Office of the Public AdvocatePresentation to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Inquiry into the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission
I'd like to begin by acknowledging that I'm speaking to you today on the lands of the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nation. I pay my respects to their elders, past, present and emerging, and to any other Aboriginal people who are here today.
The Office of the Public Advocate, or OPA, is an independent statutory office that works to safeguard the rights, interests and dignity of people with disability. OPA's services include the provision of advocacy, investigation and guardianship services to people with cognitive disability and mental illness. OPA also coordinates the Community Visitor Program. As you're aware, people with cognitive disability are disproportionately affected by violence and exploitation. They are also overrepresented in custodial settings and in other settings where their freedom of movement is restricted.
In its submission, the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission identified its limited role in relation to people on forensic orders as issues arising at the interface between the provision of services by the criminal justice system and the provision of NDIS supports. However, I wish to draw the committee's attention to the NDIS quality and safeguarding framework and its overall objectives to ensure that NDIS funded supports, for example: uphold the rights of people with disability, including their rights as consumers; allow participants to live free from abuse, violence, neglect and exploitation; and enable affective monitoring and response to emerging issues as the NDIS develops. I see an opportunity for the commission to exercise leadership, to be more assertive in its outreach and monitoring of issues and to engage with people on forensic orders who experience multiple and significant vulnerabilities.
I also draw the committee's attention to the reference in the commission's submission that it has received very few complaints in which circumstances of forensic detention have been mentioned. This is unsurprising given its reliance on complaints to prompt regulatory actions. It is extremely difficult for people with cognitive disability, mental illness or psychosocial disability to make a complaint, particularly where they are also involved in the criminal justice or civil justice systems, which can compromise their agency to proactively act. The stated approach of 'no wrong door' does little to provide outreach and oversight. The limited access to advocacy for people on forensic orders compounds this further.
Community visitors play a key role in safeguarding vulnerable NDIS participants, including in Victorian forensic settings. The Commonwealth review of community visitor schemes found that the role complements and strengthens the protections offered by the quality and safeguarding framework, including elements enacted by the commission. It found that committee visitors should be reflected in the framework as a contributor. This year, community visitors have so far made 41 high-risk abuse referrals to the NDIS commission. In response, my officers have received one email advising that one matter would be referred to the reportable incident team but no advice about outcomes for any others.
One of the biggest issues for people involved in, or at risk of involvement in, the criminal justice system—including those on forensic orders—is whether they receive adequate supports and assistance to find suitable accommodation. I would add to this their ability to access suitable and appropriate supports delivered by a trained and experienced workforce. There is a serious market failure, or risk of failure, for people who need appropriate accommodation and specialised supports. I draw the committee's attention to another core function of the commission: to provide NDIS market oversight, including by monitoring changes in the NDIS market which may indicate emerging risk and by monitoring and mitigating the risk of unplanned service withdrawal. When looking more closely at the quality and safeguarding framework, I see an opportunity for the commission to focus more on the developmental and preventive domains as they relate to individuals.
Finally, on the criminal justice system more broadly, what we are learning is that people are subjected to restrictive practices—sometimes in the prison system and sometimes in other environments. The commission's behaviour support function enables it to provide leadership in the critical pursuit of reducing and eliminating the use of restrictive practices. Thank you for your time.
