House of Representatives
Wednesday 7 October 2020
I'm pleased to rise today in the House to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Strengthening Banning Orders) Bill 2020. As we've heard from speakers today, the NDIS was introduced by the former Gillard government in response to the Productivity Commission recommendations, and it provides support to some of the marginalised people in our community: people with a disability, their families and their carers. It gives independence and social and economic participation to people with disability. It gives reasonable and necessary support, including early intervention. It gives people with disability a choice and control over the pursuit of their goals and planning for the delivery of their support and hopefully a nationally consistent approach. As members of parliament, we've all seen the power of the NDIS. But I think all members of parliament have also seen the difficulties in navigating and understanding the complexities and also the deficiencies of the NDIS. The bill being debated today seeks to expand the circumstances in which the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner may make a banning order against a provider or person and clarifies the commissioner's powers.
I want to spend a little time today speaking about some local cases to bring to the parliament's attention some of the examples I have come across from the community I represent. I also want to focus, in my remarks today, on a pretty important second reading amendment moved by the member for Barton. I'm very glad the member for Barton has moved this amendment, because it enables me to highlight some of the issues that I certainly come across. In the first part of the amendment we've got:
"take responsibility for all 'deaths by neglect' within the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which is a Federal Government program";
And then we've got:
"immediately respond to the report to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner by Alan Robertson SC into the adequacy of the regulation of the supports and services provided to Ms Ann-Marie Smith, who died on 6 April 2020."
The amendments are appropriate. However, they do not address the failure of the NDIS and the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework to prevent abuse. I'm glad Minister Robert is at the table today, because I want him to hear firsthand some of the examples from my community, where people have suffered and had a terrible experience with the NDIS.
One of the first things I did following the election in May 2019, within a matter of weeks of that election, was hold an NDIS roundtable. It was held in Goodna in my electorate, where I brought together a whole range of stakeholders, including service organisations and service providers, a number of churches that are involved with the disability sector, advocates, parents and carers. I wanted that to be the first thing I did on my re-election to this place, because the community, during the most recent federal election, made it clear to me that there were problems with the scheme, and they wanted them fixed, and I wanted to hit the ground running post that election. The shadow minister, Bill Shorten, attended that forum and heard firsthand. One of the outcomes from that roundtable was for me to write directly to the minister who's at the table now with the concerns. I requested a meeting with him and his office about those concerns, and that's what the community wanted me to raise. To this date, I've had no response to that correspondence.
Mr Robert: Rubbish!
Mr DICK: I'm glad the minister just said, 'Rubbish!' If he or his advisers would like to check which meeting he had advised me of hosting so I could raise these concerns, I would be happy to sit down and allow him to respond. He's called the concerns I raised 'rubbish'.
Mr Robert: I did not call—you're verballing me that I didn't respond to your correspondence rubbish, pal!
Mr DICK: I hope that's on the record.
Mr Robert: So do I.
Mr DICK: What we will see as a result of him misleading this chamber—
Mr Robert interjecting—
Mr DICK: There you have it—a minister of the Crown saying, 'Move on, you fool.' So, when my community comes together and wants answers from this government, I'm dismissed! That's fair enough. But don't you dare—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta—dismiss the concerns. Don't wave them away like you're doing. Don't wave them away like they're an annoyance. Don't wave them away like they're some kind of irritant. They're not. These are people with real stories and real life experience. I'm going to talk that about experience today, as a result of the member for Barton's second reading amendment, so that the minister hears. It might be uncomfortable for him to hear truths, but it is time he started listening, not simply dismissing people.
I want to talk in the chamber today about a local resident who has had a horrific experience. Her name is Annie. I met with her. She is the mum of two sons who suffer from a form of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Annie has been in touch with my electorate office since August 2018. There's been funding taken away from her plan in the past. She's had difficulty getting these reviews. She's had trouble and delays getting wheelchairs, ramps and modifications in the house to assist her sons. These are adult children who have severe and complex issues. They like to leave the house on their own for some independence. It is impossible for them to do that. It's been a struggle against all struggles for Annie. I've met with her and I've seen the tears in her eyes.
She is an amazing mum. She's on her own, but she's an amazing mum. She doesn't complain. She doesn't complain about herself. She doesn't complain about all the things she has to go without. She just wants her kids, her boys, while they're still with her, to have the quality of life that any other child would. It breaks her heart that she can't do that for her kids. I think that's the hardest thing when you meet with a parent—that all they want is to be able to do things for their kids so that their kids feel like they're valued. I promised Anne that I would raise this in the parliament today.
She's had trouble with delays in getting wheelchairs and home modifications. The latest issue is getting around legislation that has no NDIA funding for in-hospital patients. This is something people forget about. When a severely disabled person with complex health issues enters hospital for treatment, there are no support packages for them once they're in the hospital. As the mum of two sons who need constantly care, she can't leave one son at home and the other son in hospital without care. She feels completely conflicted about leaving at home one son she needs to look after, but there's no care for the one in hospital. I know that sounds silly in a hospital, but the complex needs are so varied that she needs that extra support while they're in hospital. You would think, 'Well, there are nurses and doctors there,' but they're not qualified and they simply don't have the resources.
I wanted to bring to the parliament's attention today the real deficiency for a whole range of people who are struggling. It may be a negotiation between the Commonwealth and state health systems. I understand that. But this is a real issue for thousands of people. They need to stay at home for care responsibilities but they also need to be at the hospital when people are dealing with complex health issues. There's no funding or avenues for that extra support. This is a policy area. It's not specific to the bill, but I wanted to take this opportunity to talk about this, given the member for Barton's second reading amendment today, so that we can understand the complex health and safety issues for a whole cohort of people who are really struggling at the moment. As Annie said to our office—she is just one of many—she doesn't want any special treatment. She just wants to be able to know that when her sons are admitted to hospital on alternative bases that there is proper care for them and extra support services there, so they're not a burden to the existing nurses and allied health services, and she's also got the quality of care of looking after her sons at home.
I want to quickly speak on the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. Shortly after his appointment in 2018, the inaugural NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner, Graham Head, gave a speech to CEDA in which he said:
We're able to take a range of actions including deregistration, banning orders or seeking the application of civil penalties so we really do have a comprehensive tool kit. We have comprehensive regulatory powers and functions, and real regulatory teeth. Incidents that must be reported to the commission include the death of a participant, serious injury, abuse or neglect and importantly also the unauthorised use of a restrictive practice in relation to a participant. It does represent a significant step change in how we approach the delivery of quality services to people with disability and how we protect and prevent neglect and abuse of people with disability.
These comments have not aged well. If the commission has real teeth, then why did Ann-Marie's service provider only receive a fine of $12,600 after allowing her carer to neglect her so severely? If the commission has real regulatory powers and functions, why wasn't it overseeing the care that Ann-Marie was meant to be receiving? The government must provide answers to these questions and outline what it intends to do to ensure that the commission's powers are being properly used to prevent abuse and neglect, not just issue a slap on the wrist after the act.
The NDIS scheme is a vital national service. After seven years of the Morrison-Turnbull-Abbott government, I believe it's been slashed and mismanaged to such an extent that people are now, as we're seeing, being neglected. I want to see the minister getting real and start acting in the interests of Australians with disabilities. Australians pay their taxes. As we've heard, we cannot have a strong economy without delivering the services that people need. When it comes to the NDIS we're not delivering the services that people need.
I was relieved to see that the Morrison government heeded our calls for an independent investigation into the death of Ms Smith. The loved ones of Ms Smith deserve to know that others will not be similar kinds of victims of a failing system. It's a good start. The current scope of the inquiry—the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission's regulation of the late Ms Smith's service provider, Integrity Care—was clearly too limited. The inquiry needed to be free to look at broader considerations, such as whether the $30 million a year commission has been a toothless watchdog across multiple cases, where the deaths in home by neglect of NDIS participants has been exasperated by the removal of $4.6 billion from the scheme, or underspend as the government likes to say. When I use that term in my community—and I go to disability groups, parents and carers—and say, 'You will never believe what happened. There was not the demand for $4.6 billion,' people are blown away and cannot accept that that is any way in reality. Maybe I'm in an alternative universe to those opposite. When I meet with advocates they have no belief that the demand is not there. Maybe we need to work on some of the language there about an underspend versus, perhaps, in my opinion, mismanagement.
There are a whole range of findings that I know the government will have to deal with, but my final message today to the government is: please start listening to the sector. Make sure that their voices are heard. We need to continue to keep working on this scheme. It is far from perfect. It is a scheme that is benefiting tens of thousands of Australians. I know the joy that you hear from parents, in particular when they see their loved ones being able to participate in social activities or in the broader community, cannot be underestimated.
If I have achieved anything today, I'm hopeful that the minister will take onboard some of these concerns. Being the charitable person that I am, I will again forward my correspondence to him. I hope that after today we do get to sit down. It might have taken a year, but at least today we might see a meeting occur, so my residents can let him know their concerns directly.
