HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-10-30 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Motions

Community Visitor Scheme

Ms COOK (Hurtle Vale) (11:30): I move:

That this house—

(a) recognises the important role the Community Visitor Scheme plays in protecting the rights of South Australians living with a disability or mental illness who may be receiving care in a mental health treatment facility, attending a community mental health facility, living in disability accommodation, attending a day options program or living in a supported residential facility;

(b) accepts the independence of the Community Visitor Scheme and the Principal Community Visitor as a statutory officer as important components of the South Australian bureaucracy in holding the government of the day to account;

(c) expresses regret at the troubling findings of the Principal Community Visitor in his reports to parliament tabled October 2018 regarding the treatment and care of several clients living with a disability under state care; and

(d) calls upon the Marshall government to ensure all concerns, complaints and irregularities as identified by the Principal Community Visitor and the Community Visitor Scheme are addressed as soon as possible to provide clients of disability and mental health services and their families peace of mind.

Firstly, I acknowledge the great work of Mr Maurice Corcoran, who has recently left his role as the Principal Community Visitor for South Australia. He spent eight years protecting the rights of vulnerable South Australians as the visitor, and his whole life as a social worker, advocate and all-round good guy in the sector.

I wish him well in his future role, which he has taken up with the commonwealth Disability Royal Commission. We wish him well and know that he will hold the commission to account, and the findings, and ensure that all people living with a disability in our community are represented. My motion almost seems superfluous now, a year down the track since tabling it. Whilst all the things in it are true, there is a very real issue in the current state of the Community Visitor Scheme, and I will explain why.

Prior to the transfer of disability funding to the commonwealth through the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the community visitor had the very important role of having a legal right to enter all disability and mental health services facilities and properties in the state, no matter who they were run by. Since the transfer, the community visitor can only enter state-operated day services facilities and properties, which are only a very small number of facilities that people with disabilities actually reside and participate in. This means there is a significant shortfall in the ability of the visitor to actually undertake their role.

During estimates, I asked questions of the Minister for Human Services in another place about what was being done to ensure that the Community Visitor Scheme could continue to operate under the new arrangements with the commonwealth government. I was told that it is very complicated and that someone was working on doing something. Who knows? The answer was not actually that clear, and I have not had any updates or heard any news to tell me anything other than what I was told several months ago.

The role of the community visitor is foremost to promote the proper resolution of complaints and advocate for the rights of individuals in care. Whilst I applaud the inclusion, if they are unable to do so, then what is the point? I will tell you the point and the reason the community visitor role needs to be protected. The minister should sort the issues with their entry into NDIS services and properties, just as has been done in other jurisdictions, such as Victoria. Last year’s Principal Community Visitor annual report had really troubling findings, findings that reflected on the treatment of individuals in care. Clearly this is not isolated to South Australia; this is a national shame. That is why we are having a royal commission into people with disabilities in care.

Within that report, the family of a young man with complex care needs found a very disturbing and threatening letter left in their letterbox allegedly from a staff member who blamed them for the site manager being moved—obviously the site manager of where this young man resided. The letter went on to state that 'the staff who are affected by this are angry and pissed off which puts your nephew at risk'.

It was very emotive language, which was in the report. The letter further details forms of harm that could be applied to the client and which could be masked as an accident. I will not go into the full details of the rest of the letter. It is pretty vile, it is hard to read and anyone particularly interested in that case, which is worrying and disturbing, can read it in the annual report. It does reinforce, I believe, and it should reinforce to all of us the importance of independent monitoring of the services provided to some of our most vulnerable citizens.

What we are told is that people residing in state-owned, state-operated services can have a visit by the community visitor, but those people now who are within services operated and serviced by the NDIS—a non-government organisation, for example—the community visitor cannot visit. To be clear, that is the vast majority. I understand that this is being explained as a subject of legislation. This legislation, as I said before, has been changed in Victoria. There are other jurisdictions that continue to have community visitors visit their premises, but not here in South Australia as yet.

The Minister for Human Services in the other place would well know the duty of care she has in regard to protecting all people in South Australia with a disability and the role that she has within that process and, I am sure, takes it very seriously. I have written a number of times to various people, including federal ministers and the Minister for Human Services here in South Australia. I have written directly as well to the NDIS, and I respect and commend the work of Graeme Head AO, who is the commissioner with the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission.

I got advice from him stating that the NDIS Act itself does not prevent community visitors from accessing environments in which NDIS participants receive supports and service. So they are very clear that they are not preventing state-authorised visitors from entering the non-government organisations funded through NDIS. In fact, it seems to me and to other people who have made presentations to me that the state Liberal government is currently moving as fast as it can to abdicate all those areas of responsibility which ensure the delivery of quality services—and the Community Visitor Scheme is a big part of this—in terms of visiting South Australian institutions, when the Quality and Safeguards Commission actually appears to welcome as much oversight as is available and is very happy for state visitors to participate in this oversight.

It is important to note that the Quality and Safeguards Commission, versus the community visitors, actually has a different process and mandate in respect of the visiting that they can do in premises to support people who reside within them. The Quality and Safeguards Commission does not make unannounced random visits to premises. They go only if they are notified of an issue.

