Wednesday, 3 May 2023

Bills

Disability and Social Services Regulation Amendment Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Tim BULL (Gippsland East) (15:03): I will resume where I left off just prior to the lunchbreak. Our disability service providers are now operating in what is quite a competitive world under the national disability insurance scheme. It is important that governments do all we can, whether it be at the state level or the federal level, to avoid duplication and support viability of the service providers, particularly supporting them in areas of narrow markets and thin markets. It is very common to have these thin markets in rural and regional areas, where service providers certainly are not growing on trees.

As stated earlier, this is largely the same bill as we saw in 2022 apart from some additional reforms to support the functions of the new Social Services Regulator when it comes into operation in 2024, and I will touch on a few of those changes a little bit later in my contribution, but I am happy to say up-front that they are changes that we do support.

Just on the changes or the amendments that have been made to the bill that was presented to this chamber last year, there are also three minor technical amendments, and they seem to be errors that have just been tightened up or fixed. Unfortunately, over recent years we have seen a number of bills come into this chamber in a range of portfolios and then we have seen amendment bills coming back a matter of months later to fix up errors that should have been sorted out in the original amendment bills. So all up, this bill makes changes to a number of acts. It amends the Disability Act 2006, it amends the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 and the Disability Service Safeguards Act 2018, as well as the Social Services Regulation Act 2021, which is what I just touched on a short time ago. There is no major policy change in any of these amendments, and it appears to be based on continued transition to the NDIS – so aligning rules and regulations in the state jurisdiction to those which exist under the NDIS and streamlining those processes.

The changes to the Disability Act 2006 clarify that the secretary is only responsible for the services that the secretary funds. In this regard there is no change to the bill that we saw in this house last year. When the Social Services Regulation Act 2021 commences, the majority of providers registered as disability service providers will not be providing services that are funded by the secretary and the amendments that are before the chamber today in this bill will reduce any overlap of legislative responsibility and ensure that there is clarity regarding the secretary’s responsibilities here in Victoria. It clarifies that the secretary can acquire, hold or dispose of land for the purposes of being a specialist disability accommodation provider, and amendments are also made to enable the secretary to dispose of or deal with land with or without consideration in certain circumstances. I thank the departmental representatives for getting back to me on the queries that I had there, and there are no major concerns in relation to that.

The bill importantly improves information-sharing arrangements. There are currently concerns that there is a lack of a safety net in relation to some situations to enable people to carry out their functions under the act and that a person may be found guilty of a particular offence if there is an unauthorised disclosure. The amendments will ensure that important and critical information can indeed be shared when it is necessary and that the appropriate safeguards are in place. That is an alteration that we certainly support. It is often a tightrope when you are working with these information-sharing arrangements: you need to put in place a framework where information can be shared freely and safely for the benefit of people, but you also have to weigh that up against respect and privacy for the person who you are sharing that information about. I use the term ‘walking a tightrope’, but it is often just an area where a good dose of common sense is required when dealing with these matters.

The bill clarifies residential services rights for disability residents whose accommodation is exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act. It clarifies the services being provided, the rights, the duties and the requirements of residents, what they may be subject to within that service and the roles and responsibilities of service providers delivering residential and treatment services.

Restrictive practices is an area that can be a contentious matter in the disability sector and also in the senior Victorians sector, and this bill further aligns the restrictive practices guidelines with that which exists under the NDIS. Some amendments were made in 2019 when we had a bill in this chamber, but they did not completely fix the issue appropriately. So we are revisiting this, and we hope that the government has got it right this time around and that alignment with the NDIS has been made appropriately. The second-reading speech indicates that these amendments are required to remove the uncertainty around the application of existing parts and divisions in the act. What this goes to the heart of is better aligning the requirements and responsibilities for NDIS- and state-funded disability providers, basically giving them one set of rules and ensuring that there is some consistency. But on top of that consistency is accountability in the use of restrictive practices, which, as I said, is a contentious area, and we need clear overarching guidelines. It ensures that the existing offence that relates to the use of unauthorised restrictive practices and service providers also applies to registered NDIS providers and that registered NDIS providers must meet the requirements for authorisation of restrictive practices in the Disability Act. That is for people accessing services funded through the Commonwealth disability sector or the older Australians program. It will also expand the role of the senior practitioner – this is an important element – to include the promotion of the reduction and the elimination of the use of restrictive practices where possible.

