Submissions Archives - Queensland Advocacy Incorporated

Mistake of Fact Submission

QAI made a submission to the Queensland Law Reform Commission Inquiry into the Mistake of Fact defence.

Initial Recommendations

Retain mistake of fact defence, because some people with intellectual impairment can misinterpret, for example, body language, or verbal cues if CALD, but:

A proper evidentiary basis must exist before the court directs a jury on this defence e.g. where the woman has shown little or no outward manifestation of any lack of consent (as opposed to where there is evidence of accused’s use of force/violence, and resistance by complainant).
Provide clearer guidance in the legislation for what constitutes a “reasonable” basis for an accused to believe in consent
Provide guidance for jury directions that explain the above.

You can read the full submission here.

Criminal Code (Child Sexual Offences Reform) Submission

QAI made a submission in regards to the Criminal Code (Child Sexual Offences Reform) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill.

Here is an excerpt from the submission of our recommendations:

Recommendations

QAI supports the measures in the Bill.
The State Government must do more to ensure that people with intellectual disability who have committed very minor sexual offences get better support in the community rather than detention.
Take steps to improve the supports, particularly behaviour supports, available to people with intellectual disability who have been convicted of child sexual offences.

You can read the full submission here.

NDIS Planning Submission

QAI made a submission to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme on NDIS Planning.

Here is an excerpt from the submission of our recommendations:

QAI Recommendations

LAC’s and Planners must have intensive training to understand the social and other impact of disability and what makes people with disability vulnerable. The NDIA must undertake intensive training for Planners and Plan reviewers to ensure that the Scheme is implemented as it was envisioned and not as a cost savings exercise. This training must also encompass respectful engagement with Participants and plan nominees to overcome the fear and distrust that is being experienced as a result of bullying by Planners.
The NDIA should hire people with lived experience of disability and or people with experience from the disability advocacy sector.
Invest in appropriate Pre-Planning (with independence from direct service provision organisations) so that there are fewer Plan Reviews and Appeals, and to enable LAC’s to return to their intended functions of linking and connecting people with generic and specialist services. Foster smaller and consultative community-based services that engage local staff particularly with pre-planning activities.
The NDIA must randomly audit Plans developed by NDIA Planners to determine consistency of content and supports.
Participants should be asked to submit a self-assessment about what they need in order to attain their goals and should be incorporated into the planning process. Planners must have skills in ‘active listening ‘rather than self-promotion of their own experiences or purported expertise.
Planners must focus on inclusive approaches to supports while respecting the wants and wishes of Participants.
Informal Supports must not be factored into Planning as a cost-savings exercise.
The NDIA should provide funding for translation services for CALD Participants in planning and to engage with support coordination services.
Abolish SIL from Plans.
Supports that Participants and nominees discuss and agree to at planning meetings must be included in the Plan.
Draft Plans should be sent to Participants and Nominees for agreement and or negotiation.
Abolish Typical Support Packages (TSPs) to reduce internal reviews, AAT appeals and Participant dissatisfaction.
Ensure that there are no service/support gaps and provide early intervention to Participants and Nominees to ensure that supports are not withheld even if funds are expended before end of Plans.
Plans must not be reduced unless Participants disclose they no longer require specific funds or support types.
The NDIA must cease the manipulation of reviews under Section 100 by either refusing the review request or instead attempting to thwart the process by deception and inserting the review under Section 48.
The NDIA must ensure equitable access to all forms including review request forms and not restrict word limitations by the use of PDF or other means.
The NDIA must ensure that reviews are free from conflict of interest and breaches of confidentiality by warranting that no staff members involved in the original decisions are involved. Strict penalties for breaches must apply.
Whitelist formal advocacy organisations to reduce red tape and better enable Advocates to assist Participants and Applicants.
NDIA should provide a readily available means to track progress of reviews for Advocates and Participants.
Mandate an enforceable maximum time frame within which the NDIA must respond to reviews.
Improved decision-making by the NDIA in the first instance to reduce review and AAT applications.
Improved liaison between the internal review team and the Early Response Team (ERT).
NDIA staff members provide advice to Participants at critical moments such as denial of review applications, how to best utilise current Plans and gather evidence to improve their next approaches.
NDIA staff give greater attention and consideration to the issues impacting Participants, Nominees and supporters in regional and remote areas particularly with issues and costs associated with transport, thin markets and alternatives to traditional service provision.

