Thursday, 19 March 2020

Disability Service Safeguards Amendment Bill 2020

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Mr DONNELLAN:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Mr T BULL (Gippsland East) (10:27): I rise to make a contribution on the Disability Service Safeguards Amendment Bill 2020. There are some points that I wish to make on this bill, but before I do I will just put on record the major purposes of this bill, which are to amend the Disability Service Safeguards Act 2018. This bill is a very short bill, but in short it clarifies the definition of ‘approved registration standard’; it provides for consistency with amendments by the Disability (National Disability Insurance Scheme Transition) Amendment Act 2019, which is the federal act; it repeals provisions relating to provisionally registered disability support workers; it extends the time period during which the provision of disability services by an individual applying for registration as a disability worker will qualify that individual for registration; and it makes various minor and consequential amendments to the Disability Service Safeguards Act 2018. In making this contribution, I do thank the departmental staff for making their time available last Friday for a bill briefing.

The first point that I wish to make on this bill is that the time frame for the state registration scheme to kick in is, as we all know, just as matter of months away. But as yet the Disability Worker Registration Board of Victoria has not yet released what those standards will be.

I understand from the bill briefing that the board is currently considering submissions that are being made to it, but there remains the concern from a number of providers and also some workers in the disability sector that those standards are not yet known. There is also a level of concern about how these standards will be relayed to the disability sector. One disability service provider has said to me that they have had some advice that they will simply be displayed on the Department of Health and Human Services website when finished. I would certainly hope that that does not prove to be the case. The reason is that I would hope the sector—and when I am talking about the sector I am referring mainly to service providers and workers—will have a window of opportunity to discuss these proposed measures prior to them being finalised. Because as it sits currently we have an industry that is awaiting these standards, and it is an industry that is wanting to ensure that there is no duplication with the federal registration and accreditation scheme.

This was something that was raised when the original bill came into this place in 2018, and now here we are, just months away from this bill coming into effect or the registration scheme coming into effect for the state. We are just months away from that, and we still have no definition around what those registration standards will be, so you can understand that this causes a level of concern for those who are involved in the disability sector. What the sector wants to know—what their thirst for information is—is the areas that potentially need improving in the federal scheme and how these will be addressed within the state scheme whilst avoiding duplication.

There is a concern also, and it is a point that I raised in the bill briefing, about how people working within the sector will be referred to, given that we have two registration schemes. I did get a response to the inquiry which I raised in the bill briefing, which was that unregistered workers in Victoria—and when I say unregistered workers in Victoria I mean workers unregistered under the Victorian scheme—can certainly promote the fact that they have been screened under the national disability insurance scheme (NDIS) regime. But the response did say that workers who choose to register under the state scheme can promote the fact that they have been screened as both safe and competent. I would certainly hope that if this is to be the case, that there is no inference here that those who have not undertaken registration through the state scheme are seen to be not safe and competent, because having completed the NDIS—the federal registration process—they would be absolutely safe and competent. Herein lies the very point of what will become confusing for providers. Herein lies the point that will become rather confusing for workers and also rather confusing for clients and those in the disability sector who are looking to engage providers.

I think we all acknowledge and know that this legislation before the house is about protections for disability workers who are not covered by the NDIS. We know that that is the core of where this legislation and where this registration is aiming to be. But there is certainly concern that the introduction of the Victorian disability worker code of conduct for workers who do not choose to register with the Disability Worker Registration Board imposes—I guess you would best term it—unnecessary dual regulatory requirements on both workers and organisations that are providing NDIS services. There remains a very strong view amongst providers—and a fair amount of workers, I will add—that workers providing NDIS supports should be excluded from compliance with the Victorian regulations as all these workers are covered by the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission requirements.

Of course this is one of the reasons why we need to see the registration standards that I referred to earlier in this discussion. They have not been released, and these are the points that we need to raise. Perhaps one of the speakers from the other side might be able to provide the house with some information around the time frame as to when these will be released, and there will be consultation hopefully before they are adopted for the 1 July deadline of this scheme coming into implementation.

I do make the point here that the national NDIS commission has the advantage—and I will call it an advantage—of regulating all NDIS workers as well as both unregistered and registered service providers because they can do this via the NDIS code of conduct. I am told that at the state level the disability worker scheme will complement the NDIS and the commonwealth’s NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. What we have read in the second-reading speech that the minister tabled is that this state scheme will complement the federal scheme.

