Bills

Disability Inclusion (Community Visitor Scheme) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 June 2020.)

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (20:07): I think it is safe to say that many South Australians are still reeling from the death of Ann Marie Smith. As we continue to unpick the systems and the circumstances that allowed for this to happen, we have now had the Safeguarding Taskforce provide their interim report, which has identified, amongst other things, that there are gaps in undertaking proactive visits to vet the performance of service providers.

I would also note that the task force has raised concerns around significant parts of the bill that we have before us today. While they do agree that the role of the community visitors should be looked at, changes should not be rushed. I also note that the task force is due to report at the end of this month, some mere days away.

While I appreciate the sense of urgency with which the members of the opposition have put forward this legislation, I also feel there is quite significant merit in listening to the task force, which is due to present that final report in coming days. Regardless, this bill is coming to a vote today, and so today I indicate the Greens will be cautiously supporting this legislation.

However, we do have some serious concerns that we believe need to be addressed, so we will be moving a series of amendments that we circulated earlier this week, and their success will be reflected in our third reading vote on this bill. The Greens' amendments to the bill are based on the concerns raised by stakeholders but also particularly the issues raised with the bill by the Law Society. I note that the Hon. Clare Scriven also has an amendment relating to the definition of 'supported independent living premises'.

In brief, the Greens' amendments remove provisions relating to warrants. The rationale for this is that stakeholders, people with disability, the Law Society and certainly in my communications with our federal Greens spokesperson on this, Senator Jordon Steele-John, have raised quite significant concerns around the privacy and rights of people with disability should the bill remain in its current form.

There are serious concerns about people—often volunteers, it is worth remembering—who can be given warrants to enter private residences. This is an extraordinary power that we cannot support within the bill as it currently stands. As stated by the Law Society in point 12 of their submission, it is important to note that community visitor schemes were originally established under the Mental Health Act and were designed around visits occurring in institutional settings, like hospitals and mental health facilities.

As such, the society suggests that continuing to use community visitors as the predominant way to safeguard people with disabilities living in the community in their own homes, requires a more detailed consideration of how statutory powers to visit and inspect are balanced with people's rights to privacy and to be out in their community. Certainly in conversations I have had with other stakeholders and people with lived experience, the privacy and dignity of people with a disability was a significant concern raised around this approach when it came to the issue of warrants.

I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea of volunteers being granted warrants to enter people's private residences, and that is why the Greens have sought to amend the bill to remove those provisions. Our amendments would also seek to establish a register of supported independent living premises. Again, this is raised on the concerns and issues raised by the Law Society in their submission, noting a lack of clarity around supported independent living premises in this setting.

We also would enable, as the Law Society has suggested, neighbours to refer matters to the Community Visitor Scheme. The rationale for this is that, as the bill currently stands, it actually does not capture the scenario where people are isolated in the community, as Ann Marie Smith was. It would not allow for her neighbours to contact the Community Visitor Scheme. Point 24 of the Law Society's submission states:

The Society is concerned that proposed ways for a Community Visitor to discharge their functions (i.e. conduct visits) are limited in scope, in particular that they do not allow for a neighbour or bystander to request a visit. Section 24E(1) is very much limited to the person with a disability or someone close to them [a family member for example or a friend] requesting the visit. Therefore, it seems the proposed model is unlikely to capture scenarios where people are isolated in the community, like Ms Smith was.

In point 26, they have certainly suggested an amendment to address this issue to expand section 24E(1) to enable, in their suggestion, bystanders or neighbours to refer matters to the CVS, and we have taken up that in part.

We also have amendments to create a statutory requirement for the Principal Community Visitor to refer matters to the Commissioner of Police, the Ombudsman, the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner and, of course, the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, where there are incidents of abuse, neglect or exploitation. These are rightly the places where these complaints should be going, not to volunteers.

The rationale is based on several recommendations again from the Law Society. Currently in South Australia, beyond first responders, such as child protection and SAPOL, and no doubt ambulance officers, as was the case here, there is no specific overarching legislative framework to protect people with disabilities living in the community who experience violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation. The society has called for greater powers for the community visitor to be able to respond to those incidents of abuse, neglect or exploitation and we have taken up that call with our amendments.

Ensuring that reporting to the minister who has no other responsibility for disability services or community care is not actually acceptable. At the very least, the Principal Community Visitor should have a statutory requirement to refer matters to the Ombudsman, the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner and SA Police. In particular, we have taken that further, extending that Principal Community Visitor's mandatory reporting requirement to include the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission.

We have also finetuned that reporting requirement for the police to be the Commissioner of Police as opposed to SAPOL. Given this is a high-level statutory obligation, it should be formalised rather than being a simple phone call to the local police station. I note as well that coming out from the discussion around this legislation other concerns have been raised about the adult safeguarding unit and the jurisdiction in which that particular act now applies and its transitional provisions.

However, I also note that there is an Ageing and Adult Safeguarding (Disapplication of Transitional Provision) Amendment Bill, which, of course, is in a different portfolio from the one we deal with tonight. Those transitional provisions have been identified also in other forums as in need of attention. I understand that the government could in fact possibly take action on that without the necessity for parliament to be changing the act itself but indeed by regulation.

The transitional provisions, while well-intended at the time they were introduced, have been proven to cause unintended delays in people receiving very necessary protections. I note in particular and thank a former member of this place, the Hon. Kelly Vincent, for her work in putting those issues on the agenda of adult safeguarding and working quite closely with the now Minister for Health and Wellbeing, then the shadow, the Hon. Stephen Wade.

We look forward to the committee stage of this debate. The death of Ann Marie Smith has touched us all, no doubt. The fact that, in such a well-heeled suburb, somebody could live in such a condition should be a shame to all of us. However, to apportion blame where it is not appropriate helps no-one, so we will not buy into those arguments. We will seek to do the best we can for the future and ensure that this parliament focuses on addressing the real issues and ensures that the Ann Marie Smiths of this world are not used as political footballs.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (20:16): Can I start by echoing the sentiments that have just been expressed by the Hon. Tammy Franks. I think it is extremely disappointing that this issue surrounding Ann Marie Smith's death has become a political football in this place. I think it is extremely disappointing that, when attending briefings on this bill, the rationale and justification for it was that if we had this scheme up and running then we may not have ended up with those tragic circumstances on our hands. I am extremely disappointed in the way that this issue was politicised, particularly throughout the course of the discussions that took place in relation to this bill.