You can read the full submission here.

Inquiry into Adequacy of Newstart Submission

QAI made a submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs on the Inquiry into the Adequacy of Newstart.

Here is an excerpt from the submission of our recommendations:

Key Recommendations

Many Australians, including many Australians with disability, have inadequate financial means to support an acceptable standard of living. This has significant ill effects on their physical and mental health, ability to engage in socially, in education and work, and for some, their ability to raise and nurture children. This is an important issue that requires redress.
Budget standards, such as those developed by the Social Policy Research Centre of the University of New South Wales, should be used to inform the minimum levels of income support payments.
An individual approach should be taken to determining housing support for people with disability, to support independent living in the community.
Urgent measures are required to address unemployment and under-employment of people with disability. The Government should implement measures to assist people living in poverty, to ensure poverty ceases to be a barrier to entry to the workforce.
All workers, including workers with disability, should be paid at a rate equal or greater to the minimum award wage for the particular industry in which the worker is engaged. The supported wage system, and specialist disability employment enterprises, must be abolished.
The current Disability Employment Services (DES) model should be replaced by appropriate, individually-tailored, continuing support for people with disability within the workplace.
No one should be penalised for fluctuations in their income. The interface between income support and payment of wages must be transparent and easily understood to ensure that there are no financial disincentives for working, whether actual or perceived.
The government should maintain the distinction between pensions and allowances. Persons with disability should not be transitioned to Newstart Allowance as a budget-saving measure. The rates of pensions and allowances should be increased in accordance with current research and international best practice.
Students with disability must be provided with improved inclusive educational supports.
Independent expert evidence should inform decision-making around income support payments.

You can read the full submission here.

Inquiry into Supported Independent Living Submission

QAI made a submission to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme on the Inquiry into Supported Independent Living.

Here is an excerpt from the submission of our recommendations:

Recommendations

Provide clear, transparent and honest information about SILS. Clarify the restrictions that SILS imposes on ‘choice and control’. Explain that SILS pressures participants to share accommodation and support. Explain that SILS hinders planning and review.
Prohibit SILs payments from going to providers who own or manage a Participant’s housing. SILs is a key part of a de facto permit system for group homes, where the dwellings and their operators become the focus instead of people with disability.
Organisations that currently deliver both housing and supported services will need to separate their services.
Housing organisations that accept a transfer of stock from state and territory governments, and/or develop additional housing, will need to co-ordinate their housing with support services delivered by other organisations.
People with disability and their networks, housing organisations and disability support organisations need information about what separating housing and support means in practice, and about good practice in coordinating service delivery when housing and disability services are provided by different organisations.
Participants and/or families may participate and control the first plan, but regardless of their conflicts of interests, service providers tend to arrange subsequent plans and reviews and inflate quotes. This is problematic and must be addressed so that Participants control all of their Plans all of the time.
Although, SIL typically relates to participant’s in Supported Accommodation Services, i the NDIA cannot instruct NDIS participants to move into group homes as this is against the underlining principles of the NDIS Act 2013 as outlined in Sections 3 and 4 that also refers to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

KEY MESSAGE: The solution to the above-mentioned is to abolish Supported Independent Living (SIL) from Plans. Replace it with individualised NDIS Plans for everyone including people who wish to share accommodation and support.

You can read the full submission here.

NDIS Thin Markets Project Submission

QAI made a submission to the Department of Social Services on the NDIS Thin Markets Project.

Here is an excerpt from the submission of our recommendations:

