Social Services Regulator
David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (12:34): (1323) My question is to Minister Blandthorn. Last year the Office of the Public Advocate’s community visitors scheme lodged 15 reports of abuse, neglect and violence occurring in supported residential accommodation with the Social Services Regulator. Women and LGBTQI+ people are particularly vulnerable to violence, including rape and sexual assault, in these settings, as highlighted by the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. Minister, how does the Social Services Regulator enforce standards to protect SRS residents with a disability, particularly women and LGBTQI+ people?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (12:35): I thank Mr Ettershank for his question. I find it quite a puzzling question, given that last year we sought the permission of this chamber to increase the powers of the Social Services Regulator to address exactly many of the issues to which you refer, and Mr Ettershank did not vote for the extension of those powers. So I find it extremely troubling that he is now standing here asking a question effectively about the Social Services Regulator’s powers. At the time I questioned whether or not Mr Ettershank had given due consideration to that bill. But I think the question that we have here before us shows that he did not give due consideration to that bill, because those expanded powers for the Social Services Regulator would have provided greater protection for children and greater protection for adults with disability in particular.
To be very specific, Mr Ettershank, what we sought was the power to ensure that dodgy disability workers could be prohibited from ever working with people with disability or children and to ensure that there was greater intelligence and information sharing to inform a reassessment of NDIS worker screening checks. This would ensure that in scenarios like the ones to which you refer a regulator does not just close off complaints – indeed as the Victorian Disability Worker Commission currently only has the power to do, which is closing off complaints with an apology – but the Social Services Regulator could indeed consider incidents in their totality and the extent to which they pose an individual risk to either a child or another vulnerable person. We also sought to establish a dedicated complaints function so there was greater intelligence to act earlier on concerns whenever parents, carers or advocates saw that something was not right. But, Mr Ettershank, you voted against those powers. The Greens, Legalise Cannabis and indeed those opposite voted against those powers. It was this side of the chamber, with some support from other parts of the crossbench, that were committed to ensuring that we protect vulnerable people. So to stand here and ask me a question about the powers of the Social Services Regulator is a little troubling.
David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (12:37): Thank you, Minister, for that enlightening response. The Mental Health Legal Centre has been informed of multiple incidents of sexual assaults occurring in SRSs over recent years. In a recent case of a woman who was sexually assaulted, not by a member of staff, the police and the regulator were not informed until some time after the incident, by which time the victim had moved to another SRS. The perpetrator was not removed, and residents were left uninformed about the assault or the fact that the perpetrator was still in their midst. This is an obvious breach of the Social Service Regulator’s standards, which SRSs must adhere to – existing standards, Minister. What is the government doing to improve coordination and information sharing between the police, the regulator, SRS operators, residents and the general public so that timely reporting and consequent actions are taken to protect vulnerable residents?
Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (12:38): I do not have enough time to deal with the hypocrisy of this question, but indeed it was this government that previously strengthened the regulatory framework, and indeed it was this government that only last November–December, as I just outlined in my substantive response to your first question, sought to ensure that there was greater intelligence and information sharing to inform reassessments of workers, to share information across agencies, across independent regulators and with the police and what currently exists – and Mr Ettershank, you voted against it.