Frankly, I do not shy away from telling anyone in here, just as I told the member from the other place who introduced this bill, that this bill would have done zero to assist Anne Marie Smith. The suggestion that a volunteer scheme would have somehow prevented her death is—I do not even know what the word is. I found it completely and utterly unacceptable that the member could make those sorts of assertions when we attended our briefings. We are talking about a scheme in this bill that relies entirely on volunteers. There is nothing in this bill that changes that. There is no magic provision in this bill that requires the government to go out and sign up volunteers.

I understand that there are currently about 40 volunteers. Despite the feedback provided to me at one of my meetings with the member, there is zero in this bill that would result in the government giving any sort of undertaking in terms of going out and signing up additional volunteers to a scheme that is 100 per cent reliant on volunteers. It is not like the CFS, as was put to me. We are relying on the goodwill of people who are happy to be part of a scheme where they pay visits to people in their homes and may make reports if they see or witness things that are inappropriate or questionable or that concern someone's welfare.

I have to say that the one thing I am pleased to see is that the opposition has seen some sense and dropped the proposal that a warrant could be executed to enter into a private home, which I considered completely unacceptable and would have been reason enough for us to completely reject this proposal outright.

None of us want to see anybody fall through the cracks. Absolutely none of us wanted to see what happened to Ann Marie Smith and none of us want to see a repeat of what happened to Ann Marie Smith. For my part, instead of relying on a volunteer scheme, I think where our focus ought to be is relying on a well-funded and resourced scheme that provides some safeguards for individuals who are living in situations and in circumstances similar to Ann Marie. I do not think it is appropriate that we rely on volunteers in our community to pick up on issues like that.

Not one person, as far as we are aware—not one member of the public, not one neighbour, not one family member, nobody as far as we are aware—reported any incidents or made any complaints regarding Ann Marie Smith. That does not change just because we are introducing a bill for a community visitor scheme. That does not change the fact that not one person picked up on the fact that Ann Marie Smith's life was in grave danger, and that danger ultimately resulted in her death.

I am extremely disappointed at the level of blame that I think has been inappropriately levelled in this debate. I am extremely disappointed that this bill has been used as a political football when we know that it would not have done anything to prevent those tragic circumstances that resulted in Ms Smith's death. I am extremely sorry that we are still here, talking about this issue in this context.

My position in relation to this bill remains the same. I acknowledge the work of the Hon. Tammy Franks to make this bill better. They are amendments that SA-Best ultimately supports but, frankly, I am not sold on this as the answer that the opposition is selling it as. I do not think that this provides the safety net that we are all looking for.

We do not need to be relying on volunteers. We want well-resourced, well-funded processes and programs in place to ensure that people are safe. There is no place for a reliance on volunteers to provide those services. The opposition will argue that in this instance, given that we have dropped the issue of the warrant, this is an opt in scheme and those individuals who want to opt in can opt in and they will have the benefit of having somebody visit them in their homes.

That is all well and good, but there is no magic wand that will be waved that will see that number of 40 increase to 400 or 450 or 500 or 1,000 volunteers across the state and will somehow make the problems that exist today, the problems that have been highlighted as a result of Ann Marie Smith's death, go away.

My feedback to the opposition would be that if this is the best you can come up with then perhaps we ought to use the winter break to come up with something more workable, more reliable, and with real teeth that will actually provide the safety net that we should all be looking for in this instance. I just do not think that this bill provides that.

SA-Best does not intend on standing in the way of this bill passing here, if that is the will of the opposition, but I will put money on it and I will bet—I am not a betting person, but here we go—right now that this bill will not see the light of day if it passes this chamber. I think that it is incumbent on the government and on the minister to come up with a better scheme that actually addresses the sorts of issues that we have been dealing with as a result of Ms Smith's death. For my part, this bill does not do that.

As I said, we will not stand in the way of the passage of the bill. We will support the amendments that the Hon. Tammy Franks has introduced, because I think that they are well-intentioned and I think that they are designed to go some way towards addressing the concerns that we have raised over and over at meetings. Again, I do not think that this is the response that we ought to be looking at in response to the death of Ms Smith and in response to the most vulnerable members of the community who are falling through the cracks.

They are falling through the cracks because of various issues, and in the most tragic of those circumstances it does result in people losing their lives. A visitor scheme by volunteers is not the solution to that problem, so I implore the government to go away and have a good long think about what it is we ought to be doing to ensure that there is no repeat of this in South Australia.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (Minister for Human Services) (20:25): I rise to place some remarks on record in relation to this bill, which the government is not able to support. Indeed, I believe it is premature that it is being called to a vote today. As other speakers have noted, there is an interim report from the Safeguarding Taskforce, which we established within days of learning of the tragic death of Ann Marie Smith. We sought the expert advice of people with lived experience and people who have worked in the sector for decades, to come up with some solutions for safeguarding that we want to be lasting and genuine responses to what has shocked all South Australians.

This has been quite a bitter debate for me. I share the concerns of other speakers at the tone of the opposition, who have clearly seen this as a media opportunity. Their response has been through instruments of the parliament, through legislation. They have not participated in the task force in terms of providing them with ideas, and in my belief they are completely disingenuous.

I would be interested to know who the opposition has consulted with in terms of this as a particular model going forward. I believe it contains a number of flaws that have been identified by other stakeholders, including the Law Society, and it has been held up as a way to safeguard South Australians with disability. There are 5,500 people who have been identified by the NDIS as being vulnerable NDIS clients. As the previous speaker has mentioned, there are 40 volunteers, as has been the constant situation with the Community Visitor Scheme, so the logistical problems with that, I think, speak for themselves.

There are other issues that I wish to go into for the benefit of honourable members. The Principal Community Visitor is established under the Mental Health Act of 2009. As I have mentioned previously in this place, I moved those amendments on 30 April 2008, I think it was, to establish that in the Mental Health Act, following the Ian Bidmeade report, and the former government opposed those amendments at the time. Community visitors have their origin in providing safeguarding for people in institutional situations. That has always been the intention, and that is reflected in the way they have been crafted.

The disability community scheme was introduced by the former government in 2013. It was enabled to be enforced because the government had funding agreements with a range of those disability services providers, not through statute, but those providers were obliged to cooperate with the Community Visitor Scheme because of those arrangements.

