intends to make clear in the complaints rule that the commissioner will acknowledge, recognise and respect the role of community visitors and accept referrals from them.

I also want to briefly mention worker screening. The Australian Greens outlined in our additional comments that we want to see worker screening made compulsory for unregistered providers. We do acknowledge the right of people with disability to individual choice and control, and we acknowledge there are differing views on this issue. However, we want to see a reasonable balance struck. While this issue will not be resolved today, I'm glad to see that Commonwealth and state officials have agreed to explore both the policy and practical implications of extending mandatory worker screening to all disability support workers in the NDIS and consider it as part of the formal review of the scope of the NDIS worker screening before July 2019, when worker screening commences in most jurisdictions.

The Australian Greens are very pleased to see that the government will be moving an amendment to review schedule 2. I should note here that I had lodged a contingency motion to try and effect that change if the government didn't make the change. But the government is making that amendment, so there will be no need to use that contingency measure. Schedule 2 contains amendments relating to previous reviews of the act for the bill. The Australian Greens had been pushing for this schedule to be split from schedule 1 because there are a great deal of concerns raised about schedule 2. I must say there are also further amendments I'd like to see to the NDIS legislation that are not included in schedule 2. We have outlined our various concerns in relation to these amendments previously and we've had discussions with the minister around our concerns on schedule 2. I will note that people with disability and their advocates are very concerned about a number of those amendments. We will be pleased to see them when they come back, and hopefully the concerns that were raised during the Senate inquiry are dealt with through that further legislation. We will continue to advocate for those amendments to the bill.

The Australian Greens do support this very important piece of legislation. But we think it could be better. We think there should be amendments made that go beyond what the government has done. I will acknowledge that the government has listened and made some amendments, which is great, but there do need to be further amendments made to this legislation.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I begin my contribution on this bill, I want to congratulate Senator Steele-John for his first speech, completed not that long ago. I'm also going to congratulate him on his dedication, being here to speak on this bill so soon afterwards.

I rise today to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Quality and Safeguards Commission and Other Measures) Bill 2017. This bill seeks to establish the independent NDIS quality and safeguards commission which will oversee protections for NDIS participants as the scheme is progressively rolled out across Australia. The commission will deliver on the government's commitment to establish nationally consistent quality assurance mechanisms and safeguards for NDIS participants, empowering it to regulate NDIS providers, monitor quality and safety of their services and supports, investigate and determine any reportable incidents and, importantly, uphold the rights of people with a disability. There is $209 million over four years allocated in the forward estimates to establish the commission. This is a sign of the government's commitment to disability reform in Australia.

It's great to see a number of members of the Community Affairs Committee in the chamber. As we all know, the NDIS is one of the largest social and economic reforms in our country's history. At full rollout, the scheme is estimated to support 460,000 participants and thousands of NDIS providers. As the NDIS rolls out it is paramount we take into consideration the wellbeing and safety of people with disabilities receiving NDIS supports and services. The commission will ensure that we have nationally consistent protection in place. The new national system will mean a single registration process for providers across the various jurisdictions they operate in, which in turn will encourage greater efficiency, reduce red tape and duplication, and generally provide that national consistency that the scheme needs.

The commission will also play an important role in educating both service providers and clients of the NDIS. The effective dissemination of information and the effective way it is communicated will mean that service providers are able to communicate key services to their clients, families and carers, who will in turn better understand their rights and what help is available to them. The commission would also be able to use a range of regulatory powers to rectify problems, including the ability to ban unsafe and negligent providers.

The bill also makes minor amendments to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 in response to an independent review of the operation conducted in 2015. The amendments align with COAG's response to the independent review in December 2016.

I wish to thank the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, of which I'm the chair, for all the hard work they put into the recent inquiry and report into the bill. I think we have seen again the very positive impact that a Senate committee inquiry can have on a bill. Whilst the government does not think that the bill needed any particular strengthening—we think there were sufficient protections in the bill—by adding the amendments that we have added, as I said in an earlier contribution in this place, we have maintained the collegiate approach to the NDIS in making sure that we are all on board and continue to support this very important scheme. The committee recognised the significant work undertaken in developing the NDIS framework, particularly the extensive consultation process and the consensus that was reached with state and territory governments. This consensus is necessary because it's critical for change within the existing quality and safeguards system and views the NDIS framework and bill as effective mechanisms to achieve this. As I said, even though the government believed the bill did have sufficient protections, there were concerns raised by a number of witnesses and submitters to the implementation of the NDIS, and the government has decided to move amendments in response to some of those concerns.

In schedule 1 of the bill, there's an acknowledgment of the important role that independent advocates play in representing people with a disability through providing for rules to be made about the role of advocates in the context of complaints and the extension of whistleblower protections to independent advocates. Schedule 1 also confirms the obligation of the commissioner and registered NDIS providers to afford procedural fairness to workers and others who are the subject of a complaint or allegation. This is consistent with existing common-law requirements. The commissioner will issue guidelines relating to compliance with common-law procedural and fairness requirements.

Schedule 1 also clarifies the commissioner's national policy setting role under its behaviour support function to assist states and territories to develop a regulatory framework including nationally consistent minimum standards in relation to restrictive practices which are in line with the intergovernmental agreement on the National Framework for Reducing and Eliminating the Use of Restrictive Practices in the Disability Service Sector and are consistent with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as promulgated in New York on 13 December 2006.

Schedule 2 of the bill implements COAG's response to the recommendations of the independent review of the NDIS Act. It is somewhat ironic that some senators who seek greater consultation cannot agree to these minor amendments that are a result of the independent review, which included much consultation and to which a response was agreed by all states and territories. However, given the importance of schedule 1 to the future protection of people with disabilities under the NDIS, the government does not intend to delay the passage of the bill to secure the passage of these minor amendments that are intended to clarify and improve the NDIS Act. As a result, the government will remove schedule 2 from the bill and will progress these amendments at a later date following further consultation.

The coalition government is absolutely committed to a fully funded high-quality NDIS. This is a very important piece of legislation, and the government considers it will be important to continue the positive collaboration in parliament that successfully established the NDIS and progressed disability reform in Australia.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very easy to say nice, warm, fluffy, general things about the NDIS. I know from personal experience, because I'm one of the people to whom these comments are usually addressed. However, speaking from this place of lived experience, something which up until now has been rather absent from this chamber on these issues, I say to you that the NDIS is not just another government reform. For the 4.3 million Australians living with disability, it is the product of decades of hard-fought campaigning to have our fundamental human rights recognised, protected and respected in the country in which we live. The struggle for equality is ongoing, and I hope to do what I can with my time in this place to give it voice and strength.

The NDIS is not a silver bullet to the challenges that we face as a community, nor is it by any means perfect. Indeed, many of its imperfections speak to the urgent need to place the views of those with a lived experience back at the centre of the scheme. However, it is a critical foundation stone upon which the disability community will continue to fight for our rights and our freedoms. The legislation before us forms a key part of this foundation. The Australian Greens support the intent of the NDIS quality safeguards legislation in ensuring people journeying with a disability are protected from violence, abuse or neglect, and that best practices are followed in supporting those people.

However, we are deeply concerned, as has been outlined by my colleague Senator Siewert, that the protections do not go far enough, and we are disappointed that the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission will only provide protection to the 10 per cent of people with a disability who directly access NDIS supports. Quite frankly, it is unacceptable that the remaining 90 per cent, the vast majority of people with a disability, will have to rely on the existing insufficient regulatory frameworks, which are proven to provide inadequate protection. Put simply, this bill fails. It does not provide enough protection to enough people. As has been stated in stark terms by the Disabled People's Organisations Australia, this bill:

… will not cover the range of settings in which people with disability experience violence, nor the multiple forms of violence that people with disability experience.

This bill in no way removes the need—as was also noted by my colleague—for a royal commission into violence, abuse and neglect in relation to people with a disability.

The Greens have repeatedly called for a royal commission, and it is, quite frankly, shameful that the other parties have not supported our calls in the past. The need for a royal commission was the first recommendation of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into this issue back in 2015. The recommendations were supported by the Victorian parliament's inquiry into abuse in disability services. More than 120 academics from around Australia have signed an open letter urging the Prime Minister to act on the recommendation. This was followed by a society statement from the Disabled People's Organisations Australia, which was endorsed by 163 organisations and groups and, in addition, over 380 individuals once again calling for a royal commission. It stated:

A Royal Commission is the only mechanism that can provide a comprehensive, independent, and just response to all forms of violence and abuse against people with disability. People with disability in Australia deserve nothing less.