As I said, this is certainly a contentious area, but these additional powers to provide directions to providers about the use of restrictive practices and also about the appointment of authorised program officers is very important. Restrictive practices should only be used as a last resort. I think all members in the chamber would agree with that. It is a less than ideal scenario, but in some of the more complex and serious situations it is certainly required. They are often not pleasant, and it is important that we keep these restrictive practices to a bare minimum. We accept that the intention of this change is to provide consistency in their application and to ensure these practices are used only when all other options and alternatives have been exhausted.

The bill will also dissolve the Disability Services Board, and the reason given by the minister for this in the second-reading speech is the majority of disability services have transitioned to the NDIS – that I agree with. The role of the disability services commissioner and the board has certainly been significantly reduced – that cannot be argued – and the board is no longer required. I just would not like to see this board being dismantled while it still has some role to play, but I take the minister on trust that the timing is right there. It is inevitable that the board will not be required at all at some stage, but it will not lead to a reduction in safeguards, because the appropriate safeguards will still be in place courtesy of the national disability insurance scheme.

The bill also allows the minister to declare new types of accommodation at which persons receive disability services to be subject to the community visitors program. The community visitors program is a really important service in this state. It provides enormous oversight for people who are living in disability accommodation – the various forms or modes of disability accommodation. Our community visitors provide that great level of oversight for those who may not have family or friends who are able to fulfil that role. The expansion of the number of facilities that our community visitors can go to is something that we strongly support, because it will certainly enhance safeguards. Properties approved by the senior practitioner as suitable to provide treatment will also be subject to the community visitors program as part of that expansion, and again that is something that we support.

The next amendment is to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 in relation to specialist disability accommodation (SDA) enrolled dwellings, and the bill removes barriers for residents of group homes provided by disability service providers from receiving rights under the Residential Tenancies Act. This was an element of the bill that we spoke on at length last year and supported. It amends the Residential Tenancies Act to ensure residents in group homes meet the definitions of the act and residential rights and protections are indeed afforded to them. The bill will provide for transition of existing group homes to specialist disability accommodation residency arrangements. Now, this was the original objective of the previous amendments made to the Residential Tenancies Act earlier in the last term that were not realised, which the government said was ‘due to unanticipated impediments for persons to access specialist disability accommodation provided under the NDIS’. I think that is a fancy way of saying, ‘We forgot about it. This was an oversight and now were going back to fix the problem we created.’ But nevertheless it is in there, it needs to be in there and it needs to be fixed. So what this does is introduce a new concept into the Residential Tenancies Act of an SDA dwelling to encompass people living in that form of accommodation under that umbrella. This will extend high-level tenancy protections beyond SDA-enrolled dwellings, which is the current legislation, to include any other permanent dwelling that provides long-term accommodation and where daily independent living support is provided to one or more residents with a disability, funded by a specified entity or program. It appears on face value that one of the clear intentions here is to pick up supported independent living clients.

One of the challenges here that the government will face and the department will face, I guess, is making the community, the people who are living in these facilities, aware of those changes. So there needs to be a really thorough campaign to ensure that all people living in supported independent living units are identified, contacted and communicated with in relation to these changes and these safeguards that are being put in place. I will be interested to see how the government and the department go about that.

While on disability, housing and tenancies, I must add it would be good for the minister to explain the increase in disability housing since the Big Housing Build, as the government refers to it, commenced. It was not long ago – I think it was probably in November or December last year – that we saw a lot of ministerial backslapping about the fact that the big build had reached the halfway mark of creating 12,000 new homes. I was told by the minister last year under a question that of these 12,000 new homes 5 per cent would be allocated to the disability sector and built along the disability guidelines. Now, 5 per cent of 12,000 is 600, so therefore the disability sector would have been quite right in thinking that they were going to get 600 more homes delivered. However, the recent revelations show that public housing has only increased by 74 homes in the last four years – 74 homes. If 5 per cent is going to the disability sector, 5 per cent of 74 is about four homes that have been a net gain for the disability sector thus far under the Big Housing Build. So it would be good to get some specifics off the minister on just how many homes have been built under the Big Housing Build and just how many have been built for the disability sector, because they are expecting 600, and I reckon at the moment, judging by figures and percentages, we are sitting on about four and we do not look like we will be getting to 600.

The bill also amends the Disability Service Safeguards Act 2018 in relation to registration requirements. We support this. The only question I would ponder is: have we gone far enough in relation to streamlining processes? The amendments will allow the Disability Worker Registration Board of Victoria to accept NDIS clearance in lieu of criminal history checks when disability workers voluntarily seek to register, and we strongly support that. The screening checks for NDIS-registered disability workers are currently quite duplicative, and service providers will tell you this every time you meet with them. The amendments that are here before us will reduce some of that red tape and duplication for disability workers who are seeking registration, but I still firmly believe there is much, much more that we as a Parliament – a government and a Parliament more widely – can do to streamline the processes to encourage more disability workers to work in that sector. Now, we have got to have the oversights we do and you have got to walk this line again. You have got to have appropriate oversights, but it seems to be more burdensome in Victoria for a disability worker to enter that sector than it is in other states, and I would like to see us doing more and working harder on streamlining those processes to get workers into that sector.

Amendments to the Social Services Regulation Act 2021 – this is the new part of the bill that we never saw in the version that came forth last year, and it appears to be the only major change. As we know, a new regulatory scheme for social services will take effect from 1 July 2024, and we are told by the government that it aims to strengthen protections for those accessing social services. One of the new powers is allowing an authorised officer to enter – as we read in the second-reading speech – the bedrooms of those that they may be investigating or that may be involved in an inquiry into whether appropriate actions or behaviours have taken place. Again, you are walking this line. We agree with the government that this amendment is necessary to ensure that the service provider is complying with the appropriate standards and has the appropriate safeguards in place, but we also are aware that residents need protections around their privacy and their rights.

This new power is subject to a number of safeguards, including that the authorised officer believes that it is certainly necessary – which you would take for granted would be the case – but also that there is no other less intrusive way to get the answer or to investigate what they are trying to do as a result of the inspection. Given some of the practices that have been publicised over recent years and will no doubt be coming forth in the current Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, having read this I am confident that the government has got the balance right between those strong investigative powers and also looking after the rights of residents around privacy and safeguards.

In summary, the bill makes a number of amendments. It aligns state services better with the NDIS. It removes some discrepancies that had existed between state processes and NDIS processes. It improves practices around supervised treatment orders in relation to getting some consistency. It updates information-sharing opportunities to improve safeguards, disbands the obsolete Disability Services Board, expands the role of the community visitors program, improves tenancy safeguards, clarifies the role of the secretary, provides greater oversight and inspection powers for those living in special residential services, allows the disability worker registration board to accept NDIS clearance in lieu of criminal history checks and removes barriers for residence and group homes provided by the disability service providers from receiving rights under the Residential Tenancies Act.

As I said, some of these are correcting oversights and some are new initiatives. I am sure I am speaking for everyone in the chamber in saying that there would not be a member here that does not support strong and robust protections and safeguards for the most vulnerable in our communities, but there remain service providers in this state who believe that whilst that is a paramount priority, perhaps we have not got, I guess, the alignment with the NDIS right in relation to streamlining processes around worker registrations. They are seeking better alignment, and they do not want the new process that is coming into play next year to create more overlap and more administrative burden over and above what is required.

The bill addresses a small number of areas in relation to duplication. If the royal commission presents its findings in relation to safeguards later this year, we may then find another situation where the government is introducing another safeguards amendment bill potentially, depending on what the royal commission hands down, so it is interesting timing that we are discussing this now, a few months before that final report comes down. But if it does come down and it does require further updates, it would be good for the government to continue to work with service providers in the sector who I am sure are telling the government the same story that they are telling me – that they want those administration services more refined and less burdensome for not only service providers but also those working in the sector. The government has got to ensure that we do not add unnecessary duplication and costly administrative burdens to the sector. One of the main reasons for that is we have seen that some service providers have disappeared altogether and some are facing extreme difficulties in remaining viable, and when we have in place administrative burdens that are not required or that are duplicative, we are running into the area of more hours of administration and office work, and then that affects the viability of the disability service provider. We are seeing some reducing their services. Some have actually folded, but others are now, because of that viability around financial burden, reducing some of the important services they provide to communities, and I am even seeing that in my own electorate of East Gippsland.

So we are not opposing this bill, as the amendments generally relate to changes that align with the NDIS, improvements in streamlining some of the processes – but we want to go further – and improvements in standards for people with disability around tenancy and communication around treatment plans and treatment orders. But we call on the government to continue to look at ways it can avoid duplication, streamline processes and ensure that the new scheme introduced next year reflects this.

Lauren KATHAGE (Yan Yean) (15:24): I rise to speak in favour of the Disability and Social Services Regulation Amendment Bill 2023. This bill reflects the Labor government’s commitment to creating an inclusive, accessible and safe Victoria that upholds the rights of people with disability, celebrates diversity and pride and expands opportunities to belong and have autonomy. This is the vision set out in our four-year state disability plan Inclusive Victoria. In the plan we have committed to taking action and creating long-lasting change for people with disability. This bill is part of our efforts towards that end.

The development of that plan and indeed this bill reflect our commitment to heeding the righteous cry of people with disability across the world: nothing about us without us – having people with disability at the table when policies, programs and services are designed. I am passionate about this principle. Working overseas with people with disability I saw firsthand how this leads to better outcomes.

I wish to emphasise that I do not speak today as a representative of people with disability but simply from the perspective of a family member, a standard Victorian. My brother has an intellectual disability acquired at birth. Through the ups and downs of his life I have seen the impact that government policy and community attitudes can have. Famous in our family is the story of my brother, through a policy of former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, having to be marched off to the GP to see if he really still did have a disability if he wanted to keep his disability support pension. This brings to mind the story of my nephew who has Down syndrome, who after turning 18 and when discussing voting with his parents asked them, ‘Which party supports people with Down syndrome?’ I am sure you can guess what my answer was to that.

So I am pleased that this bill is a result of thorough consultations during the development of the Disability Amendment Bill 2022. The consultations included the public consultation process in 2021 and input from the expert Disability Act review advisory group, which was formally led by Graeme Innes AM, a former disability discrimination commissioner for Australia and someone I am pleased to have met in my lifetime. I am proud that we have incorporated the insights and feedback from these consultations to ensure that this bill is comprehensive and effective.

The bill will increase residential protections for Victorians in disability accommodation. Firstly, it establishes clear rights and duties for people who are under civil or criminal orders while residing in disability residential services. It also sets parameters for service providers to follow while delivering residential and treatment services. Secondly, the bill ensures that individuals residing in specialist disability accommodation which does not meet the current definitions outlined in the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 are provided with appropriate protections for their residential rights. This is important because we firmly believe that all Victorians should enjoy rights and protections.

In a family meeting a couple of weeks ago we were discussing the support services and activities my brother accesses and what we could do to make sure he was getting the most out of them. My eldest sister said, ‘We want him to have an ordinary life. That’s all we’re trying to do.’ To an outsider that might seem like a callous statement, that we are aiming too low, but in fact it is a reflection of the fact that disability is a normal part of every community. When we say we want my brother to have an ordinary life, we mean that we want him to have that same experience of being an active and valued member of his community, and chief among those experiences, we want him to enjoy the same rights as everyone else – the right to a safe home, the right to certainty of tenancy, the right to have limited rent increases. It is what is right. We want him to have appropriate additional strengthened protections against eviction and for information to be communicated in a way that he understands.

Another welcomed aspect of the bill is how it will reduce duplication and improve coordination. It does this in two ways. Firstly, it will strengthen and clarify the provisions for sharing critical information between service providers by removing unnecessary barriers that may hinder the process. There is an incredible amount of paperwork associated with disability. I have had many conversations with people bemoaning the seemingly endless need to procure another specialist report. I spoke recently with a mother in Yan Yean whose son has acquired a spinal injury, who explained to me that, with all the paperwork, she felt like she had a new part-time job.

The information-sharing provisions in this bill will make it easier for people with disability and their families, reducing the need to source and transmit information between different service providers. Reducing the ferrying of paperwork will be a welcome relief for people who just want to focus on their wellbeing or just want to focus on supporting their family member.

This bill will strengthen quality and safeguards and services for Victorians with disability. One of the most significant amendments in this bill will allow authorised officers to enter bedrooms in supported residential services and disability residential services without consent in limited circumstances, whilst several safeguards will ensure the powers are only used when necessary. The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability and key stakeholders, notably the public advocate, have focused on the need to guarantee proper safeguards for vulnerable residents. Several media reports have surfaced about poor care standards for vulnerable people living in supported residential services in particular.

My brother only moved out of home 18 months ago, having lived more than 50 years under the care and protection of our parents. In his life my brother has experienced physical abuse by members of the public and has been tricked out of money and possessions. So for my family there was of course trepidation when he moved out of home, out of our care and into the care of others. It would be comforting for many people that these increased safeguards are being introduced. I know full well the agony and the guilt felt by family members when their brother, sister, father or mother is abused. I know full well how important this amendment is, and I am proud to speak in support of it. The bill also provides greater access for community visitors in additional categories of disability accommodation, and I fully support this futureproofing of safeguards as well.

This bill has been introduced to ensure that the use of restrictive practices is consistent and accountable for both NDIS and state-funded disability service providers. It eliminates any unnecessary duplication and aligns the approval requirements. My brother phones me for a chat multiple times each day. We discuss dinner plans, the weather, what trip he is going on that day. In fact he phones me and each of my four sisters and my parents multiple times each day. His phone is his link to us. But when my brother is not well, the phone is a problem. When he fervently believes there are bombs in the roof or people coming to get him, he uses that same phone to call the police at all hours of the day and night. Removing my brother’s phone would be a restrictive practice. You can see from what I have described that careful and thorough thinking is needed to make sure that the help you are trying to give someone through a restrictive practice does not end up harming them. This bill clarifies the process that service providers must go through before using a restrictive practice. It reduces uncertainty and duplication, allowing efforts to be focused on finding the best solution for the person with disability.

There are many benefits for people with disability, their families and disability workers within this bill. This government has worked faithfully on ensuring our legislative frameworks are fit for purpose, are contemporary and create meaningful change for people with disability. What will not change is this government’s commitment to people with disability. This government has provided $3 billion worth of investment for inclusive education, including an upgrade to every single specialist school in our state. It has also provided $5.4 million to construct 30 Changing Places facilities so that people with disability can enjoy community facilities and tourist destinations just like everyone else. The list goes on, just as our commitment will go on. For families like mine, this bill is further proof that this government listens, this government does what is right and this government does what matters.

Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (15:34): I am pleased to also rise to say a few words on the Disability and Social Services Regulation Amendment Bill 2023. I was not going to make it personal or about me, but the member for Yan Yean’s contribution reminded me of some of my own experiences. Indeed I do not want to make light of it for a second, member for Yan Yean, but the commentary about your brother’s phone just had me thinking of Love Actually and the American brother and sister in that situation, where the phone was a crucial link for the brother, who had mental health issues more than disability, but I understand the circumstance.

I think, if I am right, you mentioned that you had a nephew with Down syndrome. Mine is the reverse – I had an uncle with Down syndrome. I guess debating this bill is showing to some degree how far we have come. When my uncle was born in the early 1940s my grandmother was told that he would not survive beyond about 20 years of age and they probably should put him in a home. Nothing could have been further from their minds. They were determined to raise the youngest of six, my father’s younger brother. Brian became an absolutely crucial part not only of the family but of the entire community in far east Gippsland where they lived, as many people with Down syndrome do; they often are the heart and soul of communities because they get to know everyone and they love everyone. So I am pleased to follow the member for Yan Yean and her heartfelt comments on this bill, which, as the Shadow Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers the member for Gippsland East indicated, we are not opposing. Indeed the bulk of the bill is something that we support, although we put the clarification in there that some of the things that are intended sound good in theory and sound good in a piece of legislation, but whether they work in practice is the question.

The bill will amend the Disability Act 2006 to clarify that the secretary is only responsible for services that the secretary funds – in other words, that are taxpayer funded. It clarifies the ability of the secretary to acquire, hold and dispose of land for the purposes of being a specialist disability accommodation provider, and I am going to come back to that in a moment on an issue in my electorate. It improves information-sharing arrangements and clarifies residential services rights for disability residents. It further aligns the restrictive practices to facilitate transition to the NDIS, and much of this legislation is about the continuing NDIS transition. It dissolves the Disability Services Board and expands the properties that community visitors can visit. It also then goes on to amend the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 in relation to SDA-enrolled dwellings and amends the Disability Service Safeguards Act 2018 in relation to registration requirements. The addition to this bill compared to the previous bill in 2021 is an amendment to the Social Services Regulation Act 2021, but essentially better aligning services and streamlining things is the intention of the bill, and that is why we support that intention. As I said, though, it is always a little bit of a concern as to whether these things will be delivered in practice, because certainly this is a complex area.

I would not for a second suggest that I fully understand the disability services sector at all. Indeed I am following the member for Gippsland East. He has got lived experience and long experience as the shadow minister so understands this area far better than most of us in this chamber. I do know, though, from feedback from families, from people needing access to disability services and from those working in the sector that it is complex, that it is confusing and that the transition to the NDIS has been difficult for some. I must say, having come into Parliament at about the time that the NDIS was coming into being, I did expect it to be far more complex. Maybe I just got lucky in Gippsland South, but I really have not had that many constituents coming to me with issues. Hopefully, perhaps, they are going to the federal members who are dealing with it, but I have been pleasantly surprised at how it has transitioned across.

Indeed the experience generally that I have had with constituents is that the NDIS packages have been a godsend for many. Problems, though, I am sure are out there. The federal minister indicated as much recently, and certainly the growth in the cost of the scheme is one thing that the current federal government will be grappling with over coming years, because it is certainly an issue. But I know one, and I will name her, because she is very famous in Mirboo North. Julie Trease is an NDIS client who is loved by everybody in Mirboo North and very well known as she wanders up and down the street, helps at the op shop and everything. I know her parents were very grateful for the package that was provided to them under the NDIS, and she now has a collection of girls, as she calls them, who assist with her package and take her out each day and take her to different activities. Julie is just a treasure in Mirboo North.

I did want to come back, as I said, to the issue of disability accommodation, an issue I want to raise in passing, because the bill does go to the issue of the secretary being able to acquire, hold and dispose of land for the purposes of being a specialist disability accommodation provider. I note the comments of my colleague the member for Gippsland East that those living with a disability deserve the highest levels of protection, and that is something that most of our disability providers do very well. The issue I wanted to mention in passing is with respect to Mirridong Services in Yarram, which has been a wonderful provider of disability services, particularly day services but now accommodation as well for some time. I was very frustrated to learn earlier this year that a problem that I thought we had solved a number of years ago continues to persist due to what I would call bureaucracy at its best. This is a situation where Mirridong has clients in a couple of units in Lawler Street in Yarram. They are built on council land. They were originally funded by a grant that was delivered way back in the 1980s – I think it was in fact 1988 – so these are 35-year-old units. The Wellington shire agreed to transfer these units to Mirridong because they were in need of an upgrade – 35 years old, they desperately needed an upgrade – and were prepared to do that for the sum of $1 because they know Mirridong provides these services. But because the department provided the grant way back, 35 years ago, the department would not agree to the transfer. Firstly, they wanted additional land in lieu from the shire, which the shire was not in a position to do, and then it put all sorts of restrictions on Mirridong in actually taking on this land. I thought we had dealt with it. Indeed the previous Minister for Housing had written to me with some changes, an agreement way back in 2020, and then earlier this year I find it still has not been transferred to Mirridong. It is that sort of bureaucracy that we are trying to address here, partly in this bill, but we need actually some common sense from our departments to ensure –

Tim Richardson interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: Well, that is exactly right, member for Mordialloc. Sometimes you do say, ‘What is that?’ This is a situation where the property had never been part of the public housing suite. It had always been disability accommodation with Mirridong. There was zero loss to the taxpayer or to the Victorian government by transferring this because they did not use it for public housing at the time. It had never been, I think apart from the first year or two, anything other than disability accommodation. So transferring it across to Mirridong so that they could invest in it and actually make sure that it was appropriate for the current tenant – there is, I believe, a 25-year-old man in one of the units now, but it desperately needs an upgrade. I have written to the Minister for Housing again – the current minister – and I am hoping that that will be resolved soon.

This legislation has, as I said, a number of elements to it. I think the member for Gippsland East went into great detail on what those issues are. We are not opposing this legislation, and I look forward to it moving through the Parliament.

Chris COUZENS (Geelong) (15:44): I am pleased to rise to contribute to the Disability and Social Services Regulation Amendment Bill 2023. With over 1 million people with a disability in Victoria, we also have large numbers of people with a disability in Geelong. I am really privileged to have the opportunity to work with many of those people, who have often been active in the introduction of the NDIS, having that head office located in Geelong. So we have a very strong, active group of people with lived experience – people like Linda Blake, Lynne Foreman, Christine Smith and so many more – who have been active for many, many years, who have lived experience and who understand the needs of people with a whole range of different disabilities.

This bill makes important amendments to enhance services and safeguard rights and protections for people with disability, and we are talking about some of the most vulnerable people in our community. People with disabilities have the right, just like all of us, to an inclusive and accessible community, and that is what my community in Geelong are really actively working towards – making sure that somebody who requires a Changing Places facility, for example, can actually go out for dinner, go to an event or go shopping and have that facility there within a reasonable distance. Up until this government came into power and really put a great focus on Changing Places facilities, we did not have those in Geelong. We now have three Changing Places facilities within the CBD area, at Westfield and at Kardinia Park, and I understand we are putting a second one in Kardinia Park so people can actually go and watch the football but also have the facilities that they need. Also, we have one going in at the Royal Geelong Yacht Club on the waterfront, which is really exciting for people that rely on that facility, because presently, if they go to the waterfront, they are restricted. In fact some of them do not go because they do not have that facility there right now. So we are really excited about the future of that and that that will be there so that those people can enjoy a quality of life just like every one of us expects to have.

People with disabilities should feel safe and secure in their own community, and that is a really big focus in my community. People want to know that they are safe in their home whether they are in residential care or supported care. It is a really important issue, and I think this bill goes to addressing some of the issues that people with disabilities have experienced over a very long period of time. I do want to take the opportunity, though, to acknowledge and thank disability workers and carers for the great work that they do. We know that during COVID they have been under enormous pressure to protect not only themselves but the people they work with and their family members. It is really important that we understand just how hard those people have worked and acknowledge and thank them for what they do. Also, the Health and Community Services Union, the union that looks after those people, does a mighty job in representing their members and raising the sorts of issues that impact on carers and disability workers right across this state.

I also want to mention the great work of Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-operative in the disability space and the work that they do. We talk about people with disabilities being really vulnerable – well, Aboriginal people are even more vulnerable, and we know that. We know the issues that they face every day, and if they have got a disability, they become even more vulnerable in our community. In Victoria I am really proud of the fact that we are working towards treaty and that some of those issues will start to be resolved, and there is the Voice at a federal level. It is not just as simple as saying ‘We’re going to have the Voice, and all these problems will be solved’ because we know that this is a long journey, but hopefully if that Voice referendum is passed and we have a yes vote, the journey on to treaty, truth and justice will be part of that process. I would hope that we would start to see a closing of the gap that we know statistically is still a major issue for First Nations people in this country, including in my electorate and including across Victoria. So these are really important reforms.

I think we are lucky in Geelong to have some great services. One of those would be the Barwon Disability Resource Council, which advocates for and supports people with a disability whether they are living in supported accommodation or whether they are living at home with their family or independently. They do a mighty job in providing services to people with disabilities in my community, as does GenU, which is an organisation that has been around for about a hundred years or something. It started off as Karingal and has now morphed into GenU. They do tireless work. I have had the opportunity to talk to a lot of those workers, a lot of the carers and a lot of the clients of GenU and the BDRC, and I hear their stories and their experiences of what happens to them and where things are not right for them. So I know that they will be really pleased to know that these changes in this legislation will help protect people and their vulnerabilities, particularly in supported accommodation.

We have heard from the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability at a federal level. I was involved in the parliamentary inquiry into abuse in disability services, and we heard horrific stories. I think we all have a responsibility to ensure that we are doing everything possible to address the issues and that people with disabilities – some of the most vulnerable people in our community – are getting the protections and the services that they need. So this is really important, and any legislation that provides that protection will obviously always get my support but also the support of my community in Geelong. Having worked closely with them I understand 100 per cent the issues that they are raising and what their needs are. This is really important legislation for them.

As I said, we all have a responsibility to make sure the National Disability Insurance Scheme delivers on its promises to provide a better deal for people with disabilities and their families. The strong advocacy that has come out of my community around the NDIS is incredible. The people I mentioned earlier plus a lot of other people with lived experience – carers and parents of people with disabilities – have all been active in pursuing the National Disability Insurance Agency but also having the headquarters in Geelong. So that was a fantastic campaign.

We now have 150,000 people in Victoria who are active participants in the scheme. The government has worked really closely with the disability sector and advocates to develop our state disability plan, with $15.1 million allocated in the 2022–23 state budget, so I think Victoria has shown that it cares about vulnerable people, particularly people with disabilities. We have put the $5.4 million of funding that was provided towards constructing 30 Changing Places facilities, and as I mentioned earlier, they are so important. It might not seem like much to us, but people were in tears when we opened the Changing Places facilities at Kardinia Park, because it meant they could go to the football; they could participate just like everyone else in our community.

I cannot stress how much this bill means to my community of Geelong, and I am sure others across Victoria, so that we continue to improve protections, providing safe and secure environments for people wherever we can, and we have heard other contributions today reinforcing the same sorts of views in their communities. I think this is really important. Geelong has received the three Changing Places facilities and a number of other facilities, so I commend the bill to the house.

Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (15:54): I rise to talk on the Disability and Social Services Regulation Amendment Bill 2023. As my colleague the member for East Gippsland previously said, the bill is very similar to legislation that was proposed in 2022, which was allowed to lapse by the government. As we know, those living with a disability are among the most vulnerable in our community and they deserve the highest levels of protection, while at the same time those working in the sector need a regulatory system that does not require duplication of administrative requirements.

All up, the bill amends the Disability Act 2006, the Residential Tenancies Act 1997, the Disability Service Safeguards Act 2018 and the Social Services Regulation Act 2021 and makes some consequential amendments to other acts. The bill improves information-sharing arrangements – there are currently concerns there is a lack of safety net in relation to some situations – to enable people to carry out their functions under the act and so that a person may be found guilty of an offence if there is an unauthorised disclosure. The amendments will ensure that important and critical information can be shared when it is necessary and that the safeguards are still in place. It is often a tightrope to walk around information sharing, for good reason, and respect for privacy, and often a good dose of common sense is needed and required when dealing with all these matters. Some amendments that were made in 2019 did not fix the issue of alignment appropriately, so this is being revisited with further alterations. The second reading indicates these amendments are required to remove uncertainty about the application of existing parts and divisions in the act, to better rely on requirements of responsibility for NDIS and state-funded disability providers, and to ensure there is a consistency and accountability in the use of restrictive practices.

I may just take a moment to talk about some of our providers down in the Latrobe Valley and how some of these amendments will be well received, especially with the safe sharing of vital information that will allow for a better quality of care they can provide to their clients. When speaking with different providers down at home the same issues seem to be commonplace: the ability to deal with different services and share information in a timely manner is a real bugbear with them, as is providing different services to a range of clients. Cleaning up some of these common issues will hopefully make a huge difference to both providers and clients. Some of our providers are, in no particular order: Aurora, Melba Support Services, Interchange Gippsland, Headway Gippsland, Yooralla, Scope, Cooinda Hill, Statewide Autistic Services, Simba Support Services, Elite Life Care, Daily Living Disability Services, TLC Disability Support Services, Gippsland Support Services and Latrobe Valley Enterprises, who I must say have a fantastic ground crew, maintenance crew, that head around keeping everything – all the lawns and ovals – spick-and-span.

The bill will dissolve the Disability Services Board. As the majority of disability services has transitioned to the NDIS, the role of disability services commissioner and board has been significantly reduced and the board is no longer required. As such, the removal of the Disability Services Board will not lead to a reduction in safeguards for people, as these safeguards are covered under the NDIS. We hope that the board will still stay in place until this rolls over to the NDIS. The bill also allows the minister to declare new types of accommodation at which persons receive disability services to be subject to the community visitors program. This will enhance safeguards and protections for people with disability. The bill will amend the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 in relation to specialist disability accommodation enrolled dwellings. It amends the Residential Tenancies Act to ensure residents in group homes meet the definitions in the act and that residential rights and protections are afforded. Like everyone else around the state, we are in need of public housing to accommodate our most vulnerable people and provide them with a safe and secure environment to receive the best care and day-to-day life learnings. The way – (Time expired)

The SPEAKER: Order! The time has come for me to interrupt business for the grievance debate. The member will have the call when their matter is next before the house.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.