Legislative Council Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2) 54 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Community Visitor Scheme Community Visitor Scheme The Hon. E.S. BOURKE Legislative Council Community Visitor Scheme The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (16:26): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Minister for Human Services regarding the Community Visitor Scheme. Leave granted. The Hon. E.S. BOURKE Legislative Council The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: On Friday last week, the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission released its independent report into the death of Annie Smith. In that report, the Hon. Alan Robertson SC stated: Consideration should be given to the Commission establishing its own equivalent to State and Territory based Community Visitor Schemes to provide for individual face-to-face contact with vulnerable NDIS participants…Until that happens, the Commission should continue to support the State and Territory Community Visitor Schemes and any doubt about State and Territory powers under those schemes in relation to NDIS participants should be resolved between the law officers of the Commonwealth and of these States and Territories. My questions to the minister are: 1.	With the minister stating on multiple occasions that safeguarding of NDIS participants is the sole responsibility of the commonwealth, will the minister now admit she was wrong and reinstate and strengthen the Community Visitor Scheme? 2.	Has the minister sought legal advice and drafting instructions from parliamentary counsel to immediately implement the recommendations of the inquiry? The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK Legislative Council Minister for Human Services The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (Minister for Human Services) (16:27): I thank the honourable member for her questions. I think the public release of the report by the Hon. Alan Robertson would not have been that well received by the Labor opposition, given that it has been so consistent with the position of the state government and the final report of the Safeguarding Taskforce. The state government has accepted all the recommendations, one of them being that we need to continue to work with the commonwealth government in terms of what the Community Visitor Scheme should look like going forward. It would be a very brave minister who ignored Crown law advice. The Crown law advice, which was sought by the Labor Party prior to the election and was provided after the election, made it quite clear that if there was a community visitor scheme that purported to do similar functions to the Quality and Safeguards Commission, it would be, in their language, invalid. That is a matter of the public record. I have stated on numerous occasions and, indeed, in relation to some of the debate in this house that I also hold concerns that those visitors may be exposed unless there is some change to those arrangements. The position of the state government has been that we want to find a way forward with the commonwealth in terms of how the Community Visitor Scheme would operate. The primary agency for quality and safeguarding is indeed the NDIS commission. That is clear through any of the statutes that anybody wishes to look at. We have been consistent on this issue. I think it is worth stating for the record, too, that the South Australian Labor Party's response to the tragic death of Ann Marie Smith has been nothing short of just baselessly political. They have made no contribution to the debate in terms of safeguarding. There are a range of recommendations that sit within the Safeguarding Taskforce, and Alan Robertson makes some similar recommendations. The Labor Party's sole contribution to this entire debate has been to focus on the Community Visitor Scheme, which they knew was not able to go into private homes and would not have been able to assist Ms Smith in her particular situation. Indeed, even if legally she had been able to be offered it, she may well have refused. It has been very disappointing that the Labor Party undermined the task force from the beginning, called into question its independence, made some merry fuss about whether the terms of reference were valid, said it didn't have enough time to report but then it was going to take too long and, in terms of the policy debate, made absolutely no contribution— Members interjecting: The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK Legislative Council The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: —to any of these matters. They have just continued to talk about a community visitor scheme that in South Australia is in the order of 40 volunteers— Members interjecting: The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK Legislative Council The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: —who not only have a role in terms of those people who are under public guardianship and those people who are under the state supported accommodation arrangements but have a role in terms of mental health visitations, particularly their unannounced visits arising out of the Oakden scandal. My understanding is that the NDIS has identified that there are some 5½ thousand vulnerable clients in South Australia. The logistics of asking a volunteer workforce to undertake that level of work is something that I think the Labor Party needs to reflect on. It would be really, really useful if they could actually genuinely contribute, read some of these reports and try to understand what it is that people with lived experience want from their governments.