QAI Recommends

Provide clear, transparent information about SILS. Clarify the restraints that SILS imposes on ‘choice and control’. Explain that SILS pressures participants to share accommodation and support. Explain that SILS constrains planning and review.
The participant and/or family may control the first plan, but despite their conflicts of interests, service providers may arrange subsequent plans and reviews and inflate quotes.
The solution is to abolish Supported Independent Living (SIL) from Plans. Replace it with individualised NDIS Plans for everyone including people who wish to share accommodation and support.
Restructure pricing for supports at the top and bottom of the market with particular emphasis on mental health supports, therapy services and services for people with complex needs:
1. In regional, rural and remote regions, the NDIA must use affirmative action to encourage new providers and encourage existing providers to strengthen their service delivery. The NDIA’s regional price weighting currently does not account fully for travel costs, worker time, and the challenges of good governance.
2. Work with remote Indigenous councils to train staff and deliver NDIS services in their regions. This will build the capacity of local people and businesses and reduce under-unemployment.
3. Make it easier for Participants with small NDIS packages (for example, under $40,000 pa) to find providers that are willing to manage or provide support services.
4. The NDIS Price guide must be adhered to by all providers including sole-traders.
5. Adherence to the appropriate levels of the price guide must be monitored as the scarcity of workers has created a ‘workers’ market’?
6. The Price Guide could be restructure with a scale of fees such as what is used by Medicare but where no gap fees are applied.
Create opportunities for experienced and innovative providers to fulfil the paucity of services to these Participants and others in the community who require similar expertise.
Provide financial and logistical support1 to enable Access requests and to activate the NDIS plans of people with disabilities who are detained in prisons or in civil facilities for involuntary treatment and habilitation. Plans and supports may assist prisoners who apply for parole.
Authorise behaviour supports for prisoners with disabilities while they are in the ‘system’. The NDIA must work with state-based corrective services and prisons to ensure prisoners get NDIS Access, and supports while in prison.
Pilot research that will identify the most appropriate and effective supports for people with disabilities while they are in prison, and transitioning from prison, and determine the effects that such supports have on recidivism.
Queensland Department of Communities and Disability Services and the NDIA work together to address the transport needs of people with disability who are on NDIS plans, and those who are not.
The Quality and Safeguards Commission scrutinises agencies providing housing and support and restricts registration to ensure no provider is able to provide both functions.
The NDIA and the Quality and Safeguards Commission must examine the rules for workers acting as independent contractors, to mitigate the price gouging of Participants’ Plans.
Provide support and guidance to self-managing Participants who are grappling with ATO rules, underfunded Plans and a competitive, low-supply market of support workers.

You can read the full submission here.

Youth Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill Submission

QAI made a submission to the Queensland Government on the Youth Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019.

Here is an excerpt from the submission of our key recommendations:

Key recommendations

Detention of children awaiting trial must be done in a way that is consistent with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,1 and with the ‘Beijing Rules’,2 and the Bill should ensure that the detention of children is:

- a measure of last resort, and
- for the shortest time.

Where detention does occur, children must be segregated and kept in age-appropriate, non-prison like environments.

The Bill should increase the Queensland minimum to 14 years. The minimum age of criminal responsibility for juveniles in Queensland is currently 10 years. The international standard is 12 years and in some countries, 15 years.

Detention centres should be inspected by an independent body, wither pursuant to Australia’s OPCAT obligations, or by Queensland establishing a new inspecting body.

Queensland must work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community representatives to develop a systemic response to the over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in Queensland prisons.

You can read the full submission here.

Inquiry into Centrelink’s Compliance Program Submission

QAI made a submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs regarding the Inquiry into Centrelink’s Compliance Program.

Here is an excerpt of our Key Recommendations in the submission:

QAI recommends that the Government:

1. Immediately implement all recommendations of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee’s June 2017 report.

2. Provide people with disabilities, particularly those with an intellectual or cognitive disability, with appropriate support to make and progress a complaint or appeal relevant to the Scheme.

3. Immediately discontinue the flawed process of data-matching between Centrelink and the Australian Taxation Office.

4. Increase staffing levels of Centrelink and the Department of Human Services, including a quota for the employment of people with disability within this increase.

5. Pay compensation to people with disability living in rural and remote areas without access to a telephone who were forced to travel an extensive distance into Centrelink office in an attempt to resolve their issue.

You can read the full submission here.

Inquiry into Aged Care, End-of-Life and Palliative Care and Voluntary Assisted Dying Submission by QAI

This inquiry is indeed a matter of deep concern to Queenslanders with disability and their families and supporters and we welcome this opportunity to raise our concerns and offer our contribution to the Health, Communities, Disability Services and Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Committee so that any decisions may be based on all the relevant information, ethical dilemmas and human rights.

Click here to read the full submission