Submissions Archives - Queensland Advocacy Incorporated

Submission to the NDIS Workforce Inquiry

In April QAI made a submission to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Workforce Inquiry.

Below is an excerpt from the submission with our key recommendations. You can read the full submission here.

QAI’s Recommendations

Abolishment of Supported Independent Living (SIL) from plans. SIL funding for NDIS
participants should be replaced by open and individualised funding 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 supports and services for people with
complex needs.
Restructure pricing for regional, rural and remote regions to strengthen service delivery
which has higher overhead costs than their urban counterparts.
Provide adequate funding to participants in regional, rural and remote regions to enable
delivery of service.
Work with Indigenous councils to train service providers and staff to deliver services, by
building the capacity of local people.
The NDIA ensure each state and territory has a well-equipped, well trained and person-centered human rights based ‘provider of last resort’.
Provide both financial and physical support to participants to learn how to self-manage
their plan to enable maximum flexibility.
Provide support and guidance to self-managing participants to understand Australian
Taxation Office rules, Fair Work rules and other employment issues resulting from
directly employing staff.
Provide information to the mainstream and community on services that can be provided
under the NDIS to encourage mainstream services in a disability setting.
The NDIA (and Quality and Safeguards Commission) provide assistance to providers
and sole traders to participate in the auditing process which can be timely, costly and a
hindrance to staying in the NDIS market.
The Quality and Safeguards Commission to scrutinise service providers providing
housing and supports and restrict registration to ensure no provide is able to provide
both functions.

Priorities for Federal Discrimination Law Reform – QAI Submission

QAI made a submission in November 2019 to the Australian Human Rights Commission on the Priorities for Federal Discrimination Law Reform. Upwards reaching arms labelled with key tenants of human rights. Prosperity, equality, freedom, justice and hope.

Summary of QAI’s Recommendations:

QAI supports the summary of proposed priorities for federal discrimination law reform.
QAI considers that the Federal Government should undertake structural and substantive reform of the current discrimination laws, consolidating the separate discrimination statutes into a single Act that is comprehensive, consistent and extends reasonable adjustments to impose a specific positive duty across all protected attributes in all protected areas of life.
QAI submits that existing protected attributes should be extended to include carer’s responsibility, volunteers and interns, accommodation status and subjection to domestic and family violence.
The legislation should reflect and incorporate the obligations Australia has assumed at international law.
Gaps in coverage for carer’s responsibility, volunteers and interns, accommodation status and domestic and family violence must be addressed.
All permanent exemptions should be reviewed not only in light of the overall purpose of discrimination law to promote equality and fair treatment, but also having regard to the purpose and intent of the CRPD.
Current compliance mechanisms administered by the Commission are necessary and helpful and QAI supports their continuation. We note the significant problems with the temporary exemptions available under the DDA and consider that the granting of exemptions can undermine the strength and power of discrimination law.
QAI strongly supports the Commission’s position that there is a need for greater awareness-raising activities and possibly industry support to promote compliance, as well as robust review processes to measure the effectiveness of the Disability Standards. QAI considers that the introduction of voluntary audits, a general inquiry function and positive duties would be of significant value.
QAI strongly supports the introduction of a positive duty for public entities to proactively take measures to eliminate unlawful discrimination and harassment and advance equality.
QAI agrees that complaints processes must be available and accessible for all people.
QAI notes that the nature of confidential conciliations reduces the likelihood that matters will resolve and places the complainant in the position of having to proceed to a less accessible and available forum, which is a significant limitation of discrimination law.
QAI proposes extending the timeframe to 12 months, with extensions available, to cover complex disputes and circumstances where vulnerable complainants have been unable or unwilling to take action earlier.
QAI strongly supports the provision of greater clarity about the ability for representative actions to be brought and agrees this would enable a greater focus on systemic discrimination issues and reduce the pressure on individual complainants.
QAI submits that there should be no costs orders made against a complainant, except in very exceptional cases where there has been a clear demonstration of a deliberate and vexatious misuse of process. Strong safeguards should be in place regarding legal representation.
QAI considers that there must be measures introduced to address the particular vulnerability of persons experiencing intersectional discrimination that includes harassment and vilification. Protections for vilification under federal discrimination law should be at least equivalent to the protections offered by state law and should attract both civil and criminal penalties in appropriate cases.
Discrimination should not remain the sole remedy under Commonwealth law for a vulnerable person who has experienced an unlawful breach of their human rights. It is time to enact a federal Human Rights Act or Charter, which translates the international human rights Australia has agreed to respect and protect into binding domestic law.

