|
senate vote 2019-11-14#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2020-06-05 11:55:06
|
Title
Bills — National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Streamlined Governance) Bill 2019; in Committee- National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Streamlined Governance) Bill 2019 - in Committee - Report progress
Description
<p class="speaker">Carol Brown</p><p>I want to, first of all, thank the Labor senators who made a contribution to the debate on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Streamlined Governance) Bill 2019, because it outlined the extraordinary amount of frustration and stress that has been felt by participants and all their carers and families. We heard speaker after speaker talk about the issues around the NDIS, the concerns around the NDIS and the fact that the NDIS is not working as intended.</p><p>Under this government's watch, we have seen a litany of failures to deliver for people with disability—the participants of the NDIS. Yesterday, we heard stories about delays in receiving access to the NDIS. We heard stories about delays in receiving services and supports under the NDIS. What is quite stark is this government's inability to actually address these concerns. These are obviously not concerns that have just arisen; there are stories after stories of families that have been told to senators and members across this parliament. Each senator in this chamber, I'm sure, would have received representations from participants and their families. They would have received letters, emails and phone calls, all seeking help to resolve longstanding issues.</p>- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2019-11-14.89.1):
- > *That the committee report progress and ask leave to sit again.*
- It was introduced by WA Senator [Mathias Cormann](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/mathias_cormann) (Liberal).
<p>Just last week I had a family that have a 2½-year-old son who has been trying to get access to a planning meeting for a year. This is a child who is 2½. When they saw the light at the end of the tunnel—they finally got an appointment with the planner—they then got a phone call, a message left on the answering machine, to say they'd have to cancel. Three days out from the actual planning date they had to cancel that meeting. You can imagine what that family felt like. A year has passed and they're trying to seek supports and services for the child. They reached out to my office. We spoke to the NDIA and there was another meeting scheduled, but that shouldn't be happening.</p><p>These lengthy delays should not be happening. There are delays that we hear about in terms of equipment for people. Sometimes that equipment arrives too late and the person has passed away. This is not what the NDIS is about. The NDIS is a scheme that was meant to enable participants to live a normal life, to be able to participate in the community and the workforce just as everyone else would be able to. That is not what is happening. We have family after family ringing in tears because they can't get the services or, even worse, they've heard that their child is not disabled enough. These are the comments that are coming from planners to families. Of course, we all know that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal workload in terms of NDIS appeals has skyrocketed. This shouldn't be happening.</p><p>I want to demonstrate to the minister and the government exactly what is happening in my home state of Tasmania. Satisfaction with the NDIS has dramatically dropped. It has fallen by 30 per cent. I say this to Senator Patrick in particular: satisfaction with the NDIS in Tasmania has fallen 30 per cent in 12 months. These figures from the NDIS website—these are not figures I just plucked from the air—show that, in June 2018, 97 per cent of participants described their satisfaction with the agency planning process as good or very good. Twelve months later, in June 2019, that satisfaction rate collapsed by 30 per cent to 67 per cent. Extraordinary! What is occurring in Tasmania, where you have such a dramatic collapse in satisfaction? Even government senators should be able to acknowledge that this is an extraordinary collapse in satisfaction.</p><p>At the same time that we saw this collapse of satisfaction in Tasmania, Tasmania was merged with Victoria—in July 2018. So it's no wonder satisfaction has plummeted. As I understand it, Tasmania no longer has a dedicated NDIS general manager but is managed from Victoria. Problems with the merger were even outlined by the Tasmanian Liberal government submission. What they had to say was: 'The Tasmanian government has observed differences in Tasmania's capacity to resolve issues quickly at a local operational level since the NDIA restructure merging Tasmania and Victoria in July 2018. This restructure saw the loss of the regional manager position in Tasmania.' Why was management for Tasmania merged with Victoria? Why has Tasmania been downgraded? These are the answers that we are seeking.</p><p>We have Mr Shorten, the shadow minister, who has reported and spoken about the issues that he has seen as he has travelled around Australia hearing the horror stories about this vital scheme being suffocated as a result of the neglect of this government. In Tasmania, there are widespread issues relating to disability transport funding and to the availability of NDIS approved allied health professionals. We have a collapse in support in Tasmania. We even have, as I've said, the Tasmanian government talking about the differences that they have observed since the restructure and the merging of Tasmania with Victoria in July 2018. So there are a number of questions that I would like the minister to respond to, because Tasmanians would like to know the answers to these questions. Why has this happened? Certainly, it sounds to me like the Tasmanian Liberal government are not happy about it either. Could the minister respond to those questions, because yesterday the minister's summing up was quite quick. In fact, I think I blinked and missed it. It was a shame because there were so many stories and questions that this side of the chamber put forward that were not responded to. You just cannot dismiss these stories; you cannot dismiss participants and families and carers of participants by just doing a one-minute summing up and then sitting down. You just can't treat people like that.