Many of us who have taken great interest over the years in what happens to vulnerable people living in institutions will have followed and read about some of the work of our Community Visitor, Maurice Corcoran, when he enters a premises to do a random and unannounced visit: 'I am coming to meet with residents to see how they are travelling.' He has saved lives. He has changed conditions because of some of the terrible situations he has borne witness to.

That will not happen with the Quality and Safeguards Commission because they do not do these visits. They are notified of things that are wrong. They are told about incidents. There are things reported to them, and they will go and look and investigate and do a great job. This is not about saying that the Quality and Safeguards Commission are not the best placed people to investigate and support best practice in terms of the NDIS. What it is saying, from my point of view, is that the visitor operated under very different circumstances. We know the visitor has saved lives and pointed out atrocities, and there have been changes in practice because of it.

I urge the Marshall government to do something about this, to fix this problem and ensure that the community visitor in South Australia has the power to enter and assess and ensure that all concerns and complaints relating to vulnerable South Australians across the scope are addressed. I commend motion.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (11:41): I rise to firstly move an amendment to the motion moved by the member for which she has presented her argument. I move:

(a) Delete 'plays in protecting the' and insert 'has played in advocating for the'

(b) Delete 'accepts' and 'as important components of the South Australian bureaucracy in holding the government of the day to account' and insert 'work of the' after the words 'values the independence of the Community Visitor Scheme and the'

Delete paragraphs (c) and (d) and insert the following in lieu:

(c) notes the findings of the Principal Community Visitor 2017-18 Annual Report tabled in parliament in October 2018 regarding the treatment and care of several clients living with a disability under state care;

(d) notes that the state government is committed to investigating, addressing and responding to matters raised by the Principal Community Visitor within its scope of responsibility;'

Insert:

(e) notes that the role of the Disability Community Visitor Scheme has changed due to the transition to the NDIS with the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission now having legislative responsibility as an independent agency to protect NDIS participants, complaints, incident investigations, and improve quality and safety supports;

(f) recognises the work the state government is undertaking to navigate broad and complex policy, governance and legislative issues regarding the role of the CVS for people with disability going forward to ensure nationally consistent, high-quality and sustainable safe supports for people with disability; and

(g) acknowledges the exemplary service of Maurice Corcoran AM as the Principal Community Visitor for over eight years.

I am advised that, in relation to paragraph (d), there is an addition of the words:

notes that the state government is committed to investigating, addressing and responding to matters raised by the Principal Community Visitor within the scope of responsibility.

I am providing a copy of the amendment proposals, together with the rewritten paragraphs, which I hope is of assistance to the house.

The Marshall Liberal government acknowledges the outstanding efforts of Maurice Corcoran AM, who has led the South Australian Community Visitor Scheme for over eight years. I note that the mover of the motion has done so also. We join with her in that regard. The government continues to be committed to protecting the most vulnerable in our community. It is important to note that independent statutory officers, such as the Principal Community Visitor, play an important role in line with their legislative functions and powers.

As a government, we welcome their independent scrutiny, advocacy and advice. In fact, the Principal Community Visitor was established under the Mental Health Act 2009, and I was proudly a member of the then opposition that moved amendments to ensure that this scheme was established under the Mental Health Act and to confer the powers and functions in respect of mental health. At present, it does not apply to disability facilities, as has been acknowledged.

The Disability Services Act 1993 and the Disability Services (Community Visitor Scheme) Regulations 2013 conferred additional functions on the Community Visitors, enabling them to visit disability accommodation premises and day option programs to assess certain matters relating to the services provided. This scope is limited to disability services either provided by or funded by the state government under the Disability Services Act. However, the scope of the disability component of the CV scheme is changing due to the transition to NDIS, as disability services are no longer funded by the state government. The mental health component of the scheme will continue under the Mental Health Act 2009 until such time as the state parliament amends or revokes that legislation. I hope that is of some reassurance to members.

Under the NDIS, the Quality and Safeguards Commission now has legislative responsibility for complaints, incident investigation and quality standards. That previously sat with the state government. The role of the disability CVS under NDIS is therefore a complex issue which involves the interaction between state and commonwealth legislation, powers and responsibilities.

Our state government is continuing to work through these matters around the role of the CVS going forward. This involves navigating interrelated policy areas, including the NDIS and the role of the Quality and Safeguards Commission, as well as the legislative powers and governance responsibilities at both the state and commonwealth level. Whilst I acknowledge the mover's indication of her view on the limitation of the usefulness of the Quality and Safeguards Commission in respect of random audits, for example, these are matters that are currently under consideration and being navigated.

In the meantime, South Australia is continuing to advocate for national consistency and approaches to quality and safeguarding for people with disability. It is also important to remember that the response in South Australia is sustainable, carefully considered and fits within the legislative landscape and statutory responsibilities in our state. In addition, the role and approach of the Quality and Safeguards Commission is continuing to evolve.