Where we are today: following the implementation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the Quality and Safeguards Commission is legally responsible for the quality and safety of NDIS services and the safeguarding of participants. The scope of the CVS has always been limited to disability services either provided by or funded by the state government under the Disability Services Act. The CVS ceased visits to non-government disability accommodation in May 2019 as they were no longer funded by the state and therefore outside the statutory scope of the scheme.

This government decided to extend the role of the CVS to include people under the guardianship of the Public Advocate who receive services because we believe those people are amongst the most vulnerable in our state. Visiting people in their privately owned homes, even by invitation, has never been within the legislative scope of the scheme, and the disability CVS has never had coercive powers or right of entry to properties.

In 2018, the former government sought Crown advice on the role of the CVS because of the transition to the NDIS. The advice received, which has been confirmed on multiple occasions, was that the NDIS Act has covered the field in the area of safeguards, and therefore South Australia cannot legislate to provide those powers to a Community Visitor Scheme in relation to NDIS-funded services. The advice has been tabled in one of the parliamentary committees, so it is available. I quote from it as follows:

Following the commencement of the NDIS Safeguards Commission Bill on 1 July 2018, there is a significant risk that state legislation purporting to create a Community Visitor Scheme with coercive powers to enter properties operated by registered NDIS providers would be inconsistent with the NDIS Act and invalid.

That means that if the scheme is invalid, all those volunteers are potentially exposed in terms of their insurance risk and other concerns that I will also go into a little bit more detail.

To go back a little bit, earlier this year the Disability Reform Council commissioned some work from WestWood Spice to determine how the set of Community Visitor Schemes that operate around Australia—and they are not uniform and do not operate in every jurisdiction—should operate going forward because that is one thing that the DRC does. It tries to look at these things in a uniform manner.

There is certainly a strong inclination that quality and safeguarding should be nationally consistent across Australia, so that was commissioned. It was the view of the South Australian government, particularly based on our advice, that the WestWood Spice report needed to consider that legal position. We have been concerned consistently that that legal position has not been considered. The report looked at things from a policy point of view rather than considering that as well.

That report was provided to me late last year and not long after that—because it did not answer the central question, which is what should happen in a governance sense with the Community Visitor Scheme going forward—I sought the advice of Dr David Caudrey, our disability advocate, as to how the South Australian Community Visitor Scheme should operate in this environment where things have significantly changed.

I would like to talk a little bit about the WestWood Spice report, which was published in December 2018 and made public probably 12 months later. It acknowledges that the role of Community Visitor Schemes is changing because of the changing landscape of the NDIS. The report states:

Review feedback suggested that although community visiting is widely supported and highly regarded in all the jurisdictions, the advent of the NDIS means changes are required to current arrangements.

It confirms that the Quality and Safeguards Commission is the independent body responsible for abuse and neglect, and again I quote:

For the first time under the NDIS Commission there will be one external organisation with responsibility for complaints relating to disability service providers used by NDIS participants, registered and unregistered, as well as reportable incidents. The NDIS Complaints Commissioner will receive complaints relating to breaches of the NDIS code of conduct, as well as matters relating to service quality, violence, abuse and neglect.

CVS are part of the safeguarding landscape, but their role is different from the Quality and Safeguards Commission, and in the hierarchy of the parts of the system the Community Visitor Scheme is not the first line of defence. Questions were raised by WestWood Spice about whether the CVS has prevented abuse, and I quote again from the report:

Feedback on the CVS from stakeholders was consistently very positive in all states and territories. However, it is hard to measure the impact of such schemes. There is no data on abuse which has been prevented, or good practice which has been encouraged, and there is no general evaluative data available to draw on this for review.

It also reports that the schemes concentrate on what you might call lower level issues, that being not those matters of abuse and neglect. I quote again:

It is important to note that many issues raised with the CVS are not complaints that would require referral to the NDIS Commission. The vast majority of matters raised by community visitors are resolved locally by the services and are not escalated.

It gives examples of equipment: washing machines, benchtop heights, and so forth. The report also talks about the role of CVS in capacity building, which is important as people with disability shift more towards self-advocacy, and that is something I have talked about in this parliament previously.

It also identifies what I think is quite important, and I think members of the Safeguarding Taskforce certainly were acutely aware of this as well, namely, that CVS can be paternalistic and counter to the goals of choice and control—choice and control being that language that is so important in the NDIS legislation.

It says as follows, that the NDIS promotes contemporary understanding of disability equality; its starting point is the CRPD, which is the Convention on Rights of People with Disabilities, and its human rights based foundation. This highlights the need to (a) assume capacity, (b) seek consent, and, (c) support decision-making. It says that, because of some proposals about potentially entering private homes:

The powers of community visitors to enter all visitable homes—

that would be all NDIS, I am assuming, clients—

without invitation and to access all areas, including personal files and records, could be perceived as running counter to this.

As I said, the central question of whether the commonwealth should take over the running of the CVS or not, which is something the state government certainly had assumed, was silent on that matter, which is somewhat frustrating because, given that the governance of these matters has shifted to the commonwealth, that would be the logical place for it.

The South Australian government asked Dr Caudrey to review the scheme, and we did that early this year. The Safeguarding Taskforce has a copy of the legislation and is considering it. In relation to coercive powers, one of the guiding principles of the NDIS is to enable people with disability choice and control over their lives.

This legislation seeks to take that choice and control away from individuals living with disability, and I understand there are amendments which would address these issues. However, the bill as has been tabled gives coercive powers and rights of entry to the CVS, including the use of a warrant, into people's private homes. Any proposal that has unintentional consequences on the rights of people living with disability must be thoroughly consulted with people with lived experience.

The Safeguarding Taskforce is already working on the core issue this bill seeks to address. This task force has lived experience and has not just quickly put together a bill, as the Labor Party has. They have been consulting very widely and very deeply. We must not intentionally strip away the rights of people living with disability that they have worked so hard for by rushing through a piece of legislation through this chamber. I note that the Law Society has suggested that a number of amendments are required to improve this bill. Their advice is silent on the Crown Solicitor's advice, which I think is interesting given that it is a central question.

I would go back in history a little and point out that in 2013 the former Labor Party government made the decision to transition the CVS funding as part of its then $723 million of indexed contribution for the CVS to the NDIS. There are now 35,000 South Australians accessing the NDIS, 5½ thousand of whom are considered vulnerable. One of the awkward things I think that we need to refer to in this legislation is also to revisit the issue of Oakden and the role of the Community Visitor Scheme in Oakden.