</p><p>Let's move to some of the issues that were raised about the bill itself. Universally, the disability advocates are seeking to have this bill delayed. That's what they've asked for, and, of course, not unsurprisingly, this government ignored that call. I want to go to a couple of the submissions that were put forward to the inquiry that was held by the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee in September. People with Disability Australia, PWDA, for those people listening, is a leading disability rights advocacy and representative organisation of and for all people with disability. They are a national cross-disability organisation which represents the interests of people with all kinds of disability. They are a non-profit, non-government organisation and they do tremendous work, which I'm sure the minister would agree. Their recommendation in their submission to this bill was that they believe:</p><p class="italic">… the disability sector would benefit from more time to consider any the Bill and any unintended consequences.</p><p>They noted:</p><p class="italic">… that the Explanatory Memorandum or the Second Reading Speech provide limited analysis of the possible impacts—</p><p>that they've referred to in their submission.</p><p>They go on to:</p><p class="italic">… recommend that the proposed changes in this Bill are deferred and considered within the upcoming Tune Review of the NDIS Act.</p><p>It is odd that this bill is coming here today and has been introduced by the government when we have the Tune review currently looking into the NDIS Act.</p><p>We also have a submission, again by an organisation, Young People in Nursing Homes National Alliance. The alliance, people will know, is a national peak organisation dedicated to resolving the issue of younger people with disability living in residential aged-care facilities and those at risk of aged-care placement. If I have time in a separate contribution, I will outline a number of the issues that they've raised in their submission. But they too have asked that the bill not proceed at this time, so why is the government refusing to listen to advocates? Why are they refusing to listen to the advocacy disability organisations and proceeding with this bill? I'd like to know that as a start from the minister, if she could respond. <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>by leave—I move amendments 1 and 2 on sheet TK154 together and, in doing so, I also table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government's amendments to be moved to this bill:</p><p class="italic">Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 1), omit "Amendments", substitute "Main amendments".</p><p class="italic">Page 16 (after line 19), at the end of the Bill, add:</p><p class="italic">Schedule 2—Other amendments</p><p class="italic"><i>National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 </i></p><p class="italic">1 At the end of section 66</p><p class="italic">     Add:</p><p class="italic">     (4) If:</p><p class="italic">     (a) the CEO or an Agency officer is served with a summons or notice, or is otherwise subject to a requirement, under the <i>Royal Commissions Act 1902</i>; and</p><p class="italic">     (b) in order to comply with the summons, notice or requirement, the CEO or Agency officer would be required to disclose information that is protected Agency information;</p><p class="italic">  then, despite sections 62 and 67G of this Act, the CEO or Agency officer must, subject to the <i>Royal Commissions Act 1902</i>, disclose that information. The information is taken to have been disclosed for the purposes of the <i>Royal Commissions Act 1902 </i>and of the Royal Commission concerned.</p><p class="italic">2 At the end of section 67E</p><p class="italic">     Add:</p><p class="italic">     (4) If:</p><p class="italic">     (a) the Commissioner or a Commission officer is served with a summons or notice, or is otherwise subject to a requirement, under the <i>Royal Commissions Act 1902</i>; and</p><p class="italic">     (b) in order to comply with the summons, notice or requirement, the Commissioner or Commission officer would be required to disclose information that is protected Commission information;</p><p class="italic">  then, despite sections 67B and 67G of this Act, the Commissioner or Commission officer must, subject to the <i>Royal Commissions Act 1902</i>, disclose that information. The information is taken to have been disclosed for the purposes of the <i>Royal Commissions Act 1902 </i>and of the Royal Commission concerned.</p><p class="italic">3 Section 67G</p><p class="italic">After "except for the purposes of this Act", insert "or the <i>Royal Commissions Act 1902</i>".</p><p class="italic">4 Application provision</p><p class="italic">The amendments of sections 66 and 67E of the <i>National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 </i>No. 27—14 November 2019 839 made by this Schedule apply in relation to a summons or notice served, or a requirement made, on or after the commencement of this item (whether the protected Agency information or protected Commission information came into existence before, on or after that commencement).</p> <p class="speaker">Carol Brown</p><p>Is the minister going to respond to my—</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>I'm intending to say something after I move the amendments.</p><p class="italic">The CHAIR: The amendments have been moved. Senator Steele-John is seeking the call, and you've stood up.</p> <p class="speaker">Carol Brown</p><p>I'll let Senator Steele-John speak first.</p><p class="italic">The CHAIR: I will go to Senator Steele-John, he may have a relevant question, and I'll come back to you.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>I was intending to make a contribution to my amendments, which I prefer to do first, but is there something else you wanted to do?</p> <p class="speaker">Jordon Steele-John</p><p>I wish to clarify a point with the chair, if that's okay? Forgive me, Chair. I have a number of questions to put to the minister in relation to both the amendment and the bill in its totality. I'm seeking your guidance as to when best to make the contributions, both to this amendment but also to the bill generally, for I, like Senator Brown, would like to get a bit more detail on the government's legislation here.</p><p class="italic">The CHAIR: What the minister has done is move the government's amendments. There are still other amendments there, and the debate hasn't been closed down. No-one wanted the call, so I'm obligated to put the motion that the minister has moved. That's where we are: the minister has moved that first amendment, but it doesn't shut down debate, because we're still in committee of the whole.</p><p>Thank you, Chair. I do apologise, but when Senator Brown finished I did attempt to get the call. I might have missed your line of sight.</p><p class="italic">The CHAIR: My apologies. As you all know, the minister is not required to answer questions. It's entirely up to the minister as to what statements or questions she answers. The minister wants to make some explanatory remarks now around the amendment that she has moved, so we'll go to the minister and then to you, Senator Steele-John.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|