I was told as a follow-up to the bill briefing that the NDIS commission registers providers rather than individual workers—and that is the case—and that this is where the extra strength in the state system will lie. The state system will register individuals whereas the federal system will register providers. However, NDIS service providers have the very strong view that all workers that are employed by them must comply with the national worker screening requirements, and that provides the appropriate level of oversight for NDIS workers. That is the view of the providers. They also point out that additionally participants can request that unregistered workers undertake the national worker screening. I guess this goes to the very heart of the sticking point for some providers and some workers. Many in the sector do not oppose this bill. They do not oppose these amendments to it. They do not oppose, I guess, the need for a Victorian scheme to indeed take place. But it is the concerns around duplication that are the most problematic for many to get their head around.

I think every member of this chamber would see the need for a system that picks up the workers outside the NDIS, because we do need this safety net in place—we do. And some people say, ‘Well, who are the disability workers that will be working outside the NDIS?’. We have disability workers working in the Transport Accident Commission (TAC). We have people engaged in the disability sector that are working in home and community care services. The program for young people is another. I think that we need that, but where this concern lies is in the duplication for NDIS workers.

We are happy that all Victorian disability workers will be subject to regulation regardless of their funding source. That is the way that it should be. That is the reason why we never opposed the original bill. It is the reason why the sector generally supports this bill. Whether your funding source is the NDIS or the TAC or the department, through home and community care, we need to have for all of our workers a strong safety net put in place. We have heard through previous parliamentary inquiries some of the abhorrent behaviours and acts that have occurred, but we do not need to make this cumbersome in doubling up for those workers who will already be screened at the federal level under the NDIS. So whilst we await the guidelines from the Disability Worker Registration Board of Victoria, I again stress it would be great for the sector to have a window for commentary into what is proposed there and the opportunity to discuss and tweak them if necessary.

While we are talking about Victorian disability workers and the workforce generally, I would also like to put on the record the need for the government to release some figures around the disability workforce transition to the NDIS. As we move to the NDIS we are obviously going to see a reduction of staff within the department, and it is of great interest to the Victorian disability sector how many of these staff have received packages, how many have transitioned over and how many have now transitioned over to service providers. Why this is pertinent information is that we need to ensure that the level of disability workers that have transitioned to new services meet the needs under the new scheme. It is quite important information. Although the NDIS is a service that is delivered on the basis of having client choice, what we also need to know is that the department will still maintain a reasonable level of workforce to deal with the complex matters that do arise in this sector and in this situation, which is something that I am sure the minister and the department are dealing with every day, and we are absolutely more than well aware of the complexities that can arise in the disability sector on a case-by-case basis. We will need that basis of workers maintained to deal with those issues that arise.

It would also be remiss of me, when talking on a bill that relates to NDIS service provision, not to have some discussion on the currently unfolding coronavirus situation that we have here in the state. We have had the chief executive of one disability service provider in Victoria already state yesterday that from her perspective the disability sector seems to have been largely ignored in commentary on the coronavirus. This comment is based on the fact that they really have not been offered any assistance to obtain the necessary products that they require to provide the ongoing services out of their facilities and via their programs. This includes things like cleaning and disinfecting products. They are struggling to get items like hand sanitiser from the supermarkets. Just like we have strong precautions in place for our aged-care system and for those that are vulnerable in other demographics of society, the disability sector is an extraordinarily complex sector that also needs special attention as this coronavirus situation unfolds. These are very, very basic needs, but they are so important—they are so critically important—to managing hygiene in that sector and therefore the spread of the virus.