The ICAC inquiry report into Oakden was not, unfortunately, flattering of the Community Visitor Scheme. It reported that the Community Visitor Scheme had missed the abuse that was widespread and over a long period of time in the Oakden facility and described it as an exceptional facility with exceptional staff. As much as it pains me as the person who legislated for this scheme to be placed into statute with the very noble aim of trying to reduce that sort of abuse and neglect, I think we do need to bear that in mind.

As the Hon. Connie Bonaros has pointed out, we are in fact talking about volunteers, well intentioned as they may be. It depends on how many times people were to visit individuals, the sorts of behaviours that they may well detect over a longitudinal period of time, whether they notice things of a physical nature, as has been stated in the WestWood Spice report, or indeed whether they would notice those other signs of abuse and neglect.

I would like to return to the Crown law advice that was provided on 14 March 2018 because I think this also presents some risk to the volunteers. Paragraph 31 talks about potential risk to those people who are volunteers in the scheme. It states, as follows:

Insofar as complaints are concerned, however, s73ZA of the NDIS Act will protect certain disclosures about improper conduct by NDIS providers made by identified people to the Commissioner from civil or criminal liability. The persons whose disclosures are protected under s73ZA(1) are listed as the staff of NDIS providers, and 'a person with disability who is receiving a support or service from the NDIS provider or a nominee, family member, carer or significant other of that person.' It is unlikely that a community visitor established under State legislation would fall within any of the defined categories.

That legislation can be changed, of course, but to try to put forward this legislation prior to those changes being made I think just demonstrates the prematurity of where this proposal to vote on this on this day is at.

What that really means is that if there were a visitor who in good faith entered someone's house under the auspices of the scheme, they could potentially be exposed if they discovered something that they then reported to the scheme. They could potentially be sued. We are also concerned that if they had an accident while they were on site under the auspices of the scheme, they may not be able to access any sort of compensation because, we believe, the scheme would be invalid.

I note the bill requires that the scheme report to me. That seems somewhat convoluted if we are talking about abuse and neglect. The place for complaints of abuse and neglect is quite clearly the Quality and Safeguards Commission, so what we are effectively putting into the system is another step. My belief is that we need to have the best governance arrangements, ones which are clear rather than convoluted.

I would once again urge honourable members to listen to the language of the task force, their commentary and the things that they have brought forward so far in their interim report. Dr David Caudrey talks about multiple sets of eyes and integration into the community. This scheme has been portrayed as a white knight, a saviour, a guardian of all people who are vulnerable. I think we need to be very, very honest—we owe it to Ann Marie.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (20:46): I would like to thank the Hon. Ms Franks and the Hon. Ms Bonaros for their heartfelt contributions and also acknowledge the response from the minister. I want to thank the crossbench also for working with the opposition in moving amendments in line with the Law Society advice. I am sure we all have at heart the safety of people living with disability in this state. This legislation is one part of improving the circumstances. It is only one part, but it is an important part, and it needs to be moved and passed before the winter recess.

The interim report of the minister's task force has recommended that the Community Visitor Scheme is strengthened. Why would we delay acting upon that? This move has been supported by many in the community and in the disability sector. It has been supported by the former principal community visitor, Mr Maurice Corcoran. The minister has referred on a number of occasions to the advice that apparently says that such a scheme cannot operate post the NDIS. However, the Victorian Labor government corrected the anomaly in their legislation in 2018.

Victoria, the ACT and Queensland all have made changes that have enabled the community visitors in their jurisdictions to enter NDIS services. I do not think the opposition would disagree with the statements of the Hon. Ms Bonaros that we need to have a well-funded system that has all the safeguards in place that are required; however, we are unable to introduce money bills, so that is not an option open to us from opposition or indeed from the crossbench. It is certainly something that the opposition would like to see.

However, we do need to take note of the fact that the Community Visitor Scheme can be very effective. Volunteers have saved lives; the annual report of the Principal Community Visitor demonstrated that. This bill is one part of the attempts to improve the system. Adult safeguarding, better support coordination and all of those will be other parts. The expression 'having multiple eyes within the community' is, I think, a very worthwhile one, and this bill is attempting to assist with exactly that by being one part of it.

The opposition and my colleague in the other place the member for Hurtle Vale have consulted with the Law Society, with the former principal community visitor and of course with people with lived experience of disability. We have also made reference to other jurisdictions and the federal review. The opposition would have appreciated it if the minister had been able to attend a briefing with the member for Hurtle Vale or have some meetings to discuss the bill. That would have been very helpful; it would have been useful to be able to progress an approach. Fortunately, the crossbench has been willing to engage in briefings and so on.

The statement made by the minister that introducing this bill is premature should be addressed, albeit briefly. We have seen other jurisdictions that have been able to introduce a scheme to operate in the way this bill is designed to assist, but those opposite have had two years—since they came into government—to move on this, and they have not. Perhaps it is not surprising that people are feeling that this government has not acted when it could have done.

The mechanisms in place under the NDIS are clearly not sufficient to protect vulnerable people, despite the minister saying a number of times that they are. As I mentioned in my second reading speech, the tragedy of the death of Annie Smith must be heeded, it must be a catalyst for change in this state. We do not want Annie Smith's death to be in vain, we do not want it to be for nothing. Her death and legacy can be the protection of other people in her situation.

This bill is one part of that—a small part but an important part. In fact, we can dedicate this bill to Annie Smith. We hope it will pass, that it will be taken up, and that it will go some way to protecting the lives of South Australians into the future.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The honourable member mentioned the former principal community visitor and the Law Society. Is she able to advise what other organisations she has consulted with, that support the bill in its current form?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: In addition to the Law Society, the former principal community visitor, and people with lived experience. The opposition has put this bill to the task force; it has that. There have been discussions with Dr David Caudrey and Richard Bruggeman and other members of the task force individually, as well as with members of the public who either have direct lived experience themselves or are carers or other support people for people with a disability.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Can the member advise why the Labor Party decided to put this to a vote before the task force has provided its final report?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The interim report recommends an expansion of the Community Visitor Scheme. The opposition feels this is an important change that can be moved on quickly. It has already been too long. As I mentioned in my summing-up, this government has been in for two years and could have made changes. Clearly, there is the opportunity to have such a scheme, including post the NDIS, which is now rolled out. That has not happened. It needs to have some urgency attached to it because it is one part of the framework that is needed to ensure people have the protections they need.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Has the honourable member read the Crown law advice that I think was dated 14 March 2018?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My understanding is that the Crown law advice was in specific reference to a particular question. I think we would all be aware that, when there is a question put in a particular way, sometimes it will elicit a particular answer. If it had been put in a different way, then you may indeed have had a different answer. What we can see is that there is the opportunity. In other jurisdictions, they have enacted legislation that enables such a scheme to be enacted without contravening anything to do with the NDIS. Therefore, that is why we would like to see this progressed.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Has the Labor Party sought any separate constitutional advice that would contradict what the Crown has provided?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My understanding is that advice has been sought from the University of South Australia. I would also draw the minister's attention to something I referenced in my second reading explanation which was that the member for Hurtle Vale in the other place received a letter from Mr Graeme Head, the Commissioner for the Quality and Safeguards Commission, who said:

