Disability Inclusion (Community Visitor Scheme) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

Ms COOK (Hurtle Vale) (10:49): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Disability Inclusion Act 2018. Read a first time.

Standing Orders Suspension

Ms COOK (Hurtle Vale) (10:49): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable the bill to be taken through all stages without delay.

The SPEAKER: An absolute majority is not present. Please ring the bells.

An absolute majority of the whole number of members being present:

The SPEAKER: An absolute majority is present, therefore I accept the motion; is it seconded?

An honourable member: Yes, sir.

The SPEAKER: Is there any debate? The member for Hurtle Vale wishes to speak to the motion on the suspension of standing orders.

Ms COOK: The reason I seek a suspension of standing orders is that the bill we have put before the house is extremely important, particularly given the public interest and the critical safety issues that have been highlighted over the past few weeks. The government has had ample time to consider the bill. On Monday morning, I provided a copy of the bill to the Minister for Human Services, the Leader of Government Business, the Attorney-General and their chiefs of staff. At the same time, I also provided a copy to all Liberal members of parliament, all crossbench members and their officers in each instance.

I foreshadowed that I would be seeking to suspend standing orders today so that these issues could be debated with the urgency they demand. The Leader of Government Business has spoken in this place before about wanting adequate time to consider urgent legislation. I can assure the house that I had those comments in mind when I took these steps to give members as much time as possible to consider the urgent legislation once it was finalised. Even if it is the intention of the government not to pass this legislation, we should at least be able to deal with it as a matter of urgency.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (10:52): Can I indicate to the house that whilst the motion suggests a matter of urgency, our side of politics does not make any assertion on the genuineness of the proposer as to her concern about a matter that has been highlighted as a result of the Ann Smith death.

I think there is no question that both the public and the parliament have an appetite to have an answer as soon as practicable as to how we might address any gaps in any disability service system and/or watchdog service that goes with it. Notwithstanding that, I indicate that the government proposes that the bill that has been provided to us yesterday essentially proposes a further expansion of the community Visitor Scheme—more than what we had done last year in the original bill, which was to a new cohort of those under supervision—and that this is a model that ought to be extended to deal with a much larger group. The government have established a task force to look at this matter, jointly chaired by David Caudrey—

The SPEAKER: Deputy Premier, I would just like to caution you. I would like comments to please remain targeted towards whether the suspension be agreed to or not. I appreciate what you are saying thus far, but I am just cautioning the member.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not propose to traverse the merits or perhaps even inadequacies in relation to the operation that is proposed under the bill. I simply make the comment that it is, in its general content, to expand the application and implementation of a certain scheme, namely, the Community Visitor Scheme.

The proponent has argued that it is necessary that we deal with this urgently. The government's view is that although this has been quickly prepared and there have been some early identifiers of limitations in relation to this bill—as I said, I am not going into the merits, or otherwise, of the bill or its limitations—a task force has been established under Dr David Caudrey and co-chaired by the Hon. Kelly Vincent.

That is underway and it is the government's view that any meritorious application in respect of this bill ought to be presented to them before it is debated in this house. It would also give us a corresponding opportunity to be able to identify what have already been indicated to us to be weaknesses in this bill. We obviously need to employ our best endeavours as a government, and I think as a parliament, as to how we might identify and address certain aspects. This is not the way, in our view.

The urgency in relation to this application at brief first blush has some major problems but we will traverse those with the proponent. I would invite her to refer the matter to the committee if she has not already done so, but we will certainly be referring it to them.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 21

Noes 24

Majority 3

Motion thus negatived.

Second Reading

Ms COOK (Hurtle Vale) (11:01): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

In respect to now delaying the progress of this very important piece of legislation, I hope we do not see more loss of life in our community of vulnerable people who do not have access to community visitor schemes, which are much wanted by the community and people with lived experience, because of the inaction that we have seen today.

The bill has been a long time coming, and there has been much consultation about this. In fact, one of the things that I have been doing for the whole couple of years since being in opposition is talking to people with lived experience, people in the community, about the Community Visitor Scheme as it changed because of the transition to the NDIS. Those opposite have dragged their feet on this scheme for two years. I was very disappointed to hear the Minister for Human Services yesterday firstly commit to attending a briefing and then not actually attend the briefing. It is very important that legislators are involved in the full process, and I found that disappointing.

For those who are not familiar, the Community Visitor Scheme aims to protect the rights of people living with disability within accommodation services and facilities, although in May 2019, due to the final changeover to the NDIS, the visitor was no longer able to visit non-government disability accommodation service providers, supported residential facilities or day-options programs. The claim it was the Labor Party who did not act in this regard is not true. In fact, the legal advice, which was published by the Budget and Finance Committee on 25 May, clearly shows that this advice from the Crown regarding the transition was not received by the Labor government until three days prior to the election, during a caretaker period.

There is no way in which the Labor government at the time could have acted to change the process or the laws around the Community Visitor Scheme. The government has had two years since then to act to make relevant changes, to speak with colleagues in other states who have made changes, but, no, that has not happened—for two years. Unfortunately, the death of Ann Marie Smith must be a catalyst for change in this state. The community visitor has not had the ability to enter NDIS-provided services or facilities for the past two years.

The previous principal community visitor, Mr Maurice Corcoran, wrote twice to the minister and in his annual reports stating that this was an issue, highlighting that to the government, and the minister did not act to change this. The government received a report that said that the Community Visitor Scheme needs to be strengthened and work alongside the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. I even received a letter from Mr Graeme Head, the commissioner for the safeguards commission, saying the following:

The NDIS Act does not prevent community visitors from accessing environments in which NDIS participants receive supports and services.

Indeed, other states, in particular Victoria, made the move relatively early in 2018 to make legislative changes in this area. They changed their relevant disability act so that community visitors could enter NDIS services. They also made it that community visitors could enter private homes where they were invited or where a warrant was issued because the community visitor deemed it necessary under the circumstances. Who knows? This may have saved Ann Marie Smith; it may not have, but I sure as hell want this bill to stop anyone else dying in disability care in this state, whether it is in a government-funded service, an NDIS-funded service or in their own home, which is truly heartbreaking.

The Minister for Human Services purports to be a champion of the Community Visitor Scheme, having put amendments in to create it when in opposition. I commend her for that. But she has let the service fail under her watch. She has failed the service, failed people in the state with disabilities who much need this and want it, and failed Ann Marie. This bill uses many of the original regulations that first created the Community Visitor Scheme and modified it using many of the provisions the Victorian parliament used so that these laws are not inconsistent with section 109 of the constitution, as the Crown legal advice over two years ago suggested that there could be some conflict. This is not the case.

This bill allows for the entry of a community visitor into private homes. This is particularly important. It allows a community visitor to enter where someone receiving NDIS in their home invites them in, and also, if the highly trained, highly skilled, experienced community visitor sees circumstances where they believe someone is perhaps under threat, coercion, in danger, under the threat of violence, experiencing abuse and terrible mistreatment, they may seek from the courts a warrant to enter. This is consistent with the power of Victoria and that of the Public Advocate, who can also seek a warrant from SACAT.

I note the Hon. Connie Bonaros in another place has concerns over this. I look forward to working with her regarding this. We believe the proof required to be presented to a magistrate in order to issue a warrant is suitable protection for people's privacy, but we are prepared to work through this. I do not want Ann Marie Smith's death to be in vain. Her death and legacy can be the protection of other people in this situation. This bill, which I would dedicate to Ann Marie Smith, I hope and am sure will save the lives of many South Australians in the future. I commend the bill to the house and may Ann Marie Smith rest in peace.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Pederick.