The disability sector is also seeking faster access to testing. As we know, the transition to the NDIS has caused workforce challenges—call it shortages or call it challenges—in some areas where we have thin markets. Some of the clients at our disability service providers have exceptionally high needs, and they have very, very challenging behavioural problems. What we need to be able to do is ensure that if a worker or carer needs to be tested, then that worker or carer is able to have that undertaken very, very quickly—that they can be fast-tracked through the system and then be able to return to their carer job. I know of a number of cases, as I am sure the department and as I am sure the minister would also know, where for people with very complex and challenging needs the families have had to search far and wide, high and low, to get the carer who is capable of handling appropriately that client’s needs. Often carers have got very special attributes to be able to do that, whether it is physical strength or the ability to calm and soothe a person who is suffering extreme anxiety as a result of their disability. We all know—everyone in this chamber would know—that individuals with special needs often form a very, very strong bond with those that are caring for their needs. The simple disruption of having that person—he or she—taken away for a period of time in itself can cause extreme levels of anxiety, so I think it is very, very important. Maybe it is something that the minister, who I note is in the chamber, could take on notice—that we give very strong consideration to having disability workers, particularly those looking after high-needs clients, fast-tracked for testing should this be required as this coronavirus situation unfolds across the state, because we want to try and keep life as normal as possible for those who have these challenges and are potentially suffering with coronavirus as well.

I certainly look forward to maybe the disability sector having access to that service but also to the disability sector providers being given some special treatment in relation to getting the products that they need to be able to operate day to day. As we have mentioned, these are generally disinfecting products and hand sanitisers that, because of the ridiculous mass purchasing that is going on at areas around the state, they are having a lot of trouble getting access to. I also would call on suppliers to make sure that they have met the needs of our disability service providers in the community in that regard.

The disability sector has many people who for various reasons are more vulnerable than others, and it would be good at some stage to, I guess, get a briefing on how the department plans to look after this sector over the ensuing period—which could be three, six, nine, 12 months ahead—as this unfolds, because it is something that as a society we need to put at the very forefront. These are uncharted waters that we are heading into. I know that here at the present time some of these questions may not have answers just yet, but I would hope that in a very short period we can provide some direction and advice to those who need it.

In winding up and concluding my contribution, we do not oppose this bill. We think that the registration of non-NDIS disability workers is a good thing. It is a good thing—it provides an important safeguard for our disability sector. But we do know that there remains widespread concern about double-ups. We seek the release as soon as possible to the sector of the guidelines from the Disability Worker Registration Board so that providers and workers know what they are dealing with, and we would like to see that in the very near future.

Mr PEARSON (Essendon) (10:49): I am delighted to make a contribution on the Disability Service Safeguards Amendment Bill 2020. The bill that is before the house is fairly technical in nature, but it is a fairly straightforward piece of legislation about improving the smooth running of this sector.

I thought it would be worth just reflecting on the journey that we have come on as a society and as a community. I had the great privilege and pleasure of working with David White for many years; he was the Minister for Health in the mid-1980s. David spoke at length about the way in which some of those facilities which had residents living in operated at that time. Now, I do appreciate that in some of the cases and in some of the stories that have been referred to the patients were not necessarily disabled, but the quality of care that he talked about that was evident at that point in time was just appalling. The Willsmere facility, whose residents were basically psychogeriatric patients, would have peacocks in the backyard in order to muffle the cries and the screams of the residents, and the residents themselves would just live in abject misery.

I think one of David’s concerns at the time was that there was an inadequate level of regulation and oversight of those facilities. No doubt some of those workers were good, hardworking, decent people working within the confines of the regulation at the time, but they might have started out working in the garden or in the kitchen as a kitchen hand, they might have graduated to then become a cook in the facility, and then they became a personal care provider. Now, there is nothing wrong with that trajectory in itself. The is nothing wrong with that pathway and allowing people with a degree of age and experience to progress their way through. But I do think that when you do not have a proper regulatory regime in place and you have a lack of training and professional development, that does create some challenges and problems for the quality of care that is being provided.

It is a bit like the old Kew Cottages. The Kew Cottages you can see from the Eastern Freeway, and the Kew Cottages are on a hill. The reason the Kew Cottages are located where they are is that there was a view in the 19th century that people who were disabled emitted fumes and that if you had them located in a facility on a hill they would not contaminate the rest of the community. That is why Kew Cottages are on a hill—to try and separate what they thought were contaminated people who had a disability. Now, those facilities were still in operation up until the late 20th century, and that is why we have looked at trying to change the regulatory regime.

Now, the first impulse was to look at deinstitutionalisation. I remember David telling a story that there was a bloke he saw at a facility. He was probably a middle-aged guy, I think, at that stage. This would have been in the mid-1980s. He was standing at a window at a facility and he was looking out. So David as the minister visited this facility and said to this guy, ‘What are you doing?’, and he said, ‘I’m looking out. I want to go home’. It seemed a fairly reasonable request. David asked one of the carers, ‘How long has he been here for?’, and the response was, ‘Forty years’. Now, the reason why we started on that process of deinstitutionalisation was to allow people to live in the community, to develop closer linkages and ties with family and friends and to be more social. People with a disability were not to be locked up and chained and feared; people with a disability were allowed to have the opportunity of living amongst all of us.

Now, when you think about what has happened since the 1990s, bear in mind there was a grand compact from probably the early 1990s until more recent times, when there was a view put that both parties believed that a lean and efficient public service was a good thing, that you have a process of deregulation where you can, that you have a light-handed approach to regulation and that you basically look at allowing society to function with minimal government interference. I think that both major parties broadly adhered to these views. I think that what has happened in the last, well—

Mr Donnellan: Adam Smith.

Mr PEARSON: Well, Adam Smith, the invisible hand of the market—yes indeed, Minister, the invisible hand of the market will control everything. It is interesting that the focus is always on The Wealth of Nations rather than some of his other work which is more enlightened and progressive, as one might say. The Theory of Moral Sentiments, I think, was his other great piece of work, and played a critical role in terms of the establishment obviously of the Scottish Enlightenment. A very interesting movement, the Scottish Enlightenment, in my experience.

Mr Donnellan interjected.

Mr PEARSON: Yes, I did like the Scottish Enlightenment.

Mr Donnellan: The renaissance men—and women.

Ms Staley interjected.

Mr PEARSON: Sadly, no. Though I have imparted some of its teachings and learnings, I would like to think, as my erudite contributions in this house would demonstrate, member for Ripon.

But anyhow—I do digress—I think what we have seen happen in more recent times is that a view has developed which is the fact that there is market failure in many ways, and confidence in institutions has fallen significantly.

And I think what we are starting to see now is a re-emergence of tighter levels of regulation and more levels of control, making sure that there are those checks and balances in place to make sure that some of our most vulnerable members of the community are protected. I think that with the move towards a nationally consistent approach through the NDIS we are starting to see that pattern of uniform regulation to provide this level of comfort and support for some of the most vulnerable members of our community.

Indeed I know the member for Gippsland East in his contribution talked about the coronavirus. I think that the coronavirus is really the harbinger of the end of globalisation. I think globalisation as we know it has been seen to be fatally flawed by these recent events, and I think that you will start to see nations decouple. You will start to see supply chains decouple. You will start to see a greater view, a greater reliance or awareness, on the power of individual jurisdictions taking a greater level of control over the way in which their societies function and the way in which a community is structured. Because these changes are just so profound, they are going to have a significant impact upon the way in which we live and we work as a society.

I think we are in an age where we will see greater levels of regulation. I think we will see greater levels of control and I think in light of what we have seen in more recent times that is not a bad thing. We do need to look at having greater levels of oversight and regulation to ensure that we are in a position whereby the most vulnerable members of our community have been and are protected, because what has happened previously just has not worked; there have been these failures. And where you have got the capacity to look at trying to increase the professional development, the competencies and the ability for individual workers in the disability care sector to have that really good quality training, it is a very important initiative, because that is where we are moving as a society. And you do want to send a signal to the disability workers out there that there is an opportunity for a career path and career development.

I think too, in these days of rapid change, what we do know is that change will be continuous, and the pace of change will be far more rapid. The issue becomes therefore that we cannot control these circumstances that are outside of our control; what we can control is the ability to be more nimble, more agile and more adept to be able to respond to the challenges that we are confronting. Having disability care workers have a higher level of professional development and looking at constantly managing and enhancing their training and development over the course of time I think is a very good thing.

As I said, this is a very straightforward bill, but I think it signals our interest in and our commitment to having an appropriate level of regulation to protect the most vulnerable members of our community, and I commend the bill to the house.

Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) (10:59): I am pleased to make a contribution to the Disability Service Safeguards Amendment Bill 2020. Perhaps I could start with some opening remarks that relate to some of our work with carers and volunteers. As parliamentary secretary in that space, it provides a great opportunity to work with so many people in our community who put others first, who seek to care for, advocate for and look out for those with disabilities in our community as carers.

Of course our government in making a $49 million contribution and investment in respite care in large respects of the respite care—and extra respite for the carers— (Time expired)

Business interrupted under sessional orders.