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

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: When the honourable member said that advice has been sought from the University of South Australia, could that be given to us more specifically? From whom at the University of South Australia or from which unit or department or person?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I will take that on notice.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: In relation to Mr Graeme Head's advice, is it the honourable member's understanding that he was referring to visiting in an individual capacity or with coercive powers?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My understanding is that he was referring to the ability to access environments in a general sense and that he did not consider that there was anything that prevented community visitors from accessing those environments.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Has the Labor Party done an estimation and sought to revert to the categories of places that used to be visited under the scheme prior to the government accepting the Crown law advice? Has the Labor Party sought to work out how many sites are potentially visitable should its bill be successful?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am sorry. The first part of that question was a little bit vague. Could the minister repeat that question please?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: By way of explanation, the Community Visitor Scheme used to be able to visit supported accommodation sites, day options programs, and there may have been another category as well. The legal advice deemed that those sites were no longer able to be visited because of the constitutional issue and because of the advent of the Quality and Safeguards Commission. Has the Labor Party done any calculations on how many sites it would be able to visit if its bill were to be successful?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that there are about 2,200 people who were dropped from the previous service and, of course, it would be more than that given that this would allow the scheme to be extended to private homes. In terms of the actual sites, in terms of numbers, I guess that can be variable. It could be subject to policy.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: How many times a year is the Labor Party envisaging that each person who was eligible would receive a visit?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: In terms of the number of visits, that can be determined through policy, and that would be based on what is considered appropriate by the implementers of the scheme.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Based on the current number of volunteers, which is 40, and the current number of individuals, and perhaps you can provide us with that number, how many visits would be able to occur per year per household, and how often?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The advice that I have been provided with is that, as I mentioned, there were previously 2,200 people who were visited. In terms of the number of visits, that is going to be on a case-by-case basis. The government would perhaps need to actively recruit more volunteers to enable a greater expansion of the scheme, and that would be something that they would determine through their own policies.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: What provisions in the bill require the government to actively seek volunteers to become part of the scheme?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think that is a very good question from the Hon. Ms Bonaros. Clearly, if we were able to introduce money bills, we would be able to introduce—

The Hon. C. Bonaros interjecting:

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think it is clear that, if the bill is to pass, the intention is that there are a suitable number of volunteers to be able to implement such a Community Visitor Scheme. If, as I mentioned, we were able to introduce money bills, then we could ensure that there was suitable financial provision. Unfortunately, coming from opposition, we are not able to do that. But I think the very fact that such a bill is passed should influence the government to provide the adequate resources to ensure that there are suitable community visitors.

As has been mentioned by a number of contributors, people in this role are volunteers. They are willing to give their own time, their own effort to ensure that people who are in these situations, people living with disability, are able to be visited as often as possible. They are very, very worthy goals, and I would hope that the government would take into account the intent of the chamber, if this bill does pass, and ensure that there is the opportunity to recruit new volunteers to the Community Visitor Scheme, that they do fund it appropriately and that they do take seriously the opportunity to put one plank into a foundation that will assist to ensure that people who are vulnerable have more protections.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the member provide an explanation as to how that additional funding will assist in the recruitment of unpaid individuals to undertake the role that she has just described?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think everyone would welcome a paid scheme overall. Resources, of course, are needed to advertise for more volunteers to expand the system. It makes sense that anything that is involved in training volunteers, recruiting volunteers, looking after the wellbeing of volunteers to the extent that that is possible, takes resources, and so that is what we would like to see some resources devoted to.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: My question specifically is that this is a scheme that relies on volunteers. Even with additional funding from the government towards resourcing and training, how is it intended that this will result in the recruitment of an appropriate number of volunteers to undertake a volunteer role as described in this bill?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that other states have hundreds upon hundreds of volunteers. I think there is the capacity, the scope, if there is the will from the government, to attract people to these roles. Yes, they are unpaid roles. Yes, we would like to see a fully paid scheme with appropriate resources, and that certainly is not precluded in any shape or form by the passage of this bill. We would like to see more volunteers. The passage of this bill will ensure that there is some more understanding in the community about the need, about the opportunity to give up one's time for a very, very worthwhile cause. I would hope that the government would take it seriously, take it on board and do the role of recruiting, training and then supporting those volunteers.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: What level of training, and what does the opposition understand of what that training that is to be provided to volunteers will look like under this bill?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Fortunately, the minister here is also the minister for volunteering so I am sure that she has quite a lot of resources at her disposal in terms of looking at what the appropriate training is. I am sure that she would have regard for what the current training is for the 40 volunteers that we currently have. It is a matter of policy that obviously we cannot set out within legislation.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: What is the current level of training that applies to the 40 volunteers who are under the scheme already?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am sure the minister for volunteering would be happy to answer that.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am asking you as the person who is responsible for this bill, what is the current level of training that applies to the 40 individuals who are a part of the scheme?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Since setting out the training for those volunteers does not form part of this bill, as I mentioned in my previous answer, the current training is under the auspices of the current government. I am sure the current minister would be able to answer what it is that is currently provided. If she thinks that is inadequate then I am sure she is in a position, as the minister for volunteering, to expand that and ensure that it is appropriate.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Given that this is an opposition bill and one that relies on volunteers, I think it is entirely appropriate that the member provide an explanation as to their understanding of what level of training they expect to apply to a proposal of theirs. I am not asking the minister to provide me with an explanation of her understanding of the training that occurs; I am asking the mover of this bill to provide us with an understanding of what their expectation is in terms of that training. If it was my bill, and I had a level of training required, I would certainly have some expectations of what that would entail. I am asking the member to provide an explanation as to your expectations in relation to that training.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As I have said, the training that currently exists would be the baseline. I am not making any criticisms of the current training that is under the auspices of the minister for volunteering. I do not think this debate is part of that discussion. That provides the baseline. Additional training would be useful and beneficial. I am sure I would like to see that pursued. That is part of policy rather than part of legislation.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Let me move away from your expectations then. Do you know what level of training individuals who are currently signed up under this volunteer scheme are required to undertake at present? Do you know what that level of training is?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have a general understanding of the level of training. I think one of the things we need to remember when we are looking at volunteers, the training is certainly important, the support from government agencies is certainly important, but also the motivations of those volunteers. Volunteers across the state take on a huge amount of work in our state in all sorts of fields.