I could not agree more; we do deserve nothing less. The people who took time to go through the trauma of informing that committee of their experience deserve nothing less than the government's attention and the opposition's attention in calling for and establishing a royal commission.

I support the legislation before us at the moment. I am profoundly disappointed in some of its aspects. I echo Senator Rachel Siewert's comments in that regard. But I want to repeat: this is not a sidestep through which we can get away from a royal commission. It in fact adds to the need and the urgency for that commission to take place.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to the second reading amendment: the Commonwealth government is committed to ensuring safe and quality care for people with disability. Violence, abuse or neglect of vulnerable people, particularly those with disability, is abhorrent and completely unacceptable. The Turnbull government considers that engaging in real and immediate reform is a better response than yet another inquiry into the old system now being reformed. The recent budget included $209 million to establish a new independent body, the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, from early 2018 to implement the NDIS quality and safeguards framework.

The establishment of the commission forms the basis of the government's response to the Senate committee inquiry into violence, abuse and neglect against people with disability in institutional and residential settings. The government has agreed to or noted 29 of the 30 recommendations of the committee's report. The government is working with states and territories to ensure that the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework is in place when the NDIS reaches full scheme in July 2020. The present system is that states and territories are responsible for quality and safeguarding arrangements for people with disability while the NDIS is being rolled out to full scheme. This means the states and territories are presently responsible for complaints, regulations, quality assurance and law enforcement, but this present system will be the subject of significant reform when this new safeguards framework and the independent NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission are established. While preventing abuse of people with disability is obviously broader than the NDIS, and the commission and the framework will not replace reporting to the police or other authorities where this is appropriate, they represent a significant reform designed to strengthen standards to address abuse and neglect. Rather than proceeding with another inquiry through a royal commission, the government is focused on the establishment of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission and implementing the framework, which will address many of the issues raised by the committee. I thank senators for their contribution and for their support.

The bill establishes a national independent body, the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, to protect and prevent people with disability from experiencing harm. The NDIS is, of course, one of the largest social and economic policy reforms in Australia's history. At full scheme, it is estimated that the NDIS will be supporting around 460,000 Australians with a disability. At that time, the NDIS will be injecting $21 billion per year, each year, into the Australian economy. The NDIS operates in a rapidly expanding market, driven by participant choice. Already, participants are starting to exercise choice and control, and new, innovative delivery models are constantly emerging. One of the key features of the bill is balancing the need for safeguards with the object of enabling people with disability to take reasonable risks so they can reach their own goals. The NDIS is a transformational social policy which has been delivered by this government. This will require a new, nationally consistent approach to quality and safeguards, and this is critical to ensure that the new market based system delivers quality services and supports to people with disability in a way that promotes choice, control and dignity and upholds basic human rights.

In February 2017, the Council of Australian Governments Disability Reform Council released the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework. The framework was developed in consultation with a range of key stakeholders, including people with disability, their families, carers and providers, as well as peak bodies. This bill is a very important step towards implementing the framework and giving effect to the Commonwealth government's regulatory responsibilities. The government is taking strong, decisive action by establishing the commission. A one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate, and this bill supports a proportionate approach that is designed to maximise flexibility in regulation, to protect and prevent people with disability from experiencing harm from poor-quality and unsafe supports.

The commissioner will be responsible for overseeing quality and safeguards for full implementation of the NDIS, including in relation to information, linkages and capacity-building elements of the scheme. The commissioner will also oversee quality and safeguards in other closely related programs, including Commonwealth funded advocacy services and older people with disability who are receiving supports under the Commonwealth Continuity of Support Program specialist disability services for older people. The bill establishes compliance, complaints and risk management arrangements for the registration and regulation of NDIS providers, including practice standards, a code of conduct and mechanisms for complaints and reportable incidents. The commissioner will also be responsible for national oversight and policy settings in relation to worker screening, behaviour support and monitoring of the use of restrictive practices within the NDIS, with the aim of reducing and eliminating such practices.

