Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, , 7:12:37 to 7:24:02
The department details the safeguarding risk assessments conducted for legislative reforms, focusing on monitoring unintended consequences and ensuring participant safety during transitions.
Topics: Integrity, Human rights
Speakers: Andrew Maitland, Prof Zoe Wainer, Chris Gatenby, Unknown Speaker, Ellie Whiteaker, Blair Comley, Hon Jenny McAllister
Okay, we'll keep an eye on that. Um I just want to go to safeguarding an oversight. Um did the department undertake a safeguarding risk assessment of the impact of the legislative reforms prior to implementation.
Well, are you speaking about the support determination in particular? Senator Erin Rule, acting First Assistant Secretary, NDIS strategy and policy division in the department. Uh yes, Senator, um, as a requirement of making the support determination instrument,
And in that process, what are you able to go into what the risks were that were identified or mitigation strategies and then what advice was provided to government as part of that? more specifically when it comes to the advice the government is around um risk for people with intellectual disability and others that are heightened risk
Just reminding myself of whether it was in the instrument or the explanatory statement. We did um consider safety more at a higher level, Senator, rather than for um uh specific disability Sorry, so uh so um in advising the minister um we considered the potential impacts of the determination on the safety of participants, the extent to which the determination safeguards participant safety and the availability of other available safeguarding pathways and the existing mechanisms for protecting the safety of participants. Uh so participants um supported participants affected by the support determination will still be able to access those supports that are affected, so they still do have a budget for social and community participation and improved daily living skills. Um that is one important consideration. Um there's no changes to funding for core daily living functional supports, home or vehicle modifications, personal mobility equipment, consumable products, uh specialist disability accommodation, other essential disability related supports. The determination excludes certain subgroups of supports from any reduction in funding, including disability related health supports, high-intensity supports and intensive complex behaviour supports. So these subgroups of supports have been excluded from any funding reduction because they are critical to participant health and safety. The other consideration, as Mr. Maitland has already identified, is the separate plan variation pathway that was agreed in the passage of the legislation under section 47B. And there also remains other existing mechanisms for safeguarding participant safety, including plan reassessments and plan variations that already existed under the Act. So those were the considerations that we considered from a policy perspective. And Mr. Maitland is also able to advise on operational considerations of the agency.
If I may, Senator, I'll just outline a couple of in addition to what Ms. Rowell has just uh spoken about. Um the first point of safeguarding is at the plan implementation meeting. So we're making we have worked with our planners to ensure that they are trained to highlight situations, particularly for those who require 24 by 7 supports as to what the variation pathway is. Um the second point is we then have a specialist team of 120 planners in our home and living operations branch, which has been specifically trained up to be able to take action under section 48 to determine firstly 47B sorry to determine whether the participant is a high support needs, and then also to then adjust their plans as necessary to ensure that they have 24 by 7 support. We've got a further safeguard Senator, which is every participant who we anticipate will qualify as a section 47B high support needs participant is being contacted if they haven't applied for one. Obviously, it's our number one priority at the agency to make sure that every participant is looked after their safety and well-being. So that process has commenced. Um as an additional safeguard, our escalation pathway, which we already have within the agency has been trained to identify any requests for emergency intervention, and uh that escalation pathway, as I noted, has not actually seen an increase, but they are ready should there be a situation where a participant's safety and well-being may be a risk.
Okay. And then the further addendum to the expansion memorandum committed the Department in the UIA to monitor unintended consequences, uh participant outcome, service availability or provider markets. What monitoring framework is currently operating and who's accountable for it? And have has anything been reported to government, or have you got anything that you've reported publicly?
What I can tell you, uh Senator is that we are closely monitoring a number of our pathways. The first one, as I said, is the complaints one, and as I highlighted, um we are not seeing anything of systemic nature in that at the moment. The second one is review requests. Um obviously where participants um feel that they have a need for a reassessment. Um again, we are not seeing an increase there. I'd also highlight that the actual section 47B is reviewable, but the support determination itself is not. Um we're also engaging closely with the sector and provide the sector and providers to see of any feedback, and they have been helpful and explain to us where their concerns are and working with the department, we're making sure that we. Take action if there are any risks, but I need to be very frank at this point and say at this at this stage it is very early. It is in transition. And as we noted, these things will change over time, but we're keeping a very very close eye on it.
And just my last question on this particular topic, but and you may have covered some of this already, but what indicators thresholds and escalation triggers are currently being monitored to identify emerging harm or increase participant risk.
Yeah. So I think the as a just speaking to me, Sander. The first is we look through our escalation pathways. So we have escalation teams in every single state of and territory of Australia. And those escalation teams handle all emergency situations. That's not just in relation to this measure. It is more generally. And as I said, we have seen no systemic issues come through there at this point as a result of the support determination. The second one we very closely focus on is complaints because you will see participants raise those as they come in. We speak with our planners and with our partners in the community to determine whether they are identifying any concerns. And as I said, we're also working closely with our the provider and the sector to understand if they have any major concerns. Those are the ways that we're monitoring it. As I said, this will continue to be focused on because over time participants will understand it. They will start to, if they have concerns, raise it, but it's so very early in the process. I I think we've got to be careful around saying that you know there are no issues, but at this stage we're not identifying systemic problems.
Yeah, and I guess how are you looking at intersecting risks, so housing instability or at broader things as well. How's that picked up?
Senator Winner, I I guess what I'd say to that is that most of these support determinations in terms of housing system stability and what we're talking about there is the need for 24 by 7 supports because this isn't actually impacting on their home and living supports or their assistance with daily living supports, which are the two categories in which housing is um addressed through the aid the NDIAs in the NDIS scheme. So what we are making sure is where that participant, because of a change to the social economic and community participation budget could be impacted, that we ensure that they have the supports that are required in those two other categories as necessary.
Yeah, right. Well thank you, uh Mr. Maitland and Ms. Rule. Um I've got some questions on thriving kids, but I'm conscious of time.
So yes, we only have a few minutes to the break. How many please will be your final questions before we wrap up this?
We've got a few more, but potentially, yes. We might have one more section after that, actually. Just a few seconds. We might have some on the fraud fusion task force as well.
So do you want me to begin now or just I think we'll take the break as planned.
We'll talk about it.
And then okay, but you want these witnesses back after the break.
Um if it's the same officials, that would be for thriving kids or is it different officials?
Yes, well, yeah, just the current schedule had come finishing here at 4.15 and then you're moving to the assessment. So it's just a question. It's up to you, Chair, but it's a question whether there's a small number of questions we could knock off before the break, so you could transition. I mean that's up to you. Or if you put those on notice.
Yeah, look if it was only a if it's only a short block of questions that I've got four questions on Thrive and Kids. Could we do that and then perhaps consider if we can then see the other put the others on notice? Okay, let's do that.