The minister, I think, or it may have been the Hon. Ms Bonaros, mentioned the CFS earlier. We have volunteers in every aspect of our lives. In regional communities, of course, they take on an even greater level of involvement and support. Many of our services in the state only continue because we have excellent volunteers, so I think we need to look at all of those aspects. Indeed, I would hope and expect that that is what the minister is currently doing in terms of all volunteers within the state, and particularly those for whom the government is responsible for training.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: A supplementary on that: I was wondering what are the competencies and the number of hours required of volunteers before they can commence their visits?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am happy to take that question on notice.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: We all have a great deal of admiration, respect and acknowledgement of the work that our volunteers do. We celebrate them in here on each and every occasion. The member has said that she has a general understanding of the requirements that relate to those current volunteers under the scheme. Can she please provide an explanation of her general understanding of those requirements?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As I said, I will take that question on notice and bring back further information to the chamber.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am still waiting for an answer on who provided the legal advice. I was going to then ask for the legal advice to be tabled, so I am hoping we have a name for that.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think that I did provide the information that it was the University of South Australia Council and various lecturers, I am told. I will seek advice as to whether we can release that information and come back to you within this debate.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The mover did indeed say that it was the University of South Australia, and then my question was: who at the University of South Australia? We still have not been provided with that information. Are they legally trained? Do they have a name?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As I mentioned, I will check that we can release that information and come back within this debate.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: In relation to that same point, the member has responded to a question from the minister specifically saying that they have advice that counters the advice that the minister has put on the record. I think it is only appropriate that if we are going to be told that we have advice that provides a different analysis, in terms of the constitutional grounds for this legislation, it is only appropriate that we should have access to the advice itself so that we can consider it as part of our deliberations.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: If I recall correctly, I did mention a couple of sources of advice, one being the letter from Mr Graeme Head, the Commissioner for the Quality and Safeguards Commission. As I said, I am happy to check that we are able to release the name of the person who provided the advice and I will come back to the members within this debate.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: It is not just the name of the advice. I think that what we are seeking is the actual advice so that we can compare that against the advice that is being provided by the minister, which is obviously at odds with the advice you are suggesting has been provided to the opposition.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think I have answered that I will come back within this debate to answer that, but also I think we need to remember that we have other jurisdictions that have introduced a similar scheme, so clearly those jurisdictions have reason to believe that it is not unconstitutional. Those jurisdictions are operating at the moment within the confines, if you want to use that term, of the NDIS. Those jurisdictions have been able to introduce a scheme very similar to what we are talking about here, so I think that members can rest assured that there is not a major constitutional barrier if they have been able to be enacted in other jurisdictions.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I asked the movers of this bill in a briefing for the Victorian experience, which I understand is now the jurisdiction the member just referred to. Could she answer whether or not the provisions we are now debating have actually been used in that jurisdiction?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: They are similar to those used in that jurisdiction. I am able to now advise the chamber that we have received advice from people who would like to remain anonymous. Parliamentary counsel has advised that these provisions should not be at odds with the other advice.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My question of the mover of the bill is: in Victoria, has a warrant been used for the purposes that are outlined similar to this bill?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I did not hear the beginning of that question.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In Victoria, has a warrant been used for the purposes outlined in this bill that are being seen as similar and in another jurisdiction?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that it has not.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Why have they not been used?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I could not answer why Victoria has not used a warrant. My advice is that they have not used it, and I think the member is aware that we are supporting the amendment that would remove warrants.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: That is my amendment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Indeed. We are supporting the Hon. Ms Franks' amendment to remove the warrant and are happy to do so.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I have another question. Can the member advise—I cannot remember his name off the top of my head—whether the honourable member has sought the cooperation of her colleagues in the federal parliament to overcome some of the challenges in relation to what would potentially expose community visitors to civil and criminal liability?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that discussions have been held with the Hon. Bill Shorten about matters to do with the scheme that is proposed.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Is the honourable member aware whether a bill has been drafted yet or whether there are any plans to change the NDIS Act in the federal parliament?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am not aware whether a bill has been drafted or not.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Scriven–1]—

Page 3, lines 23 to 26 [clause 5, inserted section 24(1), definition of supported independent living premises]—Delete the definition of supported independent living premises and substitute:

supported independent living assistance means any of the following supports and services provided to a person at the person's residence:

(a) supports funded under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 of the Commonwealth;

(b) mainstream supports and services provided to the person to—

(i) assist the person with daily living; or

(ii) assist the person to learn and develop knowledge, skills and abilities necessary for, or related to, independent living;

supported independent living premises means premises (other than disability accommodation premises), or part of such premises (as the case may be), at which a disability services provider provides supported independent living assistance to a person with disability, being, or being part of (as the case may be), the person's place of residence.

This amendment inserts a definition of supported independent living assistance. This amendment was in line with the recommendations of the Law Society to ensure that the type of assistance being carried out falls within the jurisdiction of the Community Visitor Scheme.

My understanding is that the Law Society made a number of recommendations and we were happy to move this amendment so that there is greater clarity of what is meant by 'supported independent living assistance'. On the advice of the Law Society, it will be beneficial to this bill.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I would like to make some comments in relation to this amendment. The advice I have received is that although supported independent living assistance is defined, the term 'mainstream supports and services' is not being defined in the proposed legislation. The amendment proposed does not provide enough clarity and appears to expand the scope far more than intended.