On 16 October, the government announced an expanded mandate for the scheme through a legal deregulation of powers under the Guardianship and Administration Act. The CVS can now visit vulnerable people who are NDIS participants who are under the guardianship of the Public Advocate. Around 550 National Disability Insurance Scheme participants are currently under guardianship and this number is expected to grow. As the Attorney-General who is responsible for matters relating to the Public Advocate, I am pleased that she took up this role to ensure that we have continuity in relation to the obligations in this area.

There are many mechanisms in South Australia that individuals and families can utilise to raise issues and complaints, depending on the nature of the complaint. These include the Department for Health and Wellbeing, the Department of Human Services, the local health networks, the Office of the Chief Psychiatrist, the Office of the Public Advocate, the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner and the South Australian Ombudsman.

NDIS participants or their families who have any concerns can contact the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission directly. I think it is incumbent on all of us who, as members of this parliament, have a leadership role in our communities to ensure that, if members of our community or their family require assistance in this regard, we continue to advocate for them and ensure that we utilise the services and that they have access to the services that are available.

Transition can be difficult. Obviously, big change comes with those consequences, but we are committed as a government to see this through and to ensure we have a better service for those in our community who require this as it transitions. Any matter of care concern referred by the Department of Human Services by the Principal Community Visitor has been followed up, investigated where necessary and appropriate action taken. I am assured that that will continue and, as a member of the government, I will support any action to ensure that that occurs. I commend the amended motion to the parliament.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (11:50): I rise to speak on this motion and recognise the important role services such as the Community Visitor Scheme play in giving vulnerable people in our society a voice. Since 2011, the scheme has given clients and their families advocacy and assistance to ensure that not only are services appropriate to the needs but that also there is an independent person who has their best interests at heart. These trained volunteers perform regular visits and inspections of supported residential and mental health facilities and disability accommodation, and they can also make inquiries into ongoing client treatment and care. They provide a report that goes back to the Principal Community Visitor, who can then act accordingly and work to resolve these concerns.

All of us have a fundamental right to be treated with dignity and respect and to speak out when we believe our rights have been breached. When we entrust our care or the care of a loved one to a care or treatment facility, we put our faith in the system, and the rights of those with a disability or mental illness can be lost. Never has it been more important to have processes to protect these rights and also have checks and balances when these rights are breached.

The fact that we have an upcoming royal commission into violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with a disability clearly demonstrates the need for independent eyes on this sector. When submissions are aired, I expect there will come shocks and sobering facts for all of us about how people with a disability have been treated. However, commissions also have the potential to lead to major change and an overhaul of regulations and legislation if needed. I expect a common theme in the commission to be around the implementation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

There are around 32,000 people with a disability in this state who have undergone major changes to services and life in general as a result of the implementation of this scheme. In my electorate of Mount Gambier, I have heard from local families who have waited lengthy periods to have their plans accepted and difficulties in accessing funding and not being able to access the same services as they had prior. Following the transition to NDIS, the role of the CVS in South Australia is limited to the services either provided or funded by the state government. This means that CVS visitors no longer have the authority to visit the homes of people with a disability, and service providers cannot invite the CVS to inspect private homes or facilities.

To raise concerns about services through non-government organisations, disability clients and their families now have the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, an independent commonwealth body. The commission has a range of quality checks, such as audits, registration and complaint handling, and will visit clients if concerns are raised through a combination of these checks. Meanwhile, the Community Visitor Scheme will continue to visit state government funded accommodation sites and, as Minister for Human Services, Michelle Lensink recently announced that the CVS has been extended to include people with disability under the guardianship of the Public Advocate. This includes around 550 National Disability Insurance Scheme participants who are currently under guardianship.

A measure of a society is how we deal with our most vulnerable citizens. We are coming up to a period of change for both the mental health and disability sectors. Schemes like the CVS act as a valuable early intervention tool, and they are also an opportunity for real change at ground level. In closing, I would like to commend the many people across South Australia who give or have given their time to this service.

Ms COOK (Hurtle Vale) (11:54): I thank the Attorney for her contribution on behalf of the government and, of course, the member for Mount Gambier for his contribution. I am also willing to say that we will support the amendments. They reinforce the acknowledgements that were moved in the motion around things that have been happening within institutions that we as a collective community should have deep shame and regret over, and we acknowledge the role of government moving forward in terms of following up those matters. The amendments also reinforce what was said by the member for Mount Gambier around the royal commission.

As the shadow minister for disabilities, I have spent many hours talking to loved ones and people with lived experience in institutional care. I have also worked for quite a few years in an area of institutional care for people with disabilities. I think the journey that we are about to take as a community in regard to the royal commission, its stories and findings is one that will be challenging. We should look deeply within ourselves at how people living with disability—people with vulnerabilities in all parts of our community—are treated, respected, given voice and protected in terms of these incidents never being allowed to happen again.

In order to do that, we must look at how we recruit, train, support, regulate and monitor staff working in those environments. We need to look at how we encourage volunteers to participate in the visiting of these communities and institutions and how we provide the best possible monitoring through schemes such as the Community Visitor Scheme, in combination with the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. I am sure there is not one member in this place who does not support the need for that and does not have within their own communities families and people with lived experience. With that, I again thank members for their contributions. The intent of the original motion is kept with the amendments and I commend the motion.

Amendment carried; motion as amended carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT