Wednesday, 19 November 2025
Questions without notice and ministers statements
Disability services
-
Commencement
-
Papers
-
Business of the house
-
Members statements
-
West Gate Tunnel
-
Liberal Party leadership
-
Gendered violence
-
Remembrance Day
-
Sassoon Yehuda Sephardi Synagogue
-
West Gate Tunnel
-
Armenian National Committee of Australia
-
Greenwood Mulgrave
-
Eurydice Dixon
-
Treaty
-
Metro Tunnel
-
Warrnambool Multicultural Festival
-
-
Bills
-
Control of Weapons Amendment (Establishing Jack’s Law, Use of Electronic Metal Detection Devices) Bill 2025
-
Statement of compatibility
-
Second reading
-
-
-
Production of documents
-
Department of Premier and Cabinet
-
Animal care and protection legislation
-
-
Motions
-
Judicial appointments
-
-
Questions without notice and ministers statements
-
Flood mitigation
-
Economic policy
-
Ministers statements: Victorian Early Years Awards
-
Disability services
-
Suburban Rail Loop
-
Ministers statements: Suburban Rail Loop
-
Land tax
-
United States ministerial visit
-
Ministers statements: Perinatal Mental Health Week
-
Youth justice system
-
Greater Western Water
-
Ministers statements: Treasury Corporation of Victoria
-
-
Constituency questions
-
Southern Metropolitan Region
-
Northern Metropolitan Region
-
Southern Metropolitan Region
-
South-Eastern Metropolitan Region
-
Western Metropolitan Region
-
North-Eastern Metropolitan Region
-
Northern Metropolitan Region
-
Western Metropolitan Region
-
South-Eastern Metropolitan Region
-
Eastern Victoria Region
-
Northern Victoria Region
-
Northern Victoria Region
-
Southern Metropolitan Region
-
Western Victoria Region
-
Eastern Victoria Region
-
-
Motions
-
Judicial appointments
-
-
Bills
- Parks and Public Land Legislation Amendment (Central West and Other Matters) Bill 2025
-
State Taxation Further Amendment Bill 2025
-
Council’s amendments
-
-
Motions
-
Business of the house
-
Notices of motion and orders of the day
-
-
Statements on tabled papers and petitions
-
Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission
-
Matter Involving the Member for Western Victoria Region and the Member for Warrandyte District: Investigation Report
-
-
Department of Transport and Planning
-
Report 2024–25
-
-
Victorian Health Promotion Foundation
-
Report 2024–25
-
-
-
Petitions
-
Rossdale Golf Club
-
-
Adjournment
-
Tiny Towns Fund
-
Fire services
-
Bayswater North Primary School
-
Victorian Fisheries Authority
-
Energy policy
-
Vocational education and training
-
Regional and rural roads
-
Child sexual abuse
-
Sunshine train station
-
Youth crime
-
Planning policy
-
Yackandandah-Wodonga Road, Staghorn Flat
-
Mernda swimming pool
-
Responses
-
Disability services
David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (12:08): (1143) My question is to the Minister for Disability. As we have discussed previously in this house, disability workers in supported independent living residences are staring down the barrel of pay cuts of up to hundreds of dollars a week if the Victorian government does not act. State subsidies filling the gap left by insufficient NDIS funding run out next month. This will have dire consequences for SIL residents. The impacts are already being felt with the closure of over 70 group homes to date. Disability workers are already leaving the disability sector in droves. With insufficient wages and unattractive conditions, how will the sector attract quality workers? I ask the minister to update the house on how the government will ensure the delivery of quality care to people with disability living in supported independent living residences.
Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (12:09): Thank you, Mr Ettershank, for this question; I am, I think for the third or fourth time now, happy to answer this question in this place. But for the benefit of those in the house who have forgotten since I last answered this very same question, the government supported workers to transition to non-government providers in the establishment of the NDIS in 2019. In 2019 providers assumed responsibility for approximately 550 homes, which is about 2500 residents and about 5500 employees.
As I have detailed before, to ensure that staff were supported through this transition phase, a phased approach was taken to the implementation. Government worked collaboratively with the stakeholders during that time and particularly with the union during the transfer process. There was indeed a formal MOU at the time which was established with HACSU alongside the agreements of the transfer providers, with all parties acknowledging that this would end on 31 December this year. It has been, since 2009 to 31 December this year, a phased approach since the establishment of this process through the NDIS. But SIL is now the responsibility of the NDIA, and SIL services are funded by the NDIS. It is reassuring to see transfer providers who have put forward a joint statement about their engagement with the Commonwealth on plan sufficiency, because this is critical and it was always critical, which was why there was the phased implementation agreed to with the workforce through the union and with the SIL providers themselves through that MOU, because this was becoming, as part of the NDIA, a matter for which the Commonwealth needed to come up with a plan for that sufficiency.
For my part, I will continue to advocate, as I have at a number of disability ministerial councils now, and I know colleagues around the country have also continued to raise it with the Commonwealth. We pay $3 billion a year into the NDIS, and in return the NDIS needs to make sure that the plans are sufficient to meet the needs of people for whom it exists to service. I would also encourage workers to engage in their EBA negotiations, and they should continue to have those discussions through their employer bargaining representatives. But ultimately, this is a decision about the Commonwealth making sure that there is enough funding and that the plans are sufficient to provide for the outcome that Mr Ettershank is seeking.
David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (12:12): Thank you for indulging me, Minister, if that was a repetitious question, but I appreciate the update. Minister, the government is proposing to abolish the disability worker commission at the very same time that it has made no funding commitments, obviously, to support the providers now responsible for those transferred disability group homes. Given that the existing subsidy underpins critical safety measures such as the inclusion of single house supervisors in every group home, mandatory qualifications, staffing ratios and proper clinical and practice supervision, how can the government justify dismantling the state’s independent safeguard body while refusing to guarantee the very funding that keeps those residents safe?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (12:13): President, I think you were questioning whether the question itself perhaps offends anticipation, and I think it walks the line considerably. But I would at the outset dispel a couple of myths there. Firstly, we contribute $3 billion a year to the NDIS, and it is the Commonwealth’s responsibility to ensure plan sufficiency. I would also say in response to Mr Ettershank’s question – or perhaps the new Leader of the Opposition said it best when she said that she noted that:
… the bill merges disability oversight bodies, including the incredibly important … worker registration and regulation, into the Social Services Regulator as well. Again this is overdue reform. Families have been calling for a consistent approach to worker regulation across disability and social services for many years.
I think the new Leader of the Opposition understands this issue and she has put it perfectly. But let me at the outset reject your premise that in some way we are not contributing to NDIS plans. We contribute $3 billion a year to the scheme, and we continue to advocate that, in return for that, the Commonwealth ensures there is plan sufficiency.
The PRESIDENT: I was concerned the supplementary may have offended the anticipation rule, but I think the minister stayed away from that concern in her answer.