The terminology is generally taken to mean services that are not disability-specific and available to all citizens, such as transport, education and health, which would include any service or support that is not a specialist disability support. The term could, for instance, capture home and community care supports and services if those supports and services are provided to a person at the person's residence who is needing the assistance requirements as outlined. As 'mainstream supports and services' is not qualified by the term 'funded', it could extend to supports and services provided by volunteers or family.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I just have a comment in regard to the comment by the minister. I am advised that the terminology is based on the current regulations and Victorian law. If, however, the minister is of the view that they would be improved, we are certainly happy to receive amendments and would have been happy to do so had she agreed to have a meeting with the member for Hurtle Vale about the proposed bill.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am going to object to this whole notion that somehow I am supposed to fix the Labor Party's bill. This bill was called to a vote last week. It certainly was not the convention that I used to observe when I was a shadow minister in this place. I used to give ample time for people to be aware of when I was calling things to a vote. This is premature.

I am not going to try to improve the Labor Party's amendments. I have outlined why this amendment is worse than what is in there at the moment. It is the government's intention to oppose the legislation. If the Labor Party can stop trying to be cute and act like they have all the answers and develop a bit of humility, that would be great for everyone.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would point out to the minister that the bill was introduced on 3 June, so that is certainly more than a week of notice. Secondly, I would have thought our invitation to not only discuss it with her but for her to move further amendments that we would be happy to discuss shows that we are full of humility.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am not going to labour this point, but we were waiting for the final task force report, and everyone knows that this is just very disrespectful to that whole process.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Franks, do you want to give me an indication of what you are going to do with this?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: To be honest, Chair, due to the COVID restrictions in this place and the doors being opened and people outside talking I could not hear the mover's speech before, so I am a little at a loss as to what to do with this particular amendment. Would the mover like to repeat what this amendment does, who supports it and what impact it will have?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Certainly; no problem at all. I think we all agree that COVID is making a few things difficult that you would not even think about, and not being able to hear in this chamber might be one of them. This amendment inserts a definition of 'supported independent living assistance'. It is in line with the recommendations of the Law Society to ensure that the type of assistance being carried out falls within the jurisdiction of the Community Visitor Scheme. It also provides definitions for the interpretation of the bill. In addition to being a Law Society recommendation, I am advised that it is based on current regulations and Victorian law.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Chair, I appreciate that. I am aware of the arguments. I just missed where this was going to come up in the debate. The Greens will be supporting this.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Franks–1]—

Page 6, after line 24 [clause 5, inserted section 24B(2)]—After paragraph (c) insert:

(ca) to refer matters to the Commissioner of Police and any other appropriate authority in circumstances of suspected abuse, neglect or exploitation of a person with disability;

At clause 5 after paragraph (c) this inserts (ca) 'to refer matters to the Commissioner of Police and any other appropriate authority in circumstances of suspected abuse, neglect or exploitation of a person with disability.' This of course requires, where these situations arise, where abuse, exploitation and similar circumstances are suspected, that the police be informed, but not just the police, but indeed the Commissioner of Police because we do not want the sort of loose ends that we currently have. Also, these matters quite rightly often should be dealt with by the police or other relevant authorities, and it allows that particular scope to be opened up in this bill.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would like to indicate that the opposition supports this amendment. I thank the Hon. Ms Franks for working constructively with the opposition to come up with an amendment which I think certainly improves the bill. We are happy to support it.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Franks–1]—

Page 7, lines 4 to 24 [clause 5, inserted section 24C(3), (4) and (5)]—Delete subsections (3), (4) and (5) and substitute:

(3) Despite any other provision of this Part, a community visitor may only exercise a power under this Part in respect of supported independent living premises—

(a) if the premises are registered under section 24CA; or

(b) if a request to see a community visitor has been made—

(i) by a resident who is provided with supported independent living assistance at the premises; or

(ii) with the consent of a resident who is provided with supported independent living assistance at the premises, by a person authorised to make a request under section 24E(1); or

(c) with the consent of a resident of the premises who is provided with supported independent living assistance at the premises.

As I noted, these are taking up recommendations of the Law Society, but I also note that at 3(a), anticipating that an amendment to come of mine that does not have support of the council, required the register, that 3(a) in fact would not be able to be implemented.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Given the problem the honourable member has indicated, may I suggest that it would be appropriate to deal with the following amendment first and then come back to this one? Alternatively, if that is not the will of the council, could I seek clarification on what would then occur to this amendment if the following amendment, which has linkages, is not then passed?

The CHAIR: We have to deal with this amendment first, otherwise we would possibly have to recommit the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Knowing the numbers and given the lack of support for the amendment that I was to potentially move next is not in this chamber and I was not going to move it, I just note that '(a) if the premises are registered under section 24CA; or' will become an anomaly should this amendment get the support of the council, and we probably would have to recommit to fix up that wording. I seek leave to move the amendment in an amended form as follows:

Amendment No 2 [Franks–1]—

Page 7, lines 4 to 24 [clause 5, inserted section 24C(3), (4) and (5)]—Delete subsections (3), (4) and (5) and substitute:

(3) Despite any other provision of this Part, a community visitor may only exercise a power under this Part in respect of supported independent living premises—

(a) if a request to see a community visitor has been made—

(i) by a resident who is provided with supported independent living assistance at the premises; or

(ii) with the consent of a resident who is provided with supported independent living assistance at the premises, by a person authorised to make a request under section 24E(1); or

(b) with the consent of a resident of the premises who is provided with supported independent living assistance at the premises.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: That is a fine solution to that anomaly, I think. I indicate that the opposition will be supporting that amendment as it has been moved in an amended form.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am extremely grateful that the Hon. Tammy Franks has moved amendment No. 2 [Franks—1] because it goes some way towards addressing some of my concerns in relation to this. Specifically, I would like to know from the mover, given the powers of a community visitor under 24C, what the interplay is between them and the role of various individuals who may undertake very similar activities under the NDIS. For instance, I assume that this is broad enough. I will use subsection (1)(c) as an example:

(c) make enquiries relating to the provision of supports and services to the residents;

That is something that is covered under the NDIS.

(d) request any person to produce documents or records…

Is there a requirement to produce such documents or records that are covered by the NDIS? Subsection (b) refers to inspection of any equipment that is on the premises. Invariably, in most cases that is equipment that will be funded by the NDIS.

(e) examine documents or records produced and request to take extracts from, or make copies of, any of them.