You can read the full submission here.

QAI Submission Regarding Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder

QAI made a submission in November 2019 to the Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs regarding the Effective Approaches to Prevention, Diagnosis and Support for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD).

QAI’s Recommendations:

It is critical that NDIS applicants have advice and support from people who are familiar with the conditions and its effects, nurse educators and the like, who can explain the kinds of therapies and supports that are most appropriate and useful.
The NDIA has authority to ensure health authorities train and appoint more nurse educators in the field to be available for Participants with FASD.
NDIA Planners are not likely to be familiar with FASD or its impacts, so it is important that the NDIA issues information and advice to Planners that the person with FASD and or their supporters have the expertise and knowledge about their support needs and the Planning meeting outcomes should reflect this. At the very least, it is important for people to have mentor support during the meeting.
It is important to focus on the person’s support needs, even though the client’s support needs may not arise directly out of their FASD.
NDIA Planners and LAC’s should utilise the Complex Needs Pathways for Applicants with FASD who require financial support to obtain assessments and reports.
If an applicant needs supports to develop self-regulation or to decrease behaviours which others find challenging, evidence such as reports from speech pathologists, therapists etc should articulate the triggers or risks.
It is essential that people are accompanied by someone who not only understands the support needs of people with FASD, but also understands the NDIS planning process.
Mentors may be the best support: a person who can read moods, and be a ‘calendar’ to ensure that the person sticks to plans and appointments, and who drives attendance.
LAC’s and/or Planners should link Participants who have FASD to nurse educators and other professionals to assist them.
The NDIA should abolish Typical Support Plans as incongruent to the diversity of support needs.
It is essential that if not NDIS–eligible, people with FASD are able to secure block-funded non-clinical supports from mainstream agencies that are funded to provide them.

You can read the full submission here.

QAI Submission to the Inquiry on the Impact of Changes to Service Delivery Models

QAI made a submission in August 2019 to the Senate Standing Committees on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on the inquiry on the impact of changes to service delivery models on the administration and running of Government programs.

QAI’s Recommendations re outsourcing of NDIS call centre to Serco Asia Pacific:

Improve the quality of service by improving recruitment and training of call-centre staff. Focus on knowledge and understanding of the needs of people with disability (NB: Not diagnoses, but understanding of support needs) and the interpersonal skills of call takers.
Review the gate-keeping function of the service.

You can read the full submission here.

QAI Submission on the Review of State Funded Advocacy

QAI made a submission in March 2019 to the Queensland government on their review of state funded disability advocacy.

You can read the full submission here.

Disability Royal Commission – QAI Submission on Inclusive Education of Students with Disability

Read our final submission here.

List of attachments we submitted:

ATTACHMENT A – RTI 172191 SDA by school 2017

ATTACHMENT B – QPPD_choice_report_2003

ATTACHMENT C – Final QAI Position Statement Regarding the Use of Restrictive Practices

ATTACHMENT D – GENEVA Restrictive Practices Involuntary Treatment Factsheet -FINAL

ATTACHMENT E – MAPA use on child

ADDENDUM 1 – 2018.04.04 QAI response to Every Student with Disability Succeeding

ADDENDUM 2 – 13.09.18 QAI submission Education Bill Amendment

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.