This bill will further the objects and principles of the act and empower people with disability to exercise choice and control in the planning and delivery of supports and services under the NDIS. The proposed amendments mean that people with disability and their families and carers will have one single body to which they can raise concerns about the quality of supports or services. For providers, the new national approach will enable a single registration and regulatory system across participating jurisdictions, which will reduce duplication and provide national consistency.

The bill is intended to balance the need to provide appropriate protections that meet the Commonwealth's obligations in relation to the regulation of NDIS funded supports and services with the need to enable participants to take reasonable risks themselves so that they can reach their goals. It is also intended to suit an emerging market based system in which participants are building their capacity to act as informed consumers. The workforce is growing rapidly, and new providers are entering the market with innovative ideas and different models of providing services. This bill complements and strengthens existing measures to remove discrimination against people with disability in Australia and to provide them with support and assistance: measures such as the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the provision of income support through the disability support pension, carer payment and carer allowance, and the National Disability Strategy and the National Disability Agreement.

In bringing the bill forward, the government is seeking to deliver a safe and high-quality NDIS. The government has provided $209 million over four years to establish this commission. The bill gives scope for the commission to continue the work underway with the states and territories under the national framework for reducing and eliminating the use of restrictive practices. The government is fully committed to delivering a fully funded high-quality NDIS. We've supported the NDIS from day one, and the establishment of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission demonstrates this ongoing commitment. Preventing abuse of people with disability is obviously broader than the NDIS, as I've outlined. The commission's work will not replace reporting to the police or other authorities, but it does represent a very significant reform designed to strengthen the standards to address abuse and neglect for the most vulnerable in our society.

I thank the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee for its report on the establishment of the commission and for its recommendations. The report was published on 8 November 2017, and I note that the committee recommended that the bill be passed. The committee acknowledged that concerns were raised about the development of the NDIS rules, ensuring people with disability remain central to the design and ongoing focus of the commission and can effectively participate in quality and safeguard processes. The committee was satisfied, however, that the bill struck the right balance in the rapidly growing and evolving NDIS market.

In developing the bill, input was sought and received from a cross-section of the community, including people with disability, carers, providers, workers, volunteers, peak organisations, advocacy groups, professional bodies, unions, corporate stakeholders and state and territory governments. Recommendations which have emerged during public consultation reflect the diversity of views across the disability community and the balance we seek between safeguards and choice. However, it's clear that all welcome the bill and the establishment of the commission.

I extend the government's thanks for the commitment and contributions made by so many people across the community as we work together to ensure the rights of people with disability are upheld and that the services and supports provided through the NDIS are safe. Collaborative work on the NDIS rules will continue as we develop more detail about how the commission will work in practice with NDIS participants, providers and workers, including in relation to the NDIS rules. The commission will have across all of its functions a focus on education, capacity building and development for people with disability, providers and workers, as well as compliance and enforcement powers. The government notes the additional comments made by senators opposite with respect to the need for ongoing consultation as the commission is established, as well as further comments to strengthen the bill's references to independent advocacy, procedural fairness and the reduction and elimination of restrictive practices. The government will be moving a package of amendments in response to the additional comments made by senators opposite and has provided a commitment to all senators that we will continue to consult with people with disability, disability stakeholders, unions and state and territory governments as we progress the implementation of the quality and safeguards framework and the establishment of the commission for the commencement of operations in New South Wales and South Australia from 1 July 2018.

The government also notes the additional comments of the Australian Greens senators with respect to schedule 2. Schedule 2 introduced minor administrative amendments to the NDIS Act in accordance with COAG's response to an independent legislative review. The government does not intend to put at risk the establishment of the commission or delay the passage of this bill to secure the passage of these minor amendments. The government will therefore be moving an additional amendment to remove schedule 2 from the bill.

The bill delivers on a core commitment of this government for strong, clear, demonstrable action in support of people with disability and the NDIS marketplace. The amendments proposed by the government represent a fair response to the issues raised by those opposite, and I would encourage the parliament to support the bill to establish the commission and ensure the long-term sustainability and quality of our NDIS system.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is the amendment moved by Senator Siewert be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Cancel the division. There is a little bit of confusion here with the vote, so I will put the question again. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Siewert be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

Bill read a second time.