Again, that would include documents that are provided as part of a plan that is approved under the NDIS. What is the mover's understanding of the interplay between these provisions and a plan approved under the NDIS? How does that work in the interstate jurisdictions that do have a community visitor scheme? Have any issues been identified in terms of material being requested that falls under the auspices of the NDIS?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My understanding is that there is not a problem with the two acting and being complementary to each other. What we need to remember is that this is an option for a scope of things that can be looked at by a community visitor, it is not a list of everything that must be looked at. Frankly, even if it were, I am not quite sure how that would necessarily cause a difficulty with the interface with the NDIS. The NDIS plan is worked out, and there are various funded supports. People might manage it themselves if they have the capacity and desire to do so, or people might have a plan manager. So I am not sure there is any difficulty. I do not think the interface will cause a problem; I think this can easily be complementary.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: As someone who has a great deal of lived experience with someone who is under an NDIS plan, I beg to differ in terms of my opinion in relation to that. I can see that there would be issues in relation to this. There are myriad services, providers and activities that are administered under the NDIS, and it is very, very carefully planned to ensure that everyone has access to whatever it is that they need. A huge concern of mine is that a person who falls under the community service scheme, a volunteer, could come in over the top of that and potentially disrupt the plans that have been put in place via the NDIS and on what grounds that could occur.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Could the honourable member outline how she thinks that could be disrupted?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: No, I am asking you.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Well, I have said that they would be complementary. The honourable member has said that she sees that it would be a severe disruption—I am not quite sure of the exact term that was used. If she could provide an example, that might assist.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Perhaps the member can provide an example of when it would be relevant to make inquiries relating to the provision of support and services, when it would be relevant to request someone to produce documents or records or when it would be relevant to examine, produce extracts from or make copies of any of those documents that are administered under the NDIS.

I know, as someone who has a great deal of input into an NDIS plan, that I would be somewhat reluctant to hand it over to somebody who has very limited access to the patient in question, who visits them on a not-very-often basis and who may visit once every—I do not know how often 40 people can get around to 2,200 people who are under the scheme.

Given the level of planning and work that goes into establishing one of these plans and one of these schemes and everything that goes along with that, I would be extremely concerned about providing those documents to somebody who is a qualified volunteer and can potentially disrupt the services that are provided to an individual.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would just point out that the people who we are referring to are participants in the NDIS, they are not patients.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Thank you for your clarification.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think it is important, and certainly I think it is good for us all to remember that. We do not need to take it as a personal slight; it is just a reminder for all of us.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I will take it in the way it was meant, thank you.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes; good. So the people who are living in state government accommodation are still, of course, NDIS participants. The community visitor can access those plans. We need to remember the role of the community visitors is visiting and raising concerns. They are not in there to do an inventory of all the documents and so on, they are there to see whether there is evidence or strong suggestion of neglect, abuse or coercion.

All those things are important and that is part of their role. My understanding is that in other jurisdictions, the two schemes have been able to work in tandem with each other without raising the disruptions or significant problems that the honourable member is querying.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: What sorts of documents does the mover expect a community visitor would potentially request under 24C(1)(d) in terms of the production of documents or records that relate to a person who is subject to one of these community visitor schemes?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My understanding is that it could be such things as medication charts or care plans. It could be things to do with: is the participant currently having insulin medication, for example? What are their goals? All those kinds of things would be appropriate. Things like care plans will enable a community visitor to have some understanding, at least, of whether the care that the person appears to be receiving is in line with those care plans.

It might be quite obvious that some of those care plans are not being followed, so they are the sorts of documents that it would be appropriate and potentially useful for the community visitor to request be produced and to have a look at. As we have mentioned throughout this debate, that is one of the ways of helping to increase the safeguards for vulnerable people.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: What part of the training of a volunteer under the current scheme would make them an appropriate person to assess somebody's medication charts?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I do not think the role of the community visitor will be to assess the medication chart, to use the term the honourable member has used, but if one can look at a medication chart and see that it has not been updated or that it has not been referred to for a considerable period of time, for example, then that would be the type of thing that might be suggestive of someone being neglected or not having the care they are entitled to. That would be just one example of where a piece of information might raise red flags, which could then enable further investigation that might well safeguard that person and be the difference between life and death.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: The next indicated amendment is amendment No. 3 [Franks-1].

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will not be proceeding with this amendment.

The CHAIR: The amendment is withdrawn. The next amendment is amendment No. 4 [Franks-1].

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Franks–1]—

Page 8, line 6 [clause 5, inserted section 24E(1)(c)]—Delete 'or friend' and substitute ', friend or neighbour'

This adds a neighbour who may not be a friend, family member or the resident themselves and allows for that bystander, who the Law Society has noted should be able to express their concern and seek the visit of a community visitor, to feel empowered to do so.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The opposition will be supporting this amendment. We agree that it is a useful one as neighbours, in many instances, do have a greater ability to see if a neighbour needs assistance and can often have a greater line of sight. I understand it is also consistent with the Law Society recommendations. We will be supporting this amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Franks–1]—

Page 8, lines 8 and 9 [clause 5, inserted section 24E(1)(d)]—Delete paragraph (d) and substitute:

(d) any other person who—

(i) is providing support to a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b); or

(ii) becomes aware of circumstances relating to a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) that the person considers warrant inquiry by a community visitor.

In a similar vein, this is simply broadening slightly the scope of the bill.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The opposition will be supporting this amendment. It does give a more robust ability for oversight, and we are happy to support it.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 6 [Franks–1]—

Page 9, after line 6—After section 24G insert:

24H—Report to SA Police and appropriate authority in certain circumstances

(1) If, arising out of the performance of the functions of community visitors under this Part, there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person with disability is being, or has been, subjected to abuse, neglect or exploitation, the Principal Community Visitor must report that suspicion and the grounds for it to—

(a) the Commissioner of Police; and

(b) any other appropriate authority who, in the circumstances, the Principal Community Visitor considers may take action in respect of the suspected abuse, neglect or exploitation, such as the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission or the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner.

(2) In this section—

NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission means the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission established under section 181A of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 of the Commonwealth.

This is the final of my set of amendments. This, at clause 5, after section 24G, inserts a new section 24H. This takes up, again, those suggestions made by the Law Society to ensure that we are not simply having community visitors go and observe, but ensuring that should action need to be taken appropriate delegated lines of communication are also undertaken.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The opposition supports this amendment. My advice is that it was a recommendation of the Law Society, providing greater statutory obligations for reporting to relevant organisations. We will be agreeing to it.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (21:43): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The house divided on the third reading:

Ayes 12

Noes 9

Majority 3

Third reading